Employment Rights Bill
Monday 21st October 2024
(1 year, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Employment Rights Act 2025 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
21:59 - The House divided: - Ayes: 105 / Noes: 386 - Question accordingly negatived.
22:15 - The House divided: - Ayes: 386 / Noes: 105 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Mr Speaker
The reasoned amendment in the name of Kevin Hollinrake has been selected.
The Deputy Prime Minister (Angela Rayner)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I declare that I am a lifelong proud trade union member—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.] When the Government took office and I took this job, we promised the biggest upgrade to workers’ rights in a generation, nothing less than a new deal for working people. We said that we would introduce a Bill to deliver that within 100 days, and we have fulfilled the promise we made to the British public. Let us be clear: too many working people have had to wait too long for change.
Over decades, the good, secure jobs that our parents and grandparents could build a life on were replaced by low-paid and insecure work. Wages flatlined, in-work poverty grew, growth was strangled and the Tories left behind a battered economy that served no one. Today, this Labour Government, led by working people for working people, will start to turn the tide.
First, I want to note the reasoned amendment. Our reforms are ambitious—they have to be to bring real change. But we have engaged extensively and will continue to do so. Today we are publishing a package of consultations on strengthening statutory sick pay, zero-hours contracts, industrial relations, collective redundancy and fire and rehire. As the impact assessment we have published today shows, the Bill is a pro-growth Bill.
This landmark Bill—pro-growth, pro-business and pro-worker—will extend the employment protections given by the best British companies to millions more workers.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
In a discourtesy to the House, the very extensive impact assessment to which the Deputy Prime Minister has referred was published only a couple of hours before the debate, but one thing that it says is that the estimated cost of the measures could be £4.5 billion a year. How does loading costs on to employers help to boost growth and job creation?
Angela Rayner
The impact assessment also makes it clear that the Bill will have a positive impact on growth. More than 10 million workers, in every corner of this country, will benefit from Labour’s plan, and the money in their pockets will go back into the economy and support businesses, in particular those on high streets.
Across the business spectrum, from giants like Sainsbury’s and Octopus Energy to small and medium-sized companies like Richer Sounds, successful firms already know that strong employee rights mean strong growth opportunities. The Secretary of State for Business and Trade and I have just been to the Co-op in County Durham to see how it retains valuable talent, boosts profits, and powers ahead with enlightened policies that support good working lives for its staff. The Bill will bring all businesses on board.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
The Government’s own impact assessment states that
“the impact on growth could”—
only could—
“be positive”,
and that any such impact
“would be small in magnitude.”
The negative impacts, not least on small businesses, will be very serious in magnitude, as my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild) laid out. Will the Deputy Prime Minister please explain how she will minimise the negative impacts?
Angela Rayner
We have already been working with businesses while bringing forward the Bill, and we will continue to do that through the consultations. We have recognised probation periods, for example, but we do not think that people should not have rights two years into their employment.
We are listening, but I say to Conservative Members, who promised employment Bill after employment Bill and then never delivered them, that the people of this country deserve secure fairness at work, and this Labour Government will deliver it. Almost 9 million employees will benefit from protection against unfair dismissal from day one, 1.7 million will benefit from new policies on flexible working, and up to 2 million will receive a right to bereavement leave. Thousands of pregnant women and mothers will benefit from new maternity protections, and tens of thousands of fathers and partners will be brought into the scope of paternity leave. We will deliver a genuine living wage that matches the cost of living.
In total, more than 10 million people will benefit from Labour’s plan in every corner of this country, so if you are in casual work, unable to rely on guaranteed hours, this Labour Government are delivering for you. If you are working hard on low pay and struggling to make ends meet, this Government are delivering for you. This is a Government back in the service of working people.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
Can the Deputy Prime Minister define “working people”?
Angela Rayner
The Conservatives had 14 years to support the working people of this—[Interruption.]
Angela Rayner
Will the hon. Member listen to my response? I gave way to him. For 14 years, the Tories promised employment Bills and an industrial strategy, and in 14 years they delivered the highest cost of living for the working people of this country. It will be this Labour Government who deliver for them.
This is a Government back in the service of working people, building an economy fit for the future and making work pay. For the first time ever, we have instructed the Low Pay Commission to take account of the cost of living when setting the minimum wage, because everyone deserves a proper living wage for a proper day’s work. We have already moved to protect 4 million self-employed workers from late payments with the new fair payment code, and we have already encouraged employers not to use the ineffective and failed minimum service laws, which did not stop a single day of industrial action while in force, before we repeal them for good. That is a bold start, but we are going further. The UK labour market is not delivering for workers or businesses, and it holds back the UK economy. We know that things have to change. The Bill marks a momentous opportunity to chart a new route to growth—one built from the bottom up and the middle out—alongside the £63 billion of investment into the UK that was announced last week. Higher growth, higher wages and higher productivity—a new partnership between workers and business.
Graham Stuart
I believe it is. The Deputy Prime Minister just talked about the amount of money coming into the economy as a result of the measures. Is it appropriate for her and other Members across the House to speak in the debate without mentioning what they have received in donations from trade unions, given how central the law around trade unions is to the Bill?
Mr Speaker
You are correct: it is not a point of order, even if the right hon. Gentleman thought that it was.
Wera Hobhouse
Sexual harassment in the workplace is absolutely horrendous and has been terrible in demotivating people from staying in their workplaces. Following my Worker Protection Act 2024 becoming law, the Government proposals go even further on third-party harassment in the workplace. Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that the Bill will encourage people by making our workplaces safer?
Angela Rayner
I agree with the hon. Member and thank her for her work in that area. We must ensure that workplaces have a good culture that does not tolerate any form of harassment, including sexual harassment, because that is bad for business as well.
The major achievement of parts 1 and 2 of the Bill will be to strengthen rights for working people. That is personal for me: I started my working life as a carer on casual terms, not knowing if there would be a pay cheque next month. The fear of not being able to provide for my young family, and of losing everything, stuck with me. Now that I am at the Cabinet table, I am determined to deliver for the millions of people in the position that I was once in, and to bring all companies up to the standard of the best when it comes to workers’ rights. The Bill is a recognition and celebration of the many employers that are already implementing such measures and, in many cases, go much further.
Rosie Wrighting (Kettering) (Lab)
I welcome the new Labour Government’s approach to ensuring that my constituents feel the benefit of economic growth. As my right hon. Friend will know, more than 1 million people on zero-hours contracts will benefit from her guaranteed hours policy. Does she agree that the Bill will raise living standards across the country?
Angela Rayner
I agree, and can confirm to the House that the Bill will finally end the exploitative zero-hours contract. Up to 2.4 million workers will finally have the right to a contract that reflects the number of hours that they work.
For too long, working people have been subject to the shocking practice of fire and rehire. Often, even the threat of fire and rehire means that people voluntarily agree to lower pay and reduced terms and conditions. Our Bill will end those bullying tactics for good, putting an end to fire and rehire and to fire and replace, unless employers can prove that they face financial difficulties that threaten the survival of their business and that changing the employee’s contract was unavoidable. After years of campaigning, working people finally have a Government who listen. No longer will working people face the scourge of fire and rehire.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)
A number of our constituents were threatened with fire and rehire during the covid pandemic—shameful acts by their employers. People were fearing for their livelihoods while that crisis was going on. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we have waited far too long and cannot end the scourge of fire and rehire soon enough in order to give workers the protection that they need and deserve?
Angela Rayner
I agree with my hon. Friend. The previous Government promised to do something about the practice but failed to do anything.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that growth, if it comes, will come from small and medium-sized enterprises, which are the bedrock of industry in this country? Does she accept that although the measures may be capable of being accommodated by large businesses with big human resources departments, they certainly will not be by small and medium-sized enterprises, so the Bill is likely to damage the growth that she insists will come under a Labour Government?
Angela Rayner
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman on the importance of small and medium-sized businesses, which do a fantastic job and contribute widely to our economy. That is why we have engaged with small and medium-sized enterprises. Many of them understand that if there is clarity around what we are doing and if we consult like we did with probation periods, then we are working with them. But many of them also recognise that the scourge of insecure, low-paid work in this country at the moment is holding Britain’s economy back. That is what we are going to change.
Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)
The Deputy Prime Minister referenced the extra help for working parents that the Bill will introduce. Does she agree that that stands in stark contrast to the suggestion of some on the Conservative Benches that maternity pay has “gone too far”?
Angela Rayner
I agree with my hon. Friend. When the previous Labour Government brought in the national minimum wage they had the same sort of arguments made at them, but what we actually saw was that the minimum wage lifted millions of people out of poverty. It will be this Labour Government who can stand proudly and say that we stood up for the workers, and for those good employers in our country that are doing the right thing by protecting and looking after their employees.
David Baines (St Helens North) (Lab)
We are clearly going to hear a lot of the same arguments that we heard years ago, when Labour introduced the minimum wage. Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that good employers have nothing to fear from the Bill, and working people have a lot to celebrate?
Angela Rayner
I agree with my hon. Friend. The Bill is pro-worker and pro-business; that is the context in which the Bill has come to fruition. We have been consulting wide and long on the measures, and we believe they strike the right balance to get our economy working across the board, so that people can contribute and feel that their contribution is valued as part of the UK economy.
The Bill also delivers a once-in-a-generation upgrade of the rights of our proud seafarers. Never again will any company be able to get away scot-free with exploiting a loophole to sack employees without notice. No longer will our seas be the byword for a race to the bottom on standards.
The next step in our package to transform the rights of working people is on unfair dismissal. At present, employees must wait two years for basic protections against unfair dismissal, so it is not surprising that they can be loath to change jobs and restart the clock. That is not right. It deprives people of promotion opportunities and pay rises, and it limits businesses’ ability to recruit. Under the Bill, employees will not have to wait years for protection from unfair dismissal. Instead, they will receive it from day one. Those measures alone will benefit close to 9 million people.
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)
The Deputy Prime Minister talks about seafarers not being abused, but did she apologise to DP World last week?
Angela Rayner
I do not know what the hon. Member is getting at. Maybe he is getting at the former Conservative Transport Secretary, who referred to them as pirates of the high seas or weasels—I do not know. I have just said clearly to all businesses in the UK that I want to work with them to ensure that we value their employees. Many of them are onboard: they recognise that it is good for business, good for growth and good for their employees.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
In relation to the point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison), I understand that the right hon. Lady believes she is fulfilling a manifesto commitment, and we have to respect that. However, I hope she recognises that while these regulations will apply across the whole of the economy, the dynamics within small businesses and—in particular—microbusinesses are very different from those within large businesses. For example, if a business only has four employees and all four apply for flexible working, as the Bill provides for, it becomes not just a logistical and administrative nightmare but a personal nightmare for the person who is trying to run that business. I hope that as the Bill progresses, the right hon. Lady will look at what has been a customary carve-out for small businesses and consider whether that might be appropriate for specific measures.
Angela Rayner
Some of the measures in the Bill do recognise the difference between large employers and smaller ones, but we also have to ensure fairness and clarity of purpose in this country, and I think this Bill strikes the right balance. As I have said to other hon. Members who have raised issues regarding small and medium businesses, we are working with those businesses. We have already listened regarding probation periods: the Bill now creates a new statutory probation period so that employers and employees can check whether a job is a good fit. If it turns out not to be right, the Bill allows for a new lighter-touch standard of fairness for employers to meet when they dismiss someone, so I think we are striking the right balance. We have worked very hard on this piece of legislation. If workers are dismissed unfairly, everyone deserves the right to protection, however long they have been in post. With Labour, they will have that right.
Turning to statutory sick pay, no one should feel forced to struggle through work when they are not well. Our view is simple: everyone should be entitled to sick pay from the first day that they are sick, regardless of their earnings, yet 1.3 million employees are currently excluded because they do not earn enough. That means that lower earners, including carers, go to work when ill because they cannot afford not to do so, risking infecting the vulnerable, the elderly, and others with whom they come into contact. No one should want that. Under this Bill, all employees will be entitled to sick pay however much they earn, and that sick pay will be paid from their first day of being ill.
Angela Rayner
I have already given way to the right hon. Member, and there are so many other Members who want to speak.
This Government know that the current system does not support working families. We said that we would make flexible working the default, and the Bill will do just that. Flexible working makes workers happier, and we know that businesses that offer it benefit from bigger, better and more diverse recruitment pools. At the same time, we recognise that not all workplaces can accommodate all flexible working requests, so businesses will be able to negotiate or reject unworkable requests as long as that rejection is reasonable.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)
Who would decide whether a rejection is reasonable or unreasonable?
Angela Rayner
There will be statutory guidance, but of course, it would depend on the various different circumstances. We saw during the covid pandemic that people were able to be incredibly flexible in their work. It is with that mindset that I ask employees and employers to look at how they deliver services, because far too much talent goes out of our economy because of inflexibility. Employers should think about how much talent they can retain in their business by keeping people in work; many of the good employers already know that, and offer way more flexibility than we are suggesting in our Bill.
The current parental leave system is also outdated, which is not right. Under the Bill, fathers and partners will be able to give notice of their intention to take paternity leave and unpaid parental leave from their first day in a new job. New mums also lack the protection they deserve. We know that the Conservative party’s solution is to go back to the dark ages and scrap maternity pay altogether; if the Conservatives had their way, as a single mum, I would have been left with nothing. It was a Labour Government who introduced the maternity allowance as the number of mothers in the workforce grew, and while the Conservative party—out of step with modern Britain—cannot wait to get rid of it, I say that we will never, ever stop defending it.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way—what an incredible legacy she is setting down today!
Adoptive parents clearly need time with their children as they bring them into their family, but self-employed adopters do not have the same privileges. Will my right hon. Friend look at how we can ensure that those parents also have proper statutory rights to take leave and receive pay?
Angela Rayner
I thank my hon. Friend for making that really important point. This is the start of a process. There are a number of consultations, such as for the self-employed and on a single category of worker, and they will continue, because some of these things are more complex than what we can deliver in this Bill. But I say to my hon. Friend and to other Members: please come to this in the spirit of what we want, which is to improve working people’s lives. As I have said, many employers already go above and beyond what we are saying in this Bill. I hope we can start to celebrate those employers who do so and to spread that across the economy.
Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
May I join others in celebrating this Bill and what it represents? My right hon. Friend talks about employers who are already going above and beyond. Frankly, they get it that, out there in the real world, supporting families is good for the economy and good for growth; that includes dads, who we all recognise have responsibilities. What more can she tell us about that spirit of openness in the Bill and the opportunities to look at parental leave, particularly paternity leave? What more can we do to help more families to take it up and get longer?
Angela Rayner
I thank my hon. Friend for making that important point. We all agree across the House that families play an important role, that businesses can help to support families, whatever size or shape they are, and that we must go much further to make that happen.
The Bill goes further by making it unlawful to dismiss pregnant women, mothers on maternity leave and mothers who return to work during a six-month period after they return, except in certain specific circumstances. For women in work, we will not stop there. Eight out of 10 menopausal women are in work. For most, there is no support. When workplaces fail to support women, we fail in our moral duty to treat people equally, and employers lose out on talent and skills. On pay, too, we are failing women. The national gender pay gap still stands at over 14% and is not narrowing fast enough, so we will be requiring action plans for large employers to address the pay gap and support women during the menopause.
It is a sad reality that women often find the workplace uncomfortable and unsafe. Sexual harassment at work can destroy confidence and ruin careers. We will do everything in our power to tackle it. The Bill will strengthen the duty on employers to prevent sexual harassment of employees, and it will strengthen protections for whistleblowers by making it explicit that if they do the right thing and speak up about sexual harassment, the law will protect them.
Through this Bill, the party of maternity pay and of the Equal Pay Act 1970 will introduce the next generation of rights for working women. Central to all these reforms is our belief that all employers should always support their employees. The best ones already do.
Steve Witherden (Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr) (Lab)
In early September, over 500 Oscar Mayer workers, organised by Unite the Union, launched strikes against the company’s appalling use of fire and rehire. Many of these workers are my constituents and are facing serious threats to their pay and working conditions, with potential losses of up to £3,000 annually. I hugely support this legislation, but immediate action is crucial to protect my constituents and workers across the UK from such exploitative practices. Will my right hon. Friend provide clarity on the timescales for reforms to unfair dismissal?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Before the Deputy Prime Minister responds, may I say that if there are declarations of interest to be made, even in interventions, they should be made on the Floor of the House?
Angela Rayner
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. That is why we have moved at pace. The previous Government promised an employment Bill to protect workers and they did not deliver. Within our first 100 days, we are delivering this employment Bill.
Losing a loved one is among the hardest things for any of us. That is why in this Bill we are setting a clear standard for businesses, giving employees the right to bereavement leave. Taken together, these new rights for working people—sick pay when they need it, an end to exploitative zero-hours contracts and to fire and rehire, bereavement leave, expanded entitlements, paternity leave and new protections for women in work—represent the biggest upgrade for working people in a generation, but we are not stopping there.
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Bill not only represents the biggest uplift in workers’ rights in a generation, but strengthens their enforcement through new enforcement measures? That stands in stark contrast to the Conservatives, who brought in unlawful employment tribunal fees.
Angela Rayner
My hon. Friend makes a very important point. We want the culture to change as well. We have had a race to the bottom where workers have not been protected, and we have seen the biggest wave of strike action because of the previous Government.
We want employers and trade unions to come together to grow our economy. The employers and the unions are up for that challenge, because we know that the world of work is fairer and more productive when working people can come together to negotiate fair pay and decent conditions. That is why we are reinstating the school support staff negotiating body in recognition of the vital role that support staff play in the workforce and in young people’s education.
As a former carer, I have said from day one that in this place I will champion carers and the complex, high-quality and professional work that they do. I am so proud to say that after 14 years, their extraordinary, life-saving contribution to our community will no longer be devalued by low pay and lack of career progression. For the first time, thanks to this Labour Government, there will be a historic fair pay agreement process in the adult social care sector, with a new body empowered to negotiate pay and conditions and ensure that training and a career structure are in place. At last, care will be rightly regarded as a multi-skilled profession and carers will be confident that they have the respect and income that they deserve for looking after our vulnerable loved ones and helping to manage the pressures on the NHS and in social care.
Paula Barker (Liverpool Wavertree) (Lab)
I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Does my right hon. Friend agree that care workers are often the Cinderella service? They are low paid, but certainly not low skilled. It is time we got to grips with hostile employers who do not pay travel time.
Angela Rayner
My hon. Friend makes a very important point. The disparity in the terms and conditions for care workers actually impedes recruitment: we are seeing huge numbers of vacancies in the care sector. Through the fair pay agreement, I want to see carers being treated with fairness for the valuable contribution they make. They are also key to tackling the challenges we face in our NHS.
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
I thank the right hon. Lady for raising the issue of care workers and the great contribution that they make by looking after those who need care. Does she agree that the minimum wage for a carer should be increased by £2 an hour, in line with Liberal Democrat policy?
Angela Rayner
We have already written to the Low Pay Commission, as I have set out, and we want to go further through the fair pay agreement to make sure that carers are recognised for the valuable role they play. Care workers are not just people who do the shopping or call in for 15 minutes; they handle complex needs in the community and look after some of our most vulnerable loved ones. They should get the recognition they deserve, and that is why we are taking these measures.
We know the valuable contribution that trade unions make. That is why we are resetting industrial relations. The Conservatives presided over strike Britain with their scorched earth approach to strikes. First, we are repealing the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023. Anyone with a brain could see that that legislation would do two things: increase tensions and fail to prevent a single day of industrial action. We said so at the time, and what happened? The rail dispute cost our economy over £1 billion. The law has failed and has no reason to stay on the statute book.
We are also repealing nearly every part of the flawed Trade Union Act 2016, which tried to smother trade unions in form filling and red tape and prevent them from doing their job. We will go further by strengthening the voice of working people by making it easier for trade unions to get recognised, giving them the right of access to workplaces and making sure that they have enough time to represent their members. When the rights of working people are flouted, a new fair work agency will be empowered to investigate. Today we are also launching a consultation on modernising trade union laws so that they are fit for the modern workplace and our modern economy.
In under 100 days, we have put together a transformative package that marks a new era for working people. We know that the Conservatives will oppose this every step of the way. We know because they have history, just as they opposed Labour’s minimum wage and now, shamefully, want to take us back to the dark ages when women were denied maternity pay. It is clear that they are out of step with modern Britain.
Our plans mark a new way forward—a new deal for working people, making jobs more secure and family friendly, banning exploitative zero-hours contracts, supporting women in work at every stage in their life, a genuine living wage and sick pay for the lowest earners, further and faster action to close the gender pay gap, ensuring that rights are enforced and that trade unions are strengthened, repealing the anti-worker, anti-union laws, turning the page on industrial relations and ending fire and rehire, while giving working people the basic rights that they deserve from day one in the job. This is a landmark moment, delivered in under 100 days. This is a pro-business, pro-worker, pro-growth Bill and a pro-business, pro-worker, pro-growth Government. Today, after 14 years of failure, we are starting a new chapter and decisively delivering a better Britain for working people.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “That” to the end of the Question and add:
“this House notes the balanced reforms made by previous Conservative governments to improve workers’ rights, including the National Living Wage, the prohibition of the use of exclusivity clauses or terms in zero hours contracts and the introduction of shared parental leave and pay, and declines to give a Second Reading to the Employment Rights Bill because it has been rushed into Parliament without full consultation to meet an arbitrary 100-day deadline and Monday 21 October 2024 Business Today: Chamber 19 has not been accompanied by an Impact Assessment considering the impact on the Employment Tribunal, especially as a result of the removal of the qualifying period for the right to claim unfair dismissal or the impact of the extra red tape on SMEs or the impact of establishing the Fair Work Agency; because the repeal of trade union laws will lead to more strikes and intimidation in the workplace, and will force taxpayers to foot the bill for inflation-busting pay hikes without public service reform; because the Bill undermines choice for workers about whether they want to fund political campaigning and forces firms and public bodies to bankroll more trade union facility time, including trade union diversity jobs; and because the Bill is contrary to the Government’s stated goals of improving productivity and economic growth and will increase costs for businesses and consumers.”
The Conservative party will always be the party of business, but we are pro-business and pro-worker, not least because many Conservative Members have been both workers and people who have started and grown their own businesses. Those who have done so are the first to appreciate the symbiotic relationship between the two. We acted during our time in office to improve workers’ rights in several areas: flexible working, parental leave, redundancy protections, ensuring that workers keep the tips left for them by their customers, and significant increases to the national living wage.
I started my first significant business back in 1992. Over three decades, we grew to become a national business employing hundreds of people. We valued every one of those people. We were one of The Sunday Times’s best 100 companies to work for and were certified by Investors in People. I believe that business is a force for good and that businesspeople do great service to our communities and the wider economy. As Winston Churchill put it, they are the strong horse that pulls the whole cart.
The question I now ask myself is whether I would start that small business again today if the Bill were in place. Sadly, the answer is probably no—certainly not a business that employed any people. The very high cost of these measures will be borne by all companies and passed on in the form of higher prices, reduced wages and lost jobs. The measures will fall most heavily on small businesses, for which they could be existential.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
Does the hon. Member remember 1997 and 1998, when the Conservative party said that the social chapter and the national minimum wage would cost half a million jobs? In the late 1990s, half a million jobs were actually created.
Kevin Hollinrake
I was not here at the time, but it is clear nevertheless that the minimum wage and the national living wage have had a positive effect on prosperity in this country, and I would be the first to admit it. I want the hon. Lady, and other Government Members, to understand that those measures fell equally on all businesses across the UK. The measures in this Bill fall disproportionately hard on small businesses.
What the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) fails to understand is that the implication of these measures, such as a day one right to an employment tribunal, is that even a spurious case of unfair dismissal costs time and money. It is potentially tens of thousands of pounds to defend that case. As one business organisation put it, “You lose when you are accused.” Most small businesses saddled with such a cost would be sunk without trace. It is not just that, but the deterrent effect, which it would have had on me, and which will be felt right across the economy and by every existing and aspirant business person across this entire nation. When the Deputy Prime Minister reflects on what she is hearing from people who have actually run a business, will she at the very least consider exempting small and medium enterprises from this catastrophic Bill?
Graham Stuart
Like my hon. Friend, I started a business—I started mine a little earlier than him, but that is how much older I am. I followed the Deputy Prime Minister’s speech as carefully as I could. From what I could understand, because of the changes in the Bill, someone can fail to turn up to work on day one claiming that they are sick and then, because they will now have rights against unfair dismissal, they will be able, without ever doing a day’s work, to hold a small business to ransom and put that business at risk.
Kevin Hollinrake
As drafted, that is certainly the case. My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. Members may not know that small businesses stand the cost of statutory sick pay. It is not reimbursed by the Government, so the Bill would have a significant cost for businesses.
Several hon. Members rose—
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Ind)
I have listened with interest to what the shadow Minister is saying about people being entitled to go all the way to an employment tribunal hearing from the moment they take up employment. Has he ever heard of pre-hearing reviews for employment tribunals?
Kevin Hollinrake
The point I was making is that the case may go all the way to an employment tribunal, as the hon. Gentleman knows, but there would also be the cost of defending the case even if it does not. That small business will have to bring consultants in and will have to speak to lawyers. That itself costs money, and in many cases that will be thousands of pounds. That is what the hon. Member fails to understand: when you are accused, you lose.
Several hon. Members rose—
Kevin Hollinrake
No, I will make a little progress. The cost of all these measures—in individual opportunities and to the wider economy—is huge. The Government may try to deny that, despite their clear lack of experience of the real world of business. It is extremely alarming that not one of those on the Front Bench today have ever started or run a business that employed anyone. Even worse than that, only one member of the Cabinet has ever done so, and that is the Secretary of State for Scotland.
Shamefully, given what is at stake, the Government cannot deny our case that the Bill will have a huge economic cost, because today—finally, two hours before this debate—they have actually produced the impact assessments. The cost of the Bill is on the very first page: up to £5 billion per annum. The word “uncertain” appears 302 times in those impact assessments, and the word “risk” is used 432 times, so the cost is likely to be much more.
Paula Barker
The shadow Minister has just said that shamefully there is only one person on our Front Bench who has run a business. How many of his Front-Bench team are trade union members?
Kevin Hollinrake
I am not a trade union member, and I would not know about my colleagues, but I started a business, as did my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), as did the shadow Chancellor and as did many others in our party. We are proud of that fact.
This morning I met business representatives covering all parts of the British economy. Like us, they have serious reservations about this Bill. The Institute of Directors highlighted the fact that 57% of its members will be less likely to hire staff, with only 2% saying that would be more likely. The Confederation of British Industry said that the costs associated with this Bill cannot be afforded by 54% of businesses.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
This legislation applies to England and not Northern Ireland, but I echo the hon. Gentleman’s concerns. I am concerned about small and medium businesses that employ a small workforce. If one or two of them have a long-term illness, they may be off for a while, come back to work and then go off for a while. Is there not a need—I look to the Deputy Prime Minister—for a methodology whereby small businesses can employ someone in the short term for those positions, otherwise they will go to the wall?
Kevin Hollinrake
I agree. I was interested that the Deputy Prime Minister said that her menopause measures would be exclusive to large businesses. I welcome that, and I ask her to look at attaching the same conditions, ideally, to the entire Bill, but if not to certain parts of it. The risks for small businesses are simply catastrophic. Even one or two cases could completely sink a business.
Dr Luke Evans
When it comes to risk, is my hon. Friend concerned about the timing of this legislation if, as reported, the Budget raises national insurance for those businesses? Is that yet another risk in addition to this legislation?
Kevin Hollinrake
My hon. Friend is right. This morning we met representatives from UKHospitality, who said exactly that: the Bill is coming on the back of a number of changes and some difficult times during covid for industries that employ a lot of people, which will be particularly badly affected by this legislation. The Government should think twice about implementing it at this moment in time.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
My hon. Friend mentioned the 302 mentions of uncertainty. It is hard to know how that can foster growth. Let us be honest: businesses are already more highly taxed and regulated than ever before. We all know the reason—the pandemic— and we have to take responsibility for that. Will he assure me that, as a party, we will use this period of opposition to once again proclaim our values as a low-tax, deregulated economy? Otherwise, how will we foster growth in an increasingly competitive world? If we tax businesses more, we simply lay the foundation of a future Labour Government.
Kevin Hollinrake
I agree. We should be low tax and low regulation. One of the saving graces of this legislation is the detail, although the Bill itself is light on detail: many of the measures will be brought in through secondary legislation, therefore making it easier for a future Government to reverse some of the catastrophic changes.
Several hon. Members rose—
Kevin Hollinrake
I will make some progress. The Government’s own impact assessment acknowledges that the measures will mean price rises for consumers and job losses. In it, 40% of firms surveyed said that prices would go up, and 17% said that they will reduce the number of employees. That is hundreds of thousands of jobs at risk.
The criticism of the Bill does not stop there. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has warned that it risks lower employment rates and lower wages for employees. The Local Government Chronicle has warned that the Bill will place financial pressure on councils. The Recruitment and Employment Confederation has said that the Bill will fuel long and complex litigation. The Financial Times has warned that the Bill is causing deep unease among business leaders. In short, jobs down, wages down and prices up.
In their failed attempt to allays concerns about the Bill, the Deputy Prime Minister and the shadow Business Secretary have stated that they have consulted businesses—
The Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Jonathan Reynolds)
You are the shadow Business Secretary.
Kevin Hollinrake
Sorry, though I think the Prime Minister is guilty of similar; I do apologise. The Deputy Prime Minister and the Business Secretary have stated that they have consulted businesses. Really? The Federation of Small Businesses said not only that the Bill will
“inevitably deter small employers from taking on new people”,
but that it is a
“rushed job, clumsy, chaotic and poorly planned”
and that the Government are guilty of shallow engagement. So much for the “strong horse”. Several representatives at this morning’s meeting said that they have been talked to but not listened to—including those representing the hospitality and retails sectors some of the most labour-intensive in our economy, which is acknowledged in the impact assessment.
Kit Malthouse
Alongside the many negatives relating to the Bill that my hon. Friend has laid out, does he recognise the strong possibility that, particularly in small and micro businesses, the legislation could inject quite significant resentment among the staff body itself? For example, just to amplify my previous point, if you have six members of staff and three of them apply for flexible working, that has an immediate impact on those who do not have flexible working. The ability of the business to offer flexible working to future workers is also reduced, which turns the whole thing into a massive negotiation between six or seven people. That could have a significant impact on morale and sense of fair play within businesses themselves.
Kevin Hollinrake
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. There speaks somebody who has actually run a business and understands the impact on a small employer. That is why we say there should be a carve-out, certainly for small and micro businesses.
We have to ask ourselves this: if the Government are not listening to businesses who “pull the whole cart”, who are they listening to? I think we all know the answer to that. A consultation is not five minutes inside No. 10 and a photo opportunity. Proper consultation is working with business, listening, taking your time and not rushing things—the exact opposite of what the Government have done. We know why that is. The Deputy Prime Minister made a misguided promise to Labour’s trade union paymasters that legislation would be introduced within 100 days. Despite 100 days of gloom and doom, talking the economy down and wrecking business confidence, they managed it—just.
The Government are not even listening to their own legal experts. Only last week the Attorney General said:
“excessive reliance on delegated powers, Henry VIII clauses, or skeleton legislation, upsets the proper balance between Parliament and the executive.”
Because the Bill is such a rushed job, it takes swathes of delegated powers, including Henry VIII powers, meaning the final policy will be decided later at the Secretary of State’s whim—not now by Parliament. Legislating that way is causing real concerns for businesses today. The Deputy Prime Minister and her colleagues preach stability, yet in the same breath they are causing instability, uncertainty and falling confidence at a cost of jobs and investment today. There are already 58,000 fewer payroll jobs than when Labour took office. Confidence levels at the Institute of Directors on future investment intentions have dropped from plus 30 in June to minus six today. The Government are planning 30 consultations on the measures in the Bill. They should have taken place before the Bill was introduced, so the legislation could be precise about what it will do.
Saqib Bhatti
I thank the shadow Secretary of State for giving way. He talks about trade unions. I have just seen a news update on the Unite union’s Birmingham hotel and conference centre being investigated by the Serious Fraud Office. The total cost was £112 million, but it has now been valued at £29 million. Who will hold the trade unions to account in the Bill?
Kevin Hollinrake
My hon. Friend makes a strong point. That certainly needs looking at very carefully.
As the Government’s attempt at business consultation has clearly failed, and as no one on their Front Bench has any business experience, I will draw the right hon. Lady a picture of what the Bill actually means for businesses.
Mr Richard Quigley (Isle of Wight West) (Lab)
As the owner of two successful small businesses—[Interruption.] I know Opposition Members like to do that—it’s pantomime—but they can listen. As the owner of two successful small businesses and an employer of 25 people in the hospitality sector, I welcome the Bill. Do Opposition Members agree that the main reason they are against this groundbreaking employment Bill is because they are embarrassed about their own record over the past 14 years?
Kevin Hollinrake
I welcome the fact that there is at least some business experience on the Government Benches. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman joined the wrong party.
The hon. Gentleman will recognise the picture of what the Bill means for businesses. They will be terrified to take new people on for fear of huge compliance costs and legal action. They will be tied up in red tape, something that the Prime Minister said he was taking an axe to. They will have to cope with measures such as the need to frequently recalculate all workers’ hours for each reference period for each separate employee, each of which will have a unique date as they will be required to proactively offer guaranteed hours. This is not even restricted to those on zero-hours contracts. It will be for anyone on low hours—a bureaucratic nightmare. They will have to deal with a new right to demand flexible working, such as a four-day week. The right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) must be proud. Businesses will have to become the free speech police to prevent any of their customers offending their staff. They will have to deal with a new regulator, the fair work agency, which will have the power to enter any business premises, confiscate documents and levy fines—all backed up by new criminal offences with penalties of up to two years in jail.
Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)
As someone who has started and run a business, I should like to know the hon. Gentleman’s opinion of the views of the former Business Secretary, the right hon. Member for North West Essex (Mrs Badenoch), that the minimum wage is a burden, that statutory maternity pay is excessive, and that equal pay protection in respect of race and disability is akin to segregation policies in South Africa—or does he want to distance his party from her comments?
Kevin Hollinrake
That is not what my right hon. Friend said at all. I worked with her when she was Business Secretary, and at no point did she ever say that about maternity pay. She was talking about regulation costs. She was simply pointing out that for many businesses, particularly in retail and hospitality, the rise in the national living wage has been very difficult to cope with. She was not talking about abolishing it. Businesses will have to deal with new union powers to gain access to any business premises and contact its staff—wonderful!—in order to recruit and organise members and make it much, much easier for a union to gain recognition. As the impact assessments state—this is great news; this will really cheer everyone up—there will be “increased industrial action” and tax rises to pay for increased pay demands. [Interruption.] That is what the Government’s impact assessments say. Labour Members should check their impact assessments. 1970s, here we come! There is much more, but in short, it all means that the tail will be wagging the dog.
Nigel Huddleston (Droitwich and Evesham) (Con)
I am sure that my hon. Friend will be aware of the history of Labour Governments since the second world war. Every single one of them has left office with employment higher than it was when they started. Is he concerned about the possibility that this Government will repeat the same mistakes, especially given their lack of business awareness and understanding of the private sector?
Kevin Hollinrake
I am very concerned about that. Today there are 4 million more jobs in our economy than there were in 2010, and 1.2 million fewer people are unemployed. I am very worried about the things that my hon. Friend is very worried about.
Making work pay is a laudable aim, but as one stakeholder put it this morning,
“work doesn’t pay if there’s no work”.
Most people recognise that one of the reasons why the UK is the third most popular destination in the world for inward investment, which creates hundreds of thousands of jobs throughout the economy, is the flexible labour market that the Government are now seeking to eliminate. Do the Deputy Prime Minister and her Cabinet colleagues realise that? Perhaps they secretly do, given that nine out of 10 of those Cabinet colleagues recruit on terms that are at odds with these new regulations. Sixteen Cabinet Ministers, including the Chancellor, the Foreign Secretary, the Home Secretary and the Energy Secretary, have hired people for roles that involve working outside regular hours and at weekends; six Cabinet Ministers have hired people to roles with extended probation periods; and seven Cabinet Ministers, including the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and the Deputy Prime Minister, have hired on “insecure” fixed-term contracts. Why would they introduce legislation that they do not understand or even comply with themselves? The answer is, of course, their union paymasters.
Much like the more than 200 Labour MPs who have taken trade union cash, the Deputy Prime Minister has her donations to think of. She declared her interests as a union member, but she did not declare her interests as someone who had taken £13,000 from unions in donations. The question of what is orderly is up to your judgment, Madam Deputy Speaker, but it seems to me that that should be declared at the start of any Member’s contribution.
This is not an Employment Rights Bill, but a trade union charter—a charter that will bring about no-knock warrants that allow unions to access all business premises, from the local takeaway to the local pub. Clearly, shutting the beer gardens is not enough for this Government; they are now relying on strike action to stop you getting a pint. Under this trade union charter, trade unions will revert to requiring people to opt out of donating to unions’ political funds. That will line Labour’s pockets with default donations from working people. This trade union charter will abolish the thresholds for strike action, unleashing waves of low-threshold strikes, and crippling public services by putting power in the hands of militant trade unions. This trade union charter will force employers to inform their staff that they can join a union at every turn. This trade union charter will reduce notice periods for strike action, meaning that businesses will be plagued by zero-warning strike action, which will unleash misery on the public at the last minute.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
We have just had a general election. The Labour party won a historic majority on the basis of a manifesto that was pro-business, pro-worker and pro-growth. Through the Bill, we are bringing forward provisions that were sketched out in our manifesto. Why is the hon. Member choosing not to listen to the result of the election? In choosing to reject the provisions in the Bill, he is not learning from the result of the general election.
Kevin Hollinrake
We deserved to lose the election fair and square, but the hon. Gentleman should look at that result, because it was not a popular vote for Labour. The party’s popularity is dropping by the day, and the business confidence that we need to protect in this country is dropping by the day.
The Bill is a trade union charter. By repealing the Trade Union Act 2016, it will increase the number of strikes by 53%. It is a charter that will take Britain back to the 1970s—a stated goal of the Deputy Prime Minister. The public will pay the price not just through uncollected waste, dysfunctional local government and picket lines outside hospitals, as in the 1970s; they will be forced to pay through higher taxes—a fact that the Government have now admitted in the impact assessment, despite pledging not to increase taxes on working people.
At a time when the Government claim to be scrambling for cash and are taking the winter fuel payment from 9.5 million pensioners, they have the gall to drive up taxes to reward their trade union paymasters. That will be done not just through higher national insurance, a hike in fuel duty or whatever other punishing measures the Government choose, but through council tax. Because of the Government’s Corbyn-style collective bargaining for social care, councils will be required to stump up an additional £4.2 billion, or £150 per household.
The path that we took in government was pro-worker and pro-business. Whereas this Government put party first and country second, we worked in partnership with businesses and workers to deliver improvements without risking investment, unemployment and businesses going bust.
Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)
I just want to double-check: have you actually read the Bill? It talks about a consultation period with businesses, and the provisions will not be rolled out until 2026. There will be a probation period for certain businesses. We are pro-business, and maybe the shadow Minister should read the Bill properly.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. We should not refer to other colleagues in the Chamber as “you”. It is quite simple.
Kevin Hollinrake
I wish the hon. Member for Dudley (Sonia Kumar) was with me for the hour I spent with the representatives of organisations this morning. They do not feel as she does—that there is nothing to see here and nothing to worry about. They are very concerned, and we should all be worried about that.
Through our approach, we doubled the minimum wage, boosted employment by 4 million, cut taxes on working people by £900, cut youth unemployment, slashed the employment rate and rolled out the biggest ever expansion of free childcare. Our approach recognised that by harming business, which is the strong horse that pulls the whole cart, we are harming workers—a fact that this Government have clearly failed to grasp. This Bill puts the cart firmly before the horse. For small businesses particularly, it creates an existential crisis of a magnitude not seen since the pandemic. The future of hundreds of thousands of business people and millions of jobs is in the Deputy Prime Minister’s hands. I urge her to think again, withdraw this legislation and listen carefully, not just to the unions but to the voice of business, before it is too late.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Over 80 Members wish to contribute. To try to accommodate most of them, I will limit Back-Bench speeches to three minutes and maiden speeches to five minutes. The first Back-Bench contribution is from Mike Amesbury, and I know that he will not want me to cut him off.
Mike Amesbury (Runcorn and Helsby) (Lab)
I stand here not only as the Labour MP for Runcorn and Helsby, but as a former trade union convener and shop steward for the wonderful trade union Unison. I am also a GMB member and a member of the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers. I am proud to have the opportunity to speak in this Parliament with a trade union voice, coming from a working-class background, and as part of a Labour Government. How fantastic is that? I also proudly refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Have a look: it is very clean money—trade union money.
This is an important day for the history of the labour movement and for industrial relations in this country. This Employment Rights Bill is pro-business, pro-worker and pro-growth. This is exactly the change that we were elected to make, just a few weeks ago. The Bill works in partnership with business and trade unions. It is not the work of fiction—I say this respectfully—that the shadow Minister described in his response to my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister. Labour Members are pro-jobs, but pro good jobs. We are pro-business, but pro good business. The Bill is also good for Britain. We want to turn the page on an economy that has been blighted by insecurity, poor productivity and low pay, and we want growth that leaves nobody behind in our communities.
I pay homage to the architects of this landmark legislation: the trade unions, of course; the former shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald); my good friend the Deputy Prime Minister; and my neighbouring MP and good friend the Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade, my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders). We were elected on a manifesto for change, and today that change begins—delivered within 100 days, as the Deputy Prime Minister said.
The Bill brings forward 31 employment reforms to help young and not-so-young workers alike. It marks the end of exploitative zero-hours contracts and fire and rehire practices, establishes day one rights to paternity, parental and bereavement leave for millions of workers, improves statutory sickness pay and collective bargaining, and provides for fair pay agreements. It means that 9 million people will have protection from unfair dismissal from day one, and that over 1 million people on zero-hours contracts will benefit from a guaranteed hours policy. This will help many in all our constituencies. An additional 1.5 million parents taking unpaid parental leave will be brought into scope of employment rights from day one. This Bill is a game changer. It is a manifesto commitment that I and everyone on the Labour Benches were proud to be elected on, and I look forward to our labour coming to fruition over the next few months and years.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, Sarah Gibson.
Sarah Gibson (Chippenham) (LD)
Broadly speaking, the Liberal Democrats support the Government’s desire to modernise employment rights and make them fit for the modern working world. I hope the Government will appreciate our constructive scrutiny of the Bill today, to ensure that it is as helpful as it can be, for workers and small businesses. In the interests of transparency, I would like to mention that I have been a small business owner for most of my adult life, but I have also been an employee. I will start by outlining the improvements that the Government should make to better support carers, parents and those who fall ill. I will then move on to what adjustments must be made so that small businesses receive adequate support.
Members across this House will know that fixing our social care system and adequately supporting carers is a key issue for the Liberal Democrats. The Bill makes no clear statutory commitment to introducing paid carer’s leave. That omission strikes us as a missed opportunity for the Government to adequately support carers’ ability to juggle employment with their caring responsibilities. The Government’s “Next Steps to Make Work Pay” paper, which accompanies this Bill, commits to reviewing the implementation of paid carer’s leave. However, the Liberal Democrats believe that the Government should go a step further. We will be looking to strengthen the legislation in this area, and we hope that the Government will not waste the opportunity to make genuine progress on carer’s leave. As ever, I am happy to meet Ministers at any time to discuss this in greater depth.
The Bill could do more to support parents. We welcome the Government’s proposal that parents should be able to benefit from support, irrespective of how long they have worked for their employer. We also support the proposal to introduce new rights to bereavement leave, which will allow employees to take much-needed leave from work to grieve the loss of a loved one. This will be especially important to those who lose a close relative or who experience a miscarriage.
The Liberal Democrats have called for measures to support parents through unemployment, and to extend parental pay and leave to self-employed parents, as has been mentioned. We have also called for measures to increase statutory maternity leave and shared parental leave to £350 a week, and to increase pay for paternity leave, with an income cap for high earners.
In addition to improving the Bill’s support for carers and parents, we also believe it could do more to support people when they fall ill. At £116.75 a week, statutory sick pay remains far below the minimum wage and is effectively a disincentive to take time off. This has a severe impact on public health, productivity and, ultimately, economic growth. A higher rate of sick pay would enable people to take time to recover without having to worry about making ends meet. Of course, any such measures should go hand in hand with appropriate financial support for small businesses.
That brings me to how this Bill can be improved for the benefit of small business owners, and I have already stated my interest. It is vital that small businesses are actively consulted on how to support them with any additional costs that the Bill may bring. Having spoken to many SMEs in my constituency, I would like to know what consideration the Government have given to the Bill’s proposals on changes to unfair dismissal during probationary periods. How will small businesses, which do not have the resources of HR professionals, be supported through these changes? Unfortunately, much of the crucial detail that would help such businesses to prepare for the impact of the Bill has been left to secondary legislation and further consultation. Although we support as much consultation as possible, the lack of detail in the Bill does not facilitate certainty and stability for businesses or workers.
The Liberal Democrats urge Ministers to ensure that new measures to support workers go hand in hand with support for small businesses, starting with the reform of our broken business rates system. The current system effectively taxes business premises and machinery, which discourages investment and heavily burdens key sectors in my constituency, from retail and manufacturing to renewable energy production. Again, if Ministers are open to meeting me and my Liberal Democrat colleagues, we would be happy to discuss our proposal for reforming this broken system and bolstering our SMEs.
This Bill has the potential to mark a new chapter in how we deliver fairness for both business owners and employees. We believe it will modernise our legislation to reflect the needs of today’s workforce.
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
My hon. Friend has said that the Bill does not go far enough to support families. In my Woking constituency, 350 children are unable to join the Scouts because of a lack of volunteers. Does she agree that the Government should consider adding to the Bill a right to ask for statutory volunteer leave?
Sarah Gibson
My hon. Friend makes an important point about volunteering across the country.
But the Government must go further. We must do more to support carers, parents and those who fall sick. The Bill must do more to provide small businesses with certainty, stability and transparency. We on the Liberal Democrat Benches look forward to the Bill’s passage and will work with colleagues to ensure it delivers on its full promise, but we hope that our proposals to improve the legislation are fully considered.
Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
As a proud member of the Community and USDAW trade unions, I am delighted with the legislation. In the short time available to me, I will focus on the particular issue of whether we work to live, or we live to work, because so far the debate in this place, particularly in the remarks made by Conservative Members, has sounded like something from the mesozoic era and the dying era of the dinosaurs.
Let us get something straight: tackling sexual harassment in the workforce is not about free speech, but about stopping a crime; flexible working does not mean people work less, just that they work flexibly; and rights do not make people irresponsible employees, any more than it is noticeable that our competitors internationally are ahead of us on this work. The measures in the Bill are about entrenching good practice, so that we have a race to the top, not a flounder to the bottom, as we did under the previous Government.
That is why I and others hope to push the Government to go further on maternity and paternity rights. It vital that the Bill contains protections for mothers around maternity discrimination, but such measures will only work if we include the other 50% and bring dads into the equation. We do not really have a gender pay gap in this country any more: we have a motherhood pay gap and a motherhood penalty. Women face the discrimination of being made unemployed not only when they have children but because they might have children, and women who have kids find that when they go back to work, they are considered to be less committed, capable and competent. Women who are childless are six times more likely to be recommended for a job and eight times more likely to be recommended for a promotion.
The issue cuts the other way too, because there is a fatherhood premium as fathers are considered to be more reliable employees. We must not entrench these inequalities but overturn them, so that dads can be part of their kids’ lives and mums can get a fair crack at being in the workforce. A third of dads in this country take no paternity leave at all; half of them say that is because they feel pressured financially to go back to work early. Modern employers get the problem and are offering more than the statutory minimum. Some 92% of fathers who are job hunting say flexibility makes all the difference when they choose which job to take. After the pandemic, the number of stay-at-home dads increased by a third. Frankly, dads want to step up to the plate, whatever Members on the Conservative Benches may think, and mothers want them to be there too.
Making such changes matters to the economy. The loss of productivity that comes from women caring for their parents or their children means that millions are being cut out of our economy. We have some of the longest working hours for dads in Europe, and some of the shortest working opportunities for mums. Putting in measures to support paternity leave will be good for both sides of the equation. Let us not be the generation in which dads say they never got the chance to know their teenage kids, and mums say they never got the opportunities they wanted. Let us amend the Bill to ensure paternity leave matches maternity—
Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)
I will speak to the amendment, especially about the Bill being rushed through without full consultation.
On 13 May 2014, I tabled a ten-minute rule Bill on the Prohibition of Unpaid Internships, as Members will see in volume 580 of Hansard, column 593. On 14 November 2016, I tabled a private Member’s Bill, the National Minimum Wage (Workplace Internships)—volume 616 of Hansard, column 1156. On 27 October 2017, Lord Holmes of Richmond tabled the Unpaid Work Experience (Prohibition). And on 5 February 2020, I co-sponsored the Unpaid Work Experience (Prohibition) Bill introduced by Alex Cunningham, the former Member for Stockton North, now retired.
Despite unpaid internships being mentioned in the Government’s policy documents on work, they are not in the Bill. The Government have said that they will tighten up the ban, but there is no ban on unpaid internships—they exist, as they did in the last Parliament, not least with many a Member on the opposite side of the House. If there were such a ban, it would not have to be mentioned in policy documents.
A ban should have been brought in alongside the Bill. There will be a lot of hubris on the Government Benches about bringing forward a landmark employment Bill, with Labour Members saying the Conservatives did nothing, despite all the evidence laid out by my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) in his excellent opening speech. [Interruption.] It is all very well burying one’s head in the sand, but every one of the Bills I brought forward got kicked into the long grass, not least my private Member’s Bill, when the only Labour Member present was the shadow Minister. If Labour MPs had turned up, we might have been able to get a closure motion, but they decided not to. That has been the story throughout. If the Deputy Prime Minister does want the Bill to go through, she needs to fight off whatever it was that stopped it each time; I always started out with the commitment that it would happen, and then somehow people were convinced not to do it. I say that in a constructive way to the Deputy Prime Minister, who I know very well.
An intern should be defined as a worker. We were talking about an amendment to the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 that says that work experience is important, but after 20 days or four weeks in work, an intern should be treated as an employee. Work should always pay, and if someone is contributing after that period of time, they are adding something to the business.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the fundamental approach behind the Bill should be one of pragmatism rather than tribal ideology?
Sir Alec Shelbrooke
I am grateful to my hon. Friend; pragmatism is important when we talk about business. In that spirit, there is a pragmatic reason why the Bill should not be given its Second Reading today—perhaps at some point it should, but I fear it has been rushed through to meet the spin about the first 100 days.
I would wager that few Labour Members today had plans to talk about unpaid internships, which is a very important issue. I could talk for a very long time about unpaid internships, as I have for hours in this Chamber previously. To ensure equal opportunities for young people, the issue of internships is vital, but it is one that is sadly lacking from the Bill. That speaks to the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton: the Bill has to some extent been rushed.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
I draw attention to my membership of the GMB. I support this landmark employment Bill, the biggest expansion of workers’ rights for a generation. Today we see the difference that a Labour Government can make for people up and down the country.
Although I support all aspects of the Bill, I will focus specifically on the transport sector. During and following the covid pandemic, transport workers faced the short end of the stick of poor employment practice. I welcome the end of fire and rehire. That unfair practice was used as a sledgehammer against workers, particularly during the pandemic, by companies such as British Airways, which tried it on more than 35,000 staff members, including many of my constituents in Hounslow. BA staff who had worked for decades faced the prospect of being sacked and rehired on poorer pay and weaker terms and conditions.
After huge pressure from trade unions, Labour MPs and the Transport Committee, BA dropped its plans, but other firms such as P&O have also exploited the weakness in UK employment law that the Bill is intended to address. Those practices are still happening, as my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr (Steve Witherden) highlighted in his intervention on the Deputy Prime Minister. When workers were facing fire and rehire, Labour was clear that a Labour Government would ban that practice, and I am pleased the Government are doing that. I welcome clause 22.
On minimum service levels, the Bill will also repeal and scrap the previous Government’s Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023—a farcical bit of legislation designed to limit strike action. In Committee, when I pushed the rail operators on the proposed legislation, it was clear that they had not sought it and they appeared to have no plans to use it. The fact that so few rail operators chose to use the powers once they were enacted showed that the companies themselves doubted their value and use.
This Bill also brings in much-needed modernisation of our maritime laws. In the last Parliament, the then Chairs of the Transport Committee and the Business and Trade Committee—one Conservative, one Labour—jointly wrote to the then Government about the need to update our laws to protect maritime workers. I welcome the Bill’s closure of the loophole whereby ships registered overseas previously did not have to inform the UK Government of collective redundancies, and the fact that this Government have committed to further strengthen workers’ rights at sea.
In conclusion—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. I call Shivani Raja to make her maiden speech.
Shivani Raja (Leicester East) (Con)
It is with great privilege and a deep sense of responsibility that I stand before you today, Madam Deputy Speaker. As I take my place in this historic Chamber, I am acutely aware of the profound trust placed in us by the constituents of our great nation. I wish to express my heartfelt gratitude to the people of Leicester East for electing me to represent them in Parliament.
My story, like that of many in Leicester, is one of heritage, resilience and opportunity. My parents arrived in Leicester from Kenya and India in the late 1970s, bringing with them cultural and faith traditions and a remarkable work ethic. They made Rushey Mead their home, and I was born and raised there. From Herrick primary school to Soar Valley college and De Montfort University, Leicester has nurtured me every step of the way and for that I am deeply thankful.
As is customary, I pay tribute to Claudia Webbe, my immediate predecessor, who served the constituency to the very best of her ability. Claudia followed in the footsteps of Keith Vaz who, alongside Paul Boateng and Bernie Grant, broke new ground in the representation of people of colour in Parliament. In the election, I had the unique experience of standing against both Claudia and Keith—a testament to the vibrant political landscape of Leicester East.
Leicester is a city of remarkable history and diversity. Leicester hosts the largest Diwali festival outside India. It is home to the UK’s longest running comedy festival. It is one of England’s oldest cities, so much so that we found a king under one of our carparks; for those who do not know, one of our earliest kings, King Richard III, was found under a carpark in Leicester. The University of Leicester is the birthplace of DNA fingerprinting. Leicester is also home to the National Space Centre and we are proud of our contributions to the arts, sciences and sports.
We have got it all going on in Leicester, but if Members remain unconvinced that Leicester has influenced their life, because perhaps they are not a former monarch or a scientist in their spare time, Leicester has also given Britain icons like the late Lord Richard Attenborough and—very much living—Sir David Attenborough, Gary Lineker and Peter Shilton. Our city is where Walkers crisps were born and where fashion guru Gok Wan grew up. Leicester’s influence even extends to music, with entertainers like Engelbert Humperdinck and Showaddywaddy. So whether you have tucked into a bag of ready salted, gone to the cinema to watch “Jurassic Park” or boogied on down to “Hey Rock and Roll”, you’ve got Leicester to thank.
This is what true diversity looks like. In fact, in 2013 Leicester was described as the most multicultural city in the UK. Today, 59% of people living in Leicester are from ethnic minority groups, and 41% were born outside the UK. But most relevant to today’s debate is employment and businesses in my constituency. Leicester is located at the heart of England, and local businesses are the lifeblood of our city. Leicester was recognised as the UK’s most entrepreneurial city—a title that reflects the resilience, creativity and determination of its people. Our entrepreneurial scene is not just about numbers; it is about stories, of those who dared to dream big, hustled harder, and turned their ideas into reality.
The Employment Rights Bill threatens to undermine that spirit before those entrepreneurs have even made their first £1. The additional costs and regulations proposed will act as a barrier to entry, discouraging the very innovation and hard work that has earned Leicester that title. We must be cautious not to stifle the ambition of small business owners, who are the backbone of our economy. Our journey is one of innovation and community—a story of people coming together across different sectors and backgrounds to build something truly remarkable.
In a city as diverse as Leicester, many rely on flexible work to balance family commitments, faith observances or second jobs. By imposing blanket regulations that do not consider the unique needs of our communities, the Bill risks alienating the very workforce it aims to protect. We must ensure that employment regulations support businesses and workers alike. Imposing regulations that add costs without first offering support will harm the very people Labour claims to champion. For our small businesses in Leicester, many of which work with razor-thin margins, the burdens imposed by the Bill will be overwhelming. It is one thing to champion workers’ rights, but quite another to do so in a way that risks the survival of the very businesses that provide the jobs.
Let us not forget that successful businesses are the best way to secure meaningful long-term employment. Our decisions in this House will shape the future of our country for generations to come. It is imperative that we approach these challenges in a spirit of collaboration, transcending partisan divides to serve the best interests of all our constituents. With our nation facing economic challenges, the Bill risks raising costs for consumers and worsening the cost of living crisis, particularly in communities like Leicester East, where many are already struggling to make ends meet. We must find solutions that protect workers without penalising local businesses and their customers.
I am honoured to stand before the House as the Member for Leicester East, and I warmly invite you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and all hon. Members to visit our great city. You can join us for our glorious Diwali celebrations, our annual Pride parade or our vibrant Caribbean carnival. Come and experience the city where fish and chips are just as popular as samosas and kebabs, and where Stilton and Red Leicester cheeses sit alongside Italian pizza and French patisserie. The road ahead may be challenging, but it is also filled with possibilities. I firmly believe that not only Leicester’s but our country’s greatest days are ahead of us, and I am grateful to be able to play my part, championing my constituents in that endeavour.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I had to let that speech run over; I was waiting for my invitation to have samosas.
Mark Ferguson (Gateshead Central and Whickham) (Lab)
I pay tribute to the maiden speech of the hon. Member for Leicester East (Shivani Raja). I enjoyed her reminiscences about her community, and hearing about some of the more lively figures from the recent history of the Labour party. I proudly draw attention to my declarations in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, which include my former role working for Unison, my membership of Unison, my donation from Unison, and being co-chair of its parliamentary group. Unison is Britain’s largest union, representing public service workers and in particular the low-paid women who will benefit so much from the Bill.
I pay tribute to all those who have worked tirelessly for years to build consensus around these changes—the biggest changes to rights at work in a generation. In particular, I thank those within Labour’s affiliated trade unions, on the Front Bench, and in Labour’s policy team for their hard work and dedication. Hon. Friends, including my hon. Friends the Members for Worsley and Eccles (Michael Wheeler), for Halifax (Kate Dearden), for Birmingham Northfield (Laurence Turner), for Tipton and Wednesbury (Antonia Bance) and for Knowsley (Anneliese Midgley), have been engaged in this work throughout. That is not an exhaustive list; many others on the Government Benches have worked tirelessly to help us to reach this day, and deserve immense credit.
This is the kind of Bill that is at the heart of why we are here. The Labour party was founded upon the idea that working people deserved representation in this place, that we were fit to govern, and that those who put in the bulk of the graft deserved to reap the rewards of their labours. Today is a landmark day in our party’s history, and in the history of employment rights in this country. The Bill is crammed full of improvements that are each worthy of a lengthy speech; however, I am down to my last minute and twenty seconds, so I will not do that. Let me say this instead: if you work, the Bill will change your working life for the better. We know why these changes are necessary. One in five of us is suffering from the effects of insecure work, with low pay, exploitative zero-hours contracts, and little or no sick pay.
Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)
My hon. Friend mentions that the measures in the Bill will be good for employees. Does he agree that they will also be good for business? My constituency’s economy is based on the entrepreneurialism of lots of small businesses and individuals creating work for themselves and for others. Does he agree that the Bill will support good employment policies in small businesses, helping with productivity and the retention of staff?
Mark Ferguson
I could not agree more. The people who will benefit from the Bill the most are not those who will buy stocks and shares but those who will spend their money on our thriving high streets, which this Government will build.
The care workers and teaching assistants I was proud to represent while working for Unison deserve pay and conditions that match the task of looking after us when we grow up and grow old. Stronger rights to collective bargaining through the school support staff and adult social care negotiating bodies are essential for recruitment and retention in those overlooked sectors. Could the legislation go further in those areas and in others? Of course—that is the nature of any Bill. The work of change is never done, but we should be in no doubt that this is the biggest, boldest and most welcome set of employment rights changes that all but the most experienced of us in this Chamber have considered. I know that the Government are committed to consulting widely with unions and businesses alike to ensure that.
This is what having a Labour Government means—rights from day one: banning exploitative zero-hours contracts; ending fire and rehire to lift employees from the insecurity felt by those working in the foundations of our economy; taking action on sick pay, and maternity and paternity rights; and holding unscrupulous employers to account through a genuine and comprehensive enforcement body. The Bill is pro-business, pro-worker, and focused on the challenges that millions of us face every day. It is one of the greatest honours in my life to have been involved with it, to speak on its behalf, and to vote for it this evening, mostly because I know the impact that it will have on my community in Gateshead Central and Whickham. The task of rebuilding Britain after 14 years of Tory rule is great, but our ambition for this country is greater still.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, and the contribution from small businesses to my election campaign earlier this year.
History is repeating itself. Labour’s antipathy and lack of understanding for business, and small business in particular, is rearing its ugly head again. This legislation will have ruinous results for those who desperately need a job and hope. The Federation of Small Businesses says:
“This legislation is a rushed job, clumsy, chaotic and poorly planned.”
The federation goes on to say that the Bill will increase economic inactivity. That is a rather sanitised way of referring to the ruined lives, dashed hopes and huge waste of human potential that the Bill will bring about. At the end of the debate, we need to hear from a Minister how the Bill will be changed so that it supports rather than undermines the 4 million additional jobs created since 2010 under the Conservatives.
The economic impact assessment, so rudely provided so late in the day, shows that the costs of the Bill will fall disproportionately on small businesses—something that we have heard no acknowledgment of from Government Members. Five out of nine measures will have that effect. Do Ministers have any plans to change that?
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that provisions that are bad for small business are also bad for workers, bad for taxpayers, and bad for those who rely on welfare payments?
Graham Stuart
I entirely agree, and places like the Isle of Wight, with so many hospitality businesses, will pay a particularly high price. We should celebrate and support our wealth creators, not burden them with excessive taxes and regulations that kill the drive to work, invest and create wealth. Yet that is the destructive path that Labour is taking, with a jobs tax planned for every worker’s national insurance contributions in the Budget in a couple of weeks, and this Bill to deter SME employment.
Antonia Bance (Tipton and Wednesbury) (Lab)
The impact assessment published earlier was 900 pages long, which compares pretty well with some of the impact assessments published under the last Government, a number of which I had the misfortune to read. It confirms that the cost to business will represent less than 0.4% of total employment costs across the economy, and the majority of that will be transferred directly into the pockets of workers, helping to raise living standards and offset the last 14 years of standstill wages. Has the right hon. Gentleman managed to read the impact assessment yet?
Graham Stuart
Well, the impact assessment was provided rather late, but it is always good to have a spontaneous contribution to any debate.
Removing the lower earnings limit and the waiting period will also disproportionately hurt small businesses and microbusinesses. That is set out in black and white in the economic assessment, so will Ministers make changes? It is with dark comedy that the Government say that their top priority is economic growth. Labour inherited the fastest growing economy in the G7, with 4 million more people in work than in 2010—4 million. In 2010, by comparison, we inherited a note that said that the money was all gone.
Darren Paffey (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Graham Stuart
I will not.
History tells us that Labour Governments always end with unemployment higher than when they began. They do not do it because they are evil. As has been said, no one in the Cabinet comes from a business background; they simply do not understand the realities. This Government seem bent on destroying employment even faster than their predecessors.
Small businesses are the lifeblood of our economy. They do enormous social good. As the FSB says, smaller employers are
“the ones most likely to give opportunities to people furthest from the labour market, such as those returning after long-term health issues or caring responsibilities.”
Yet under these proposals, the
“Plans to give day one unfair dismissal rights to new employees will add to the risks associated with hiring people.”
That increased risk will inevitably deter small employers from taking on new people for fear of facing an employment tribunal simply because a new recruit turns out to be unsuited to the role. How will Ministers ensure that a company selling food at summer festivals is not bankrupted by having to offer a contract to someone who is not needed after that period is over?
The Government have had a disastrous start. It is no wonder that the legislation is chaotic and poorly planned, given that Labour Cabinet Ministers are never early for work but always early for the free buffet at the Emirates or at Taylor Swift concerts. The Deputy Prime Minister is selling out the country’s interests in favour of trade union interests—selling out the people who vote Labour for the people who fund Labour. The Bill is a catastrophe, and I hope the House opposes it today.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)
I am proud to refer the House to my membership of Unite and my declarations in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, and to advise Members that I have run several of my own businesses.
This is a great day, and I wholeheartedly congratulate my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister and colleagues for introducing this landmark legislation, which will transform the lives of millions of workers for the better. We know why it is needed: just look at the fire and replace at P&O, the fire and rehire of British Gas workers, and the denial of rights at Deliveroo and Hermes. The legislation has long been in development, and I was honoured, when I was shadow Secretary of State for Employment Rights, to work with our trade unions and other stakeholders on the new deal for working people. I place on record my thanks to the Institute of Employment Rights—particularly Lord Hendy KC and Professor Keith Ewing—and to my staff Karl Hansen and Eli Machover for their work on that paper.
I am delighted that Labour will give all workers day one rights on the job, ban zero-hours contracts and outlaw fire and rehire. In the Bill, we establish the day one rights to claim unfair dismissal and to paternity, parental and bereavement leave, we create a right to a guaranteed-hours contract and we tighten unfair dismissal protections. Labour will modernise union balloting, simplify union recognition and improve the right of entry to workplaces. The Bill removes unfair balloting laws on recognition and industrial action, and creates new duties on employers to facilitate unions’ access.
I am proud that that is being done, but much of the Bill is about setting up a framework, and there will be significant further steps, consultations and work to craft the detail. In particular, we cannot finally consign insecure work to history until we have resolved a defined single status of worker. I recognise the Government’s commitment to consulting on that. On zero hours, I trust that Ministers will provide reassurance that employers will not be able to exploit new rights to guaranteed hours by issuing short-hours contracts. There are many other issues arising from that, but I ask Ministers to consider in particular a statutory right to paid kinship leave on a par with adoption leave.
This is truly a landmark Bill, and it is crucial that we make these changes as soon as possible. This historic Bill will help to deliver the well-paid, secure, dignified, skilled and productive jobs and the prosperous economy that we all wish to see. I am delighted to support it this evening.
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)
Many small business in Meriden and Solihull East are rightly concerned about the Bill for a number of reasons. Since the election, I have spoken a number of times demanding that the Government be more ambitious for growth, for our entrepreneurs and for our small businesses. Indeed, it is the moral duty of every Government to unleash the full potential of our businesses and, where possible, to create an environment to embolden entrepreneurs and encourage economic growth.
Instead, the Bill will kill off any ambition and any focus on growth. If we want to focus on inclusive growth, we must nurture our start-ups, scale-ups and small businesses, and let them be nimble in how they operate, rather than shackling them. That is how economic magic will start to happen. The businesses to which I have spoken are worried about the insufficient consultation. The Government’s impact assessment, which we received late, shows that small businesses are likely to be hit hardest. The costs, according to the Government’s own analysis, will be in the low billions—up to £5 billion. For a Government who keep talking about the alleged black hole, those low billions seem rather reckless. It proves that this is nothing more than an ideological Bill that does not ensure growth.
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that, with just nine days until Halloween, the impact assessment we have seen today is an early horror show?
Saqib Bhatti
My hon. Friend makes a valid point. A lot of people are in a holding pattern for business decisions on investment and employment.
All the Bill will do is leave our businesses at the mercy of the trade unions and take us back to the 1970s. It will merely align us with the growth-gobbling guidelines set by bureaucrats in Brussels and hold our businesses back. It is not just me who thinks this; I am going by the Government’s impact assessment. The CBI claims that employers expect Britain to become the worst place to invest and do business over the next five years—a damning indictment of the Government.
Markus Campbell-Savours (Penrith and Solway) (Lab)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Saqib Bhatti
I will not.
What businesses want is less government, less regulation and more freedom. When making employment decisions, they require certainty and flexibility so that they can hire more people, but the Bill threatens to undermine the agility of businesses in ensuring that their workers maximise productivity. It does not encourage businesses to take risk, hire a budding new employee and reap the rewards; in fact, it does the complete opposite. The Federation of Small Businesses calls this legislation “clumsy and chaotic” and suggests that it will “increase economic inactivity.”
Let us be clear: the Bill is not really about employment rights or better conditions. Its focus is on repealing the 10-year ballot requirement on political funds, removing the opt-in default for trade union political funds, removing the need for proper consent to form a trade union, and so on. It is not the Employment Rights Bill; it is the trade union appeasement Bill. The Government are not prepared to stand up to the unions. We have seen them cave in to train drivers and give sweetheart deals without any savings for the taxpayer.
Saqib Bhatti
I will not.
We have seen the unions hold the Government to ransom at the expense of hard-working taxpayers. That is why the Bill is bad for small and medium-sized businesses—those arguments have been made already. Our SMEs cannot afford dozens of French-style regulations that bolster the power of the trade unions and threaten to increase the cost of employment by over £1,000. I am speaking to raise the concerns of many small and medium-sized businesses in Meriden and Solihull East about this legislation. It is rushed—businesses have not been properly consulted—and it gives more power to the trade unions. It will fail to maximise productivity and will severely weaken the case for businesses to hire new employees. It is a flawed Bill serving a flawed ideology.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Ind)
I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
I support and welcome this transformative Bill. I place on the record my thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald), the Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade, my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders), and the Deputy Prime Minister, with whom I have had the pleasure of working to play a small part in bringing this transformative legislation to the House.
In reality, the balance of power in our workplaces has been fundamentally set against employees for too long, meaning that the UK has some of the weakest labour protections in Europe, with legislation curbing the rights of working people to organise in defence of their rights, and insecure contracts and poor wage growth leaving one in five people struggling in poverty.
Under the last Tory Government, we saw an explosion in the growth of exploitative zero-hours contracts, unscrupulous fire and rehire practices, and the unforgiving and abusive gig economy. Ordinary working people across the country have experienced the most sustained period of wage stagnation for hundreds of years compared with our counterparts across Europe. Despite that exploitation of working people by bad bosses, the Tories never strayed from their mission of dismantling the power of trade unions to secure better jobs, pay and conditions for the ordinary people they represent, even in the middle of a cost of living crisis.
The Bill that we are discussing today, however, sets us on the road to implementing the transformative new deal for working people and to repealing the last Tory Government’s draconian anti-trade union legislation, which restricts people from organising in defence of their pay, terms and conditions. Spanning over 30 different measures, the Bill could give any of us a lot to talk about. However, as time does not permit that, I will concentrate on two or three areas.
With the establishment of a framework for fair pay agreements in the adult social care sector, the Government have acknowledged the immense benefits that collective sectoral bargaining can play. Social care workers are among the most crucial yet worst paid and badly treated groups of workers in our economy. I very much hope that the Government will introduce that framework for further sectors, and I encourage them to do so. Secondly, by ensuring that workplaces offer a guaranteed-hours policy to end the exploitation trap of zero-hours contracts that millions of workers find themselves in, the Bill ensures that we can provide the eight in 10 workers who desire greater stability more certainty over their contracted hours.
Thirdly, the Bill takes an important step towards widening access to statutory sick pay by removing the requirement to earn the lower earnings limit, and by making SSP payable from the first day of sickness. My sincere request to the Government is that, with the rate currently at £116.75 per week, we need in the consultation process—
Alison Griffiths (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)
I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I rise today to express my concerns about the impact of the Employment Rights Bill on one of the most vulnerable groups in our workforce: seasonal workers. Those individuals form the backbone of key sectors such as tourism, agriculture and retail, particularly in my constituency of Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, where many depend on seasonal jobs for their livelihoods. I fear that the Bill will put their livelihoods at risk, as well as the viability of the businesses that employ them.
The devil is in the detail, and detail is what the legislation lacks. Labour claims that the Bill will protect workers, but for seasonal employees the increased regulation will likely have the opposite effect. Small and medium-sized businesses that rely on flexible, short-term contracts to meet seasonal demand will face rising costs and greater bureaucracy when trying to bring on staff. Clause 1 on the right to guaranteed hours is so laissez-faire about how that will be implemented in a real-world business environment that it leaves significant ambiguity and doubt in employers’ minds.
Graham Stuart
Does my hon. Friend agree that we need more detail from the Minister tonight on that specific provision, before the House can in good conscience give the Bill a Second Reading?
Alison Griffiths
I absolutely agree with my right hon. Friend that detail is precisely what is needed for the Bill to be implemented effectively.
In my constituency, seasonal employers such as theme parks are at the mercy of the British weather and a short season. On a rainy day takings will be minimal, and managing costs accordingly is vital to remain viable. Moreover, the student and retired populations in my constituency value the flexibility that those contracts offer. The Bill will disincentivise employers from offering short-term opportunities and reduce employment options for those who depend on temporary work.
Rebecca Harris (Castle Point) (Con)
My constituency also has a lot of seasonal workers and a seaside economy. Does my hon. Friend agree that young people often get their first step on the job ladder through those jobs? They may well not get that opportunity if the legislation is passed.
Alison Griffiths
I thank my hon. Friend for a stellar point. I think most of us, certainly on this side of the Chamber, started our working careers in those jobs—I certainly did. Disincentivising employers from offering short-term opportunities will reduce those employment options.
About 1 million people aged 16 and over reported being employed on a zero-hours contract between April and June 2024. On average, those workers worked fewer hours per week than others, and 60% said that they did not even want more hours. In the hospitality sector, 90% say that it is their desired contract.
In conclusion, we must ensure that protecting workers’ rights does not come at the cost of the jobs they rely on. I urge the House to carefully consider the consequences and to amend the Bill to safeguard opportunities for seasonal workers.
Lola McEvoy (Darlington) (Lab)
I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests—I am a proud trade union member. It is with great pride that I rise to speak on the Bill today. I have spent my career championing a better deal for working people at the Living Wage Foundation, the organisation that works tirelessly to champion the plethora of business benefits of being a good employer, as well as at the GMB union, where I was proud to work alongside an army of volunteer trade union reps who have great courage in standing up for their colleagues, day in, day out.
The Bill has been warmly received by business because it is not radical. The Bill is reasonable, and it is illustrative of the way that Labour will govern for the time we are given that privilege. It is reasonable that people can earn a minimum wage that meets the cost of living. It is reasonable that people cannot be forced to sign away their current terms and conditions or lose their job. It is reasonable that people are not sexually harassed at work. It is reasonable that people working the same shift pattern, week in, week out, are given contracts that protect and reflect that. The Bill will do all that and more. The Bill will right some of the wrongs that have been pushing working people into wholly unacceptable hardship over the last 14 years.
In the spirit of that mission-led approach to Government, I ask the Minister to consider the following points that will improve physical and mental health outcomes, as well as support more people back to work. Will the Minister consider paid time off for preventive cancer screenings? I met a woman who worked in a hospital as a key worker for a private company. She could not afford to take unpaid leave to get her smear tests, so she missed them and then discovered she had stage 4 cervical cancer. Paid time off for preventive screenings, which good employers already offer, will support our health mission as well as save lives. People must not have to choose between catching cancer early and feeding their families.
On parental rights, I welcome the strengthening of maternity rights in the Bill. For too long women have been penalised for having children, and the hard truth is that mothers are being forced to leave the workforce or take low-paid part-time work to make ends meet. I appreciate that the Bill will make paternity rights a day one right, and I look forward to the review on parental leave, because we need to normalise fathers being able to support their new families and bond with their babies. Protecting fathers to enable them to take paternity leave will help level the playing field and improve men’s mental health, as fathers want to be with their babies.
Dr Zubir Ahmed (Glasgow South West) (Lab)
Sixty-one per cent of people in my constituency are in poverty despite being in work. Does my hon. Friend agree with me that it is only when work is made secure that we can truly grow our economy?
Lola McEvoy
I absolutely agree, because people want to work, and they want to work in good-quality jobs that allow them to spend a decent amount of time enjoying the things that matter in life.
The Bill will make thousands of my constituents in Darlington better off, safer and more secure at work. More than that, it will benefit businesses’ bottom lines, as they will have a happier, healthier and more productive workforce. That is essential for the growth we need to see, it is good for working people, it is good for business, and it is great for the economy.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call Katie Lam to make her maiden speech.
Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for letting me make not just my first contribution to this House, but the first contribution from the newly formed constituency of Weald of Kent. My predecessors are illustrious: William Hart Dyke helped invent tennis, Charles Barnett was a first-class cricketer, and Edward Percy Smith was a scriptwriter like me, penning the Hammer Horror hit “The Brides of Dracula”. We even have a Prime Minister in our history: Benjamin Disraeli began his parliamentary career representing a patch of Kent that includes the village of Linton, which is now in my constituency. However, only one of my predecessors, Ann Widdecombe, can boast Britain’s highest honour: an appearance on “Strictly Come Dancing”. [Laughter.]
Two of my most recent predecessors have left this place. Damian Green and Damian Collins both worked doggedly for the area and for the country in government—Damian Collins especially in the field of digital, culture, media and sport, the Select Committee for which he chaired for many years, and Damian Green with senior roles in government, all the way up to First Secretary of State. Both served my constituents with distinction, and on their behalf, I would like to say thank you.
I am not the first politician in my family. My grandmother came to Britain in 1937 at the age of 13 as a refugee from Germany. Her grandfather, Paul Heide, was a state senator and a fierce critic of the Nazis. When Hitler came to power, the whole family were arrested and stripped of their citizenship. After years in prison, Paul jumped out of the window of his second-floor cell and made it to Czechoslovakia despite his broken ankle. There, the family set up a resistance radio station broadcasting back over the border, until one night they were raided by the SS and one of the operators was shot dead. They managed to escape, and fled to England and freedom. My grandfather’s family were far less fortunate: Jews from Amsterdam, almost all of them were murdered in Sobibor and Auschwitz. One of them was eight years old.
My grandparents’ stories helped make me who I am, so even as a small child, I already knew the power of politics. It is an honour to take my place in Parliament, to serve my constituents and this country—the country that saved my family and saved the free world—but freedom does not come for free: it must be fought for. Every time I come into this Chamber, I see the shields that surround us and think of our country’s sacrifice. Colonel Victor Cazalet, whose shield is on the other side of the Chamber, lived in Cranbrook in my constituency. He had already served with distinction in the first world war, receiving the Military Cross for gallantry in 1917. He was killed in an air crash in world war two, as was Commander Rupert Brabner, whose shield is a few places further down. Commander Brabner was the Member for Hythe, a constituency that borders my own, and an ace Royal Navy pilot awarded the Distinguished Service Cross. We will remember them.
The weald of Kent has played its part in our nation’s sacrifices. Headcorn aerodrome operated in the second world war as RAF Lashenden, at the same time as Benenden school was converted for use as a military hospital, and Coxheath was once the British Army’s largest training ground. The constituency may be new, but the Kentish weald is anything but: Appledore was raided by the Vikings in 893, and the Archbishop of Canterbury had his palace at Charing as far back as the year 900. Enriched by ironmaking in Biddenden and clothmaking in Marden and Staplehurst, today the weald of Kent boasts hundreds of square miles of the most gorgeous countryside, surrounding two delightful towns—Tenterden and Cranbrook—as well as over 100 of Britain’s most charming villages, many 1,000 years old or more. From Aldington to Yalding, every one of the weald of Kent’s 56 civil parishes is a rural jewel. The area is awash with medieval churches, cricket clubs, intricate gardens, and a mosaic of farms growing the nation’s food—and now, vineyards growing the very finest British wine.
Do not take my word for it: the glory of the weald of Kent has been immortalised in films, books and television shows. H.E. Bates was inspired by his home, Little Chart, to write “The Darling Buds of May”, and the TV adaptation was filmed in Pluckley and neighbouring Bethersden. Godmersham Park was the inspiration for Jane Austen’s “Mansfield Park”, while Agatha Christie fans will know Chilham as the backdrop for episodes of “Poirot” and Smarden as a television stand-in for Miss Marple’s home, St Mary Mead. The steam train in the opening shot of “Downton Abbey” is the Kent and East Sussex railway, rolling from Rolvenden to Wittersham Road, and one of my favourite films, “Kind Hearts and Coronets”, shot its countryside scenes in Boughton Monchelsea.
Lastly, I should like to give a few personal thanks. First, I thank hon. Members on the Government Benches, for it was while delivering leaflets for their party that Grandma and Grandpa Lam met in the late 1940s. Had the Mill Hill Labour Club never existed, neither would this Conservative. [Laughter.] Secondly, I thank Alex, my family and my friends for all they have done for me. Thirdly, I thank the best Conservative association in the country. Finally, I thank the people of Weald of Kent who have sent me here to represent them. I will never look at the responsibility of being the Member of Parliament for Weald of Kent as merely a job; I will always treat it as an honour.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
We now have another maiden speech. I call Sarah Smith.
Sarah Smith (Hyndburn) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. As a proud trade union member, I refer to the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, and congratulate the hon. Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam) on her moving maiden speech.
It is with great pride and humility that I rise today for the first time as the elected Member for Hyndburn and Haslingden. I start by paying tribute to my immediate predecessor, Sara Britcliffe, for her commitment to Hyndburn and for leading the way as the first woman to represent the constituency. I cannot make this speech without also paying tribute to the previous Labour Member, Graham Jones, whose selfless support and kindness I am privileged to have received. Graham is the most fierce champion of Lancashire: he has fought tirelessly for the people of Hyndburn, and is a man you always want in your corner. With the north-west of England being scourged with gambling-related suicides, particularly among young men, Graham led the successful campaign to reduce the maximum stake on fixed-odds betting terminals from £100 to just £2. That campaign will undoubtedly have saved and improved many lives.
It may surprise Members when I say that Hyndburn is not a real place. No one really relates to being from Hyndburn; instead, they identify proudly as a resident of Accrington, Great Harwood, Rishton, Altham, Oswaldtwistle, Clayton-le-Moors or Church. Each of those communities has its own rich history, culture and identity. My constituency is the home of the largest Tiffany glass collection in Europe, the Accrington Pals, and the Nori brick, which was used to build the Empire State Building. It is also the home of one of the 12 founder members of the football league, whose legacy is continued by Accrington Stanley football club. I am sure the House will join me in congratulating the boys on their third win on the trot against Barrow at the weekend.
Perhaps most significantly, my constituency was the engine of the industrial revolution during the 19th century. The invention of the spinning jenny, the mechanisation of calico printing, and the creation of turkey red and khaki dyes enabled the globalisation of the textile industry, but the huge wealth that the mill owners made was often at the cost of the workers, whose living and working conditions were terrible. I also represent the magnificent and diverse town of Haslingden, whose coat of arms reads “Nothing without labour”. That motto was a statement of solidarity: in 1826, amid loom-breaking riots in east Lancashire, hundreds of people in Haslingden attacked machinery in protest at pay cuts and their awful working conditions. Many perished due to poverty and hardship, but by 1850 and with the support of churches and reformers, a minimum wage was eventually introduced.
We stand in this Chamber almost 200 years later, and although things have of course improved hugely, too many of my constituents are still struggling to make ends meet with zero-hours contracts, low wages and insecure work. While in the 19th century, workers had to literally fight for basic rights, we now—thanks to trade unions and the Labour party—have representation of working people in this more civil way. That is why I welcome this Bill, which strengthens employees’ rights, stops the exploitative use of zero-hours contracts and, importantly, gives people the right to maternity and paternity pay from day one.
Hyndburn and Haslingden is a magnificent and beautiful constituency that I am proud to call home. It is where my husband James grew up and where we got married, in the beautiful church of St Peter and St Paul’s where his dad, Paul, was the vicar for 18 years. As well as showing dedication to his parish, Paul was instrumental in establishing the sixth-form provision at St Christopher’s school, which has changed the lives of countless young people. Tragically, we lost Paul within days of my election, so he is not here with us today, but I will continue to fight to break down all the barriers to opportunity that our children and young people face.
Without my family, I would not be standing here. I want to put on record how grateful I am to my parents, Rosemary and Gary, to my brother Mark, and to Margaux, James, Ellie and both the Ruths for believing in me and standing by me every step of the way. As a Christian, I also give thanks to Jesus for giving me this opportunity. As I go on this journey, I will remember always the verse in Micah and aim to carry out justice, to love mercy and to walk humbly with God throughout my time here.
I first got involved in politics because I think it is wrong that, far too often, the postcode where people are born determines so many of their life outcomes. For as long as I am privileged to represent Hyndburn and Haslingden, I will work tirelessly to ensure that children born in Clayton have the same life chances as those born in Chelsea, and I will make it my mission to represent them in the corridors of power, but I will also make it my mission to be present, transparent, and accessible as a local champion for the residents of Hyndburn and Haslingden.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
I congratulate the last two speakers on their powerful maiden speeches. Both of them were most moving. As we always discover in this place, there is more that unites us than divides us. What unites me with the hon. Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam) is clearly Jane Austen. I say to the hon. Member for Hyndburn (Sarah Smith) that I lived in east Lancashire for 15 years, and I know the area well. I was sorry to hear about the loss for her family.
I am pleased that many of the measures that we Liberal Democrats have been campaigning for over many years have been included in this Bill. I am most pleased about the reinstatement, in clauses 15 and 16, of the original wording of my Worker Protection (Amendment of Equality Act 2010) Act 2023. Introduced as a private Member’s Bill, my Act amended the Equality Act 2010 to better protect employees from workplace harassment and sexual harassment. In addition to creating a direct preventive duty, it would have created new liabilities for employers in cases of third-party harassment, unless employers took all reasonable steps to prevent it. That would have created protections similar to those that were originally in the Equality Act 2010, but were removed by the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013. Amendments to my Bill in Committee in the Lords removed that clause, so that no such liability was created. The ridiculous argument was made that it would have prevented free speech. It therefore remains the case that employers have no liability for harassment of staff by third parties. My original Bill would also have created a new legal duty for employers to take “all reasonable steps” to prevent sexual harassment of their employees. As a result of amendments made by the Lords, that was reduced to “reasonable steps”.
Since my Bill passed into law, excellent progress has been made. A study by Culture Shift found that 66% of businesses felt that the prevention of sexual harassment is of high importance. However, according to WorkNest, three quarters of employers cited protection from harassment by third parties as a concern. There is clearly an appetite among businesses for including these protections in the Bill. Too many people suffer still from sexual harassment in the workplace. I congratulate the Government on taking further steps to remove that blight on our workplaces.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
As an MP from Cornwall, where we have seasonal workers aplenty, I should say that although the Bill talks about a suggested reference period of 12 weeks, after which average hours will be offered, employees do not have to accept that if they do not want to. They can choose to stay on zero-hours contracts.
We have a large demand for social care in Truro and Falmouth. Our population tends towards an older demographic. As many people leave friends and family to retire to Cornwall, the availability of care is especially important. Assistance for people who have disabilities, so that they can live independent lives and be supported into work if they choose that path, is crucial. Skilled care workers are chronically underpaid for what they do—they are often on the minimum wage—and good people leak out of the system, as it pays more to work in the local supermarket.
I worked as a teaching assistant at a local secondary school—I declare my interest in the register as a Unison member—and I was also an equity partner in a trade union law firm, so I have some experience of employing people, too. The pay for working in a school in a supporting role can also be very low—sometimes minimum wage. What the care and school sectors have in common, apart from poor rates of pay, is that, as others have said, they involve highly skilled jobs that are incredibly important for our society, and those who work in them are far more likely to be women. The Bill has many provisions that will help with sick pay and parental leave, and will give protection from unfair dismissal from day one. It also improves family-friendly rights, provides for flexible working, and has measures to tackle zero-hours and minimum-hours contracts. However, it also specifically gives respect and recognition to social care workers and school support staff through a fair pay agreement for adult social care, and by reinstating the school support staff negotiating body. This will be a game changer for those low-paid workers, mostly women, who work in care and in schools. It will mean that pay, terms and conditions for care workers and school support staff are negotiated nationally, and that a minimum is set across the country.
I am so pleased that the Government have chosen those two sectors as the first to have the opportunity for fair pay agreements. Women with caring responsibilities are often limited in the hours they can work. Historically, that has meant that, however skilled and important their jobs are, they have not been properly rewarded or looked after. Changing that will be transformational.
Truro and Falmouth has Cornwall’s only acute hospital and the seat of Cornwall unitary council within its boundaries. That means that we have a large number of people who work in the public sector. Many of those jobs have been contracted out, and the terms and conditions for those roles have been gradually eroded. This Bill enables Ministers to create a code to prevent the emergence of a two-tier workforce when outsourcing occurs. A new national procurement statement will make sure that the Government use their contracts to raise employment standards, not dilute them. This employment Bill is a huge step forward, and I am proud of it.
Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow several excellent maiden speeches this afternoon.
For an economy to thrive, both employers and employees must feel protected. Protections enable both parties to draw comfort. However, this Bill does not uphold that principle. In its approach and in its drafting, this Bill has fallen off its axis. It has, without doubt, landed in a place where it overwhelmingly favours the employee, to the detriment of any working balance with the employer. This should come as no great surprise. After all, given the paucity of private sector experience in the Cabinet, it was almost inevitable that this Bill would be seen through the prism of trade union bias. Having studied the Bill, one cannot fail to conclude that the Ministers who commissioned it have no understanding of the struggles faced by small and medium-sized businesses up and down the country.
While there is much to be derided in the Bill, there are two points I wish to raise for Ministers’ consideration. First, the abolition of the qualifying period for bringing an unfair dismissal claim will inevitably mean a rise in the number of claims presented to the employment tribunal. This will flood an already overwhelmed system. I ask the Minister: what true impact assessment has been made of that?
Under this Bill, bringing a claim for unfair dismissal becomes, to all intents and purposes, a day one right. There is a lack of clarity about the length of any probation period and the obligations on an employer when seeking to dismiss in that period. Inevitably, these obligations will increase the burden on SMEs, which will not have the depth of resources of their larger counterparts. The predictable consequence is that small businesses are likely to sink under the weight and cost of these additional requirements.
My second point relates to the proposed changes in respect of industrial action and trade union relations. By repealing the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023, lowering the ballot threshold for union action and requiring employers to direct their staff towards unions, the Government have demonstrated their willingness to bow down to their union paymasters, to the detriment of hard-working businesses and industry. The public will see this for what it is: a cheap effort to curry favour with the unions while lining the pocket of the Labour party.
It is clear from my conversations with small business owners in Solihull West and Shirley that the Government’s proposals will only hinder growth and productivity. These measures fail to strike the balance between employer and employee. They will choke our courts, cripple small businesses and stifle employment growth.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Ind)
I remind the hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley (Dr Shastri-Hurst) that across those European countries with the highest union density, people have the best wages and working conditions and the greatest productivity, which somewhat undermines his last argument. I refer you to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, Madam Deputy Speaker.
We are calling this the Employment Rights Bill, but it is not about rights as such; it is about power. When trade unions first discovered the concept of solidarity in the early industrial revolution, they discovered that, through unity, they could exert power to influence, to improve working conditions and wages, and to secure a better overall quality of life. Since 1979—I started work a few years before then—successive Conservative Governments have understood the distribution of power, and as a result they have used legislation to undermine trade union rights, so as to reduce the power of workers to defend themselves at work and improve their working conditions. All that the Bill does—I welcome it wholeheartedly—is take a small step to rebalance that power. It will not just improve wages and working conditions, but lead to a better economic situation for all concerned—employers and employees—full stop. That is what it is about.
Andy McDonald
Would my right hon. Friend agree with me that the steps outlined in this Bill will help to address insecure work, and will allow people to enjoy decent, secure wages and dignified work, as well as to plan for their future and that of their family?
John McDonnell
Yes, and as a result, people will work better, increase their productivity and improve the profitability of companies, which is beneficial to us all. It is as simple as that. However—there is a “but”—there are a few points on which I would press the Government to go a bit further. The first is sectoral collective bargaining and fair pay agreements. In the early 1970s, 86% of our workforce was covered by collective agreements, but that is now down to 20%. Where collective agreements have operated, they improve productivity, wages and conditions, and increase industrial harmony in the economy. We as a Government are starting off by introducing them for adult social care, which I thoroughly welcome, because there is such low pay and exploitation in the sector. However, I would like to see an enabling clause in the Bill, so that we can move on swiftly to other sectors in which we can get agreement across the trade union movement and engage with employers.
The second point is on single worker status, to which my hon. Friend alluded. Consultation is taking place on that, and it is absolutely critical, because we have seen some of the most exploitative practices in parts of the economy where workers have been forced into bogus self-employed status.
The third point is on insourcing. The Government have promised the biggest reform of insourcing in a generation. There is no mention in the Bill of insourcing, but there is mention of reform to procurement, and it is important that through our reforms to procurement, we bring forward insourcing as rapidly as possible. Outsourcing has produced an insecure, low-paid form of employment that is already resulting in industrial strife. Over the next couple of weeks, we could see strikes in virtually every Government Department because of what is happening on outsourcing.
On fire and rehire, the question is what a company has to do to prove that there is financial stress because of the economy. I also have two final points. One is on the seafarers’ charter; it has been mentioned that the second stage of discussions are taking place. That charter is critical if we are to provide basic protections for seafarers. Finally, prison officers have been denied the right to strike since 1994, and even Tony Blair said that he would restore that. I want to see that in this Bill, and I shall table an amendment accordingly.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
I congratulate those who have given their maiden speeches today and spoken with such passion for and about their communities.
There is much in the Bill that I support, and I support the sentiment behind it. I am sure there is common ground in wanting to improve conditions and rights for workers, but there is a balance to be struck, and I have grave concerns about some provisions in the Bill—those that increase burden and red tape on employers and on employees, and those that are a threat to and a drag on economic productivity.
My first concern is the unnecessary introduction of a new concept of statutory probation. As the law currently stands, workers get protections against things like unfair dismissal. Those long-standing principles have survived different Governments, and indeed survive in this Bill. The debate has been about when those rights are accrued—whether it is after two years of employment or one—and there has been a fluctuation. This Bill attempts to introduce those rights from day one, but then to row back on them by introducing a statutory probation period, during which, in the Deputy Prime Minister’s own words, there is only a “light touch” approach to unfair dismissal. It creates a new concept that is vague and unclear, and it will increase the glut of litigation in the employment tribunal. Indeed, it will need to do so to create case law so that employees and employers can understand what a “light touch” approach to unfair dismissal means.
My second concern is the increased burden on smaller employers. Indeed, that is contained in the Government’s own analysis, and much has been said about that, so I will turn to my third issue: specific burdens in specific sectors, such as social care. The Government’s own analysis says that the Bill will increase costs for employers, but employers in social care cannot bear any more cost. The Government have said they will bring forward reform of social care; that must come first, before this law is brought into force.
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the crux of the issue is that the Bill is lacking in detail? The issues he is discussing have been identified and indeed referenced in the Government’s own economic analysis, and we cannot get into the detail of this debate without having that level of information on the face of the Bill.
Joe Robertson
I agree that the Bill lacks detail. It also contains a lot of powers that are intended to come about through secondary legislation. For example, we do not know how long that probation period will be, because it is not set out in the legislation.
Turning to the NHS, we understand that the Chancellor will increase the money to the NHS in the Budget but, as an employer, the NHS will have increased costs through this Bill. If national insurance contributions on employers are to be raised in the Budget, it will have that cost as well. That means there will be less money available to cut waiting lists. I urge the Government to delay this Bill, get the detail right and put some detail into it, and ensure that sectors such as health and social care get the support first so that, as employers, they can deal with the increased costs from this legislation.
Becky Gittins (Clwyd East) (Lab)
Madam Deputy Speaker, I refer you to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, where you will see that I have worked for a trade union that is not affiliated to the Labour party and that did not donate to my campaign. You will also see a number of other trade unions listed, not because of any campaign donations or vested interests —I can see why Opposition Members were led there; that is far more familiar to them—but because of the fantastic trade union representatives who have supported me and, I am sure, many Members on the Labour Benches. For me, that was Jim, my Unite rep in my very first job when training as a finance management trainee, all the way through to Laura, Trudy and Claire, the GMB reps who looked after me and supported me in my job before I was elected to this place.
I rise in support of the Bill, which is a central tenet of the Government’s policy to put working people at the heart of our economy and make work pay. As I said, I am a proud trade unionist, and I am proud to stand alongside millions of working people across the country who we depend on to drive our economy and provide the services we all need. I wish to call out some claims that I have heard from Opposition Members throughout this debate—and before; they are quite tired claims—that supporting the advancement of people’s rights at work is in some ways a vested interest. When were the working people of this country ever just a vested interest? It is in the interests of the working people of this country that we should be governing.
As a former trade union industrial officer, I know that finding a way forward in collaboration with those on both the employee and employer side is not always the easiest thing to do, but it is always the right and most productive way forward, so I am pleased that within their first 100 days, as promised, this Labour Government have presented this excellent Bill, and in doing so have ripped up many of the provisions in the Trade Union Act 2016. Rather than ameliorate industrial relations, that legislation was symptomatic of an aimlessly combative approach in that area that the previous Government drove forward. The effect, as we sadly know, was some of the worst disruption in decades. The public responded in July; they had had enough of that toxic and self-defeating approach.
I am delighted that measures in the Bill will modernise employment laws, with much of the Trade Union Act 2016 dismantled and, quite rightly, thrown in the bin. This upgrade for workers’ rights establishes day one rights for parental and bereavement leave for millions of workers, and statutory sick pay will be strengthened. The Bill is part of the platform for that approach. I welcome its content and the commitment to work with all stakeholders to ensure that it is implemented in such a way that benefits all my hard-working constituents of Clwyd East.
Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)
The SNP broadly welcomes the core elements of the Bill, having long called for many of these changes. We have been clear in our opposition to zero-hours contracts, fire and rehire, and other forms of precarious employment that strip workers of job security. Indeed, former MP Gavin Newlands tried twice to introduce such measures with a private Member’s Bill. We have supported the removal of the lower earnings limit for statutory sick pay and the end of the waiting period, allowing those who are ill to access support from day one. Provisions for unpaid parental leave, paternity leave, and the right to claim unfair dismissal from day one are progressive steps towards workers’ rights that we must endorse. Similarly, scrapping anti-trade union laws such as the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023, is an important step in restoring the ability of unions to properly represent workers.
Johanna Baxter
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if he is supportive of workers’ rights, those Unison members who are currently on strike in Perth and Kinross have a valid claim to a decent pay rise from his Government?
Chris Law
I think the question that the hon. Member refers to is with the Scottish Government, and of course we listen to trade unions in all cases. Indeed, a fair pay settlement was agreed with all unions, until we heard about this one recently. Our former colleague, Chris Stephens, fought tirelessly for trade unions, and spoke passionately in this House about rights for workers.
However, Labour has not gone far enough or acted swiftly enough with this Bill. Gaps remain in its plans, with around half the promised reforms being kicked into the long grass through consultation, meaning that we will not see changes implemented until next year, the year after, or perhaps even 2027. Critical elements—such as the commitment to a single status of worker, the right to switch off, and addressing pay discrimination through mandatory reporting of ethnicity and disability pay gaps—are missing entirely. The Bill was meant to be a defining piece of Labour’s first 100 days in office, but what good is meeting that deadline if the meaningful reforms are missing or will not come into effect for years? This Government are looking overly cautious and hesitant, and in the past weeks people have been writing to me, asking whether that is because the Government want to delay and find a convenient way out of implementing the measures.
The SNP Government in Scotland have taken meaningful steps to promote fair work practices, such as supporting collective bargaining, achieving real living wage employer status, and closing the gender pay gap faster than the rest of the UK, which contrasts sharply with the environment created by the previous UK Government. Devolving employment law to the Scottish Parliament would ensure that no worker in Scotland is disadvantaged by Westminster Governments. Indeed, Scottish Labour’s 2021 manifesto supported devolving employment rights—that might surprise some MPs present today. I look forward to their support to ensure that employment law is devolved to Scotland during this Parliament, so that workers in Scotland never again have to see their employment rights eroded by any future Tory-led Government.
The Scottish Trades Union Congress general secretary, Roz Foyer, commented that
“the Employment Rights Bill isn’t the terminus. It’s the first stop. This can be the foundations on which we can build.”
I agree. It is imperative that workers’ rights are improved by the Bill, but it must go further and faster, and look to devolve those powers so that we can guarantee that the rights of working people in Scotland are protected and strengthened.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call Dr Marie Tidball to make her maiden speech.
Dr Marie Tidball (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am a proud member of the GMB, Unison, and Community trade unions.
When I was born, the room in Barnsley hospital was filled with flowers. No one knew how long I would live for or what operations I might need. Our communities in Penistone and Stocksbridge nurtured me growing up, and world-class NHS care at Barnsley and Sheffield children’s hospitals enabled me to walk and follow my ambitions. My local state education in Penistone helped me to catch up, and to go on to study law at university and fulfil my potential. My inimitable parents taught me that there was no such word as “can’t”, as well as the values of fairness, equality and justice—values at the heart of this Bill. I will use my skills and experiences, as the MP for our constituency, to give back to the communities that gave me so much, including incredible teachers and teaching assistants who helped to make education a way to overcome people’s assumptions about my disability, and to feel free. Achieving health and education equality is a huge asset to our country and critical to the health of our economy.
I am proud to be the first Member of Parliament for Penistone and Stocksbridge in over 100 years to have grown up there. Our rich agricultural heritage has put food on the country’s table, and the grit and determination of local miners, the steelworks in Stocksbridge and ironworks in Thorncliffe powered the industrial revolution, with the latter also producing Churchill tanks, which defended our country in world war two. Those sites remain economically important today, with the specialist LIBERTY Steel now producing steel that powers our UK aerospace industry.
The landscape of our very special constituency has helped to shape our laws before. Poignantly, the day of the general election marked 186 years since the Huskar pit disaster on 4 July 1838, when flooding caused the pit to collapse, killing 26 children. That tragedy led to the Mines and Collieries Act 1842, which banned women and girls, and boys under 10, from being employed in underground work. I learned about that tragedy at school and I knew then, as I know now, that law and politics have the power to improve people’s lives. The past we inherit; the future we build. This Bill makes the biggest upgrade to workers’ rights in a generation, with the driving purpose to change the lives of people across our country and make them better off. Ensuring that the very special people of the place that made me continue to innovate to change the world will be central to the work I do here.
Like the blooming heather that sweeps down the moors past the crystal waters of our rivers and reservoirs, towards our towns and villages, talent bursts forth in our constituency out of the dramatic landscape, gruelling weather, and lives hard-worked and hard-won. People in my constituency literally shoot for the stars: Grenoside’s Helen Sharman was the first British citizen to go into space in 1991; Thurlstone-born Nicholas Saunderson was a blind 17th-century Lucasian professor of mathematics at Cambridge university; and England international footballer, John Stones, also hails from that village, and follows a long and proud history of footballers who have gone through Penistone Church FC.
This summer also saw Olympians made in our constituency. Gunthwaite’s Becky Moody won bronze in dressage with her horse Jagerbomb. Caden Cunningham, who won silver, was trained in Oxspring at Quest Taekwondo. Musicians abound, too. Alex Turner of the Arctic Monkeys makes sure that High Green is resolutely on the map. We can also boast stellar folk singers like the talented Rachael McShane of Bellowhead and Cawthorne’s award-winning Kate Rusby, whose elegiac music of home has healed many a heart and inspired the mind. Ecclesfield produced Barry Hines, the author of “A Kestrel for a Knave”, which was turned into the acclaimed film “Kes”. He documented working-class lives for more than 40 years. Local author Matt Coyne’s “Frank and Red” was the literary comedic mug of hot chocolate that kept me going through the general election.
While our beliefs start from a different place, I share my predecessor Miriam Cates’s passion for education; I hope her new role gives her the chance for leadership on changing the safety of social media for young people. Angela Smith’s legacy as a good constituency MP is something that I aspire to. Helen Jackson’s work on community building in Northern Ireland, as Parliamentary Private Secretary to Mo Mowlam, provides lessons of hope that resonate in the times of hate that we must combat today. I am also grateful for Mick Clapham’s support; I know we will see his legacy on the mineworkers’ pension scheme continue under this Government.
Love, tolerance and doing things for other people are values knitted across the place I call home like the blankets woven from the yarn of Penistone sheep. To the people across Penistone and Stocksbridge: it is the privilege of my life to serve you. As your MP, I will work hard every day to be a strong voice for our communities and ensure that people growing up and growing old in our constituency can fulfil their potential. I will do what it takes to get things right and to get things done. We are a Government who will restore hope across our communities and bring people together. I cannot wait to work with Members across this House to make that change happen.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
I thank hon. Members for making their maiden speeches. As I have said before, I am a geographer, so it is a real pleasure to hear about our great United Kingdom and the different constituencies that we all represent.
Entrepreneurs in the towns and villages I represent across Broxbourne are working hard to take risks day in, day out to get our local economy growing and to create jobs, but I fear that the Bill could put all that at risk. Security in work should be available to everyone, but above all else it is getting the job in the first place that is the first vital step. Regrettably, the Government’s plan will only make it harder for businesses to hire new employees. Small business owners in my constituency cannot call on large human resources departments to make sense of these new rules. Increasing the number of day one rights will see them hesitant in making hiring decisions. As the Federation of Small Businesses has said, plans to give unfair dismissal rights from day one
“will inevitably deter small employers from taking on new people”
by raising the chance that new recruits will take their employer to a tribunal simply because they turn out to be unsuited to the role.
The principle of qualifying periods for workplace rights is sensible and fair. The Government must recognise that, because they have chosen not to include in the Bill a reform of the qualifying period of two years for statutory redundancy pay. A balance must be struck to avoid the burden falling too heavily on either the employer or the employee—especially for small business employees, who need the security and confidence that the qualifying period provides. It is clear that the Government’s plans do not strike that balance.
One thing I agree with the Government about is that we must get our economy growing faster, but this Bill, on which the Government have not consulted, is not the right way to achieve that. In this place, we should talk more about how to encourage firms to create growth.
Joe Robertson
My hon. Friend talks about growth. Does he agree that growth for small businesses is good for workers and that what is good for small business is therefore good for workers? Small business needs better protection in this legislation.
Lewis Cocking
I absolutely agree. If we do not create the next generation of entrepreneurs in this country through the education system, which the Government should be focusing on, rather than placing burdens on them—we have yet to hear the Government’s new Budget, which could increase taxes and put more burdens on small businesses—there will be fewer jobs in the market and fewer jobs for the people we are trying to represent and protect in this place.
It is Opposition Members who are standing up for small businesses. Small businesses are the backbone of my local economy in Broxbourne and the country at large. If we do not ensure a fair balance between workers and small businesses, small businesses will close and people will lose their jobs. I do not think the Government want that, so will they please reflect on the Bill, have a proper consultation and come back with something more suitable for small and medium-sized businesses across the country?
Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Ind)
I rise to speak as a proud trade unionist. I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
Too many people are in jobs that offer little or no security. My constituency casework has highlighted the reality of insecure work in the UK and has exposed the inadequacy of the law around worker protections. The rise of in-work poverty, workplace precarity, zero-hours contracts, bogus self-employment and contracting out puts workers at risk. We know that women and black, Asian and minority ethnic workers continue to face the disproportionate burden of working in insecure jobs with fewer rights and ongoing pay gaps.
After years of attacks on workers’ rights and hostility towards trade unions, it is a pleasure to welcome the Employment Rights Bill, which is without doubt a significant step forward for workers. I am particularly pleased to see the ballot thresholds from the Trade Union Act 2016 done away with, and to see the repeal of the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023, which trade unions have criticised as being undemocratic, unworkable and illegal.
I have long been concerned that current laws are already restricting the rights of workers to join and participate in trade unions and may breach international labour standards. Many of us would have liked to see the Bill completely ending fire and rehire and zero-hours contracts once and for all. I also understand that some unions are concerned about the rules allowing workers to have access to trade unions. They argue that the single best way to ensure that work pays more fairly is by expanding collective bargaining. I remain committed to strengthening trade union rights across the board.
I listened carefully to the Deputy Prime Minister, who rightly raised the plight of carers and parents in relation to employment rights. I would also like to raise the plight of survivors of domestic abuse and violence. The statutory guidance on the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 reminds us how pivotal the role and actions of an employer can be in the life of a survivor, who might only speak to managers and colleagues outside the home, as I know only too well as a survivor of ongoing abuse and harassment and having spoken to countless survivors. Employers should have a duty of care towards employees who are experiencing domestic abuse. I believe that the Bill could be further strengthened by bringing into scope the experiences of survivors of domestic abuse in the workplace. We should look at provisions such as flexible working and paid leave in that regard.
A thriving and just economy cannot be created without the full involvement and empowerment of the workforce. The Bill is an opportunity to lay the groundwork for a future in which workers can defend their pay, dignity and working conditions.
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
We have heard some electrifying and remarkable maiden speeches today. I rise to speak as a former member of a trade union. I do not miss the subs going out of my pay packet; it did little for me. This is no mere Bill, but a time machine that could take the whole country back decades. The unions are gonna party like it’s 1979. For your benefit, Madam Deputy Speaker—you were not there—1979 was the winter of discontent when the unions bit back, the rubbish piled high in the streets and a Labour PM was soon out with the bins.
With this hastily assembled Employment Rights Bill, Labour is feeding the union alligator that may yet eat it, too. That is because the Bill lacks balance, assuming that all employers are robber barons intent on exploiting workers. The Prime Minister has talked of growing the economy and cutting red tape, yet now we see the reality: proposals that will frighten firms away from taking on new staff and burden them with still more rules and regulations.
My constituent Rory, a forward-thinking dairy farmer, has written to me about Labour’s pledge
“to make Britain the best place to start and grow a business.”
Like me, he sees fine sentiments, but the Bill risks the opposite effect. There is even an expensive new layer of bureaucracy: the fair work agency, whose costs will be borne by business and passed on to the public. The people’s tape is deepest red.
The Bill makes it easier for militant unions to infiltrate workplaces, and it strips out sensible curbs on their power. Strikes will hit the public harder without Conservative safeguards such as those that guarantee minimum service levels. An impact assessment of the Trade Union Act 2016 indicated that it would cut strikes by about 35%.
John Cooper
No, I have waited 40 years for this. Much of the 2016 Act will be tossed into picket line braziers, and as ever it is the public who will suffer. The plan to make union funding of Labour opt-out, not opt-in, is another back-to-the-future move. It is naked opportunism from the Labour party.
The Bill will be hardest on small and medium-sized businesses, the backbone of the economy. We must not forget that they are run by people who are themselves workers and strivers. Napoleon disparagingly called us a nation of shopkeepers. With legislation as skewed as this, Labour risks shutting the shops and turning us into a nation of strikers and their union rep handmaidens. This skimpy Bill is so heavily skewed that it resembles the blade in Edgar Allan Poe’s “The Pit and the Pendulum”, leaving employers strapped in red tape between the ever-present pit of insolvency and the slice, slice, slice of costly, pro-union, anti-growth legislation.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call Lorraine Beavers to make her maiden speech.
Lorraine Beavers (Blackpool North and Fleetwood) (Lab)
I congratulate all Members who have made their maiden speech today. I am a proud member of Unite the Union and the Communication Workers Union.
I would first like to pay tribute to my predecessor Paul Maynard. Paul worked incredibly hard for his constituents and was rightly proud to be the first person with cerebral palsy to become a Government Minister. I want to say thank you to Joan Humble, the first Labour MP to serve in my constituency, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Cat Smith) for all her hard work and commitment to the people of Fleetwood. I also want to pay tribute to my mum and dad, the wonderful Ronnie and Brenda Shewan, who both sadly passed away this year. My dad saw me get selected, and my mum saw me get elected. Oh, how I miss them!
As a lifelong trade unionist and socialist, I am incredibly proud to be making my maiden speech on the Employment Rights Bill, which will be transformative for the working people I represent. The 16-year-old me began her journey in the labour movement at Larkholme high school in Fleetwood. In assembly one day, the headmaster asked if anyone’s dad was a lorry driver, and a girl called Susan raised her hand. He asked whether her dad had gone to work that day. When she said no, the head informed the school that the reason they did not get their cornflakes that morning was that Susan’s dad was refusing to go to work. I was incensed. I organised a demonstration outside the school gates that very lunchtime. The head was furious and demanded that we come back in, but we stood united and refused. Eventually we negotiated a deal, agreeing that the head would make a full apology at the next school assembly.
I understand that the Bill might not allow for picket lines inside schools, but without doubt it is the biggest upgrade to workers’ rights that we have seen for a generation. The fair pay agreement outlined in it will be transformative for the working people of my constituency, especially in social care, where low pay and poor conditions have led to a recruitment and retention crisis. With an end to fire and rehire, a clampdown on zero-hours contracts and more rights for unions to represent working people, the Bill will not just improve the lives of my constituents, but empower them.
It is an honour and a privilege to be the voice of the residents of Blackpool North and Fleetwood. I am the 15-year-old girl who brought the school out on strike. I am the Army wife. I am the mum who could not afford to buy new shoes for her girls. I am the mum who cycled an extra mile to save 50p because funds were low. I understand what it is like to be poor and struggle between paydays. Sadly, I know that some of my constituents are going through far worse poverty than I could ever imagine. I see the cost of living crisis, the massive rises in rent, food and clothing and the mortgages that young people can only dream of affording, and I want to make it better.
My constituency has the most beautiful coastline, nature reserves and communities. We speak to each other, we care for each other, we smile at each other and we look after each other. That is why so many people move to the Fylde coast. It is where I live with my husband John and where we brought up our two beautiful daughters, who have blessed us with four wonderful grandchildren. I would not live anywhere else but on the beautiful Fylde coast. It is where I am from, where I was born and where I have loved, laughed, worked, cried and grieved. It is my home and my safe space.
My constituency includes the towns, villages and hamlets of Fleetwood, Thornton, Cleveleys, Stanah, Anchorsholme, Carleton, Norcross, Norbreck, Bispham, Little Bispham and northern Blackpool. Carleton is listed in the 1086 Domesday book. Bispham is several hundred years older than Blackpool, and Fleetwood is the newest kid on the block, with the first bricks not being laid till 1836. I will serve every corner of my constituency and fight for a better future for all. I am here to fight for investment into my community, to fight for my constituents and to make sure that the funding my constituency so desperately needs is brought back home. That is the job my constituents sent me to do, and I intend to do it.
I am proud to have been elected alongside a Government who will deliver dentists for all, save our NHS and invest in our young and old alike; a Government who will invest in our communities, our armed forces, our police, our firefighters and more; a Government who care and leave no one behind; and a Government who make those with the broadest shoulders carry the heaviest load. This is my Government, this is my party, and we will deliver.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Fleetwood (Lorraine Beavers) on a powerful maiden speech. I broadly welcome the Bill before us—after all, it is clearing up the mess left by the previous Tory Government. However, I am concerned that the Government are not going far enough in certain areas, particularly on statutory sick pay. Presenteeism may mean that people are turning up to work when they should not be, both for their health and for productivity. It is important to enhance statutory sick pay, and I hope that Ministers will give it serious consideration.
As somebody who was adopted, I am delighted that the Bill talks about adoption, but I am shocked that the Government have not explored how they could support fostering. It is part of the rich tapestry of our families and our society in the United Kingdom, and it also helps our children’s services. Why are the Government choosing to be wilfully blind to foster carers in the Bill? It is shameful.
I would also like to reflect on Disability Confident employers. Disability Confident is a really important scheme. We know—I hear it on the news—that the Government are talking about trying to get people with health conditions out of benefits and into work. We applaud that, but why is the Bill silent on Disability Confident employers? This is a real opportunity to do things in a positive way, rather than blaming people with disabilities. I hope the Government will see common sense on that.
Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)
I refer the House to my declaration of interests.
The Employment Rights Bill is most welcome. It has been described by some on the Conservative Benches as a horror show. It is definitely not a horror show. It is described as a trade union Bill. I remind Opposition Members that it was the Conservative Government who introduced the Trade Union Act 2016, among many other anti-trade union pieces of legislation. One of the best things in this Bill is the repeal of much of what was in the 2016 anti-trade union legislation. This is the first time in my time as a Member of Parliament that there has been any repeal of anti-trade union legislation. I have to say that, like many other trade unionists and many other people in the workplace, I welcome that fact. Labour recognises that the relentless attacks on the trade union movement—the battering of ordinary working people from pillar to post—cannot and should not continue.
Andy McDonald
Does my hon. Friend agree that the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023 was a deliberate attempt to undermine people in the workplace? It was completely ignorant of the fact that the unions provide minimum service levels throughout some of the most difficult circumstances. Does that not tell us a lot about the previous Conservative Government?
Ian Lavery
Thanks for that intervention. Of course it says a lot about the previous Conservative Government. We on the Labour Benches should always remember and never forget what the Conservatives do whenever they are cornered or in difficulty: they revert to type and attack the trade union movement. That is what they do and have always done. You have seen some of the contributions here this evening. [Interruption.] Do you want to intervene? [Interruption.] Oh, so are you just going to continue to chunter? And when I give the opportunity of saying something responsible—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. The hon. Gentleman can sit. He has been here long enough to know that when he says “you”, he is referring to me. I sometimes let it pass when it is new Members who are not quite used to it, but he should know better.
Ian Lavery
My apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker. Yes, you are right, I should. I was being chuntered at by a Member on the Opposition Front Bench. My deepest apologies.
As I say, we must remember that the Conservatives revert to type.
Suella Braverman (Fareham and Waterlooville) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman is doing a very impressive impersonation of Arthur Scargill. The reality is that the Conservative Government left office with 4 million more people in work compared with the Labour inheritance, a growing economy and a smashed deficit. That is something we are proud of on this side of the House.
Ian Lavery
Thanks for the compliment.
I was saying that the Bill simply restores the balance. It seeks to reverse the injustice meted out to the trade unions and working people, and to rebuild the workplace that was ideologically destroyed by the Conservative Government. These are the first steps and they are so, so welcome. I have fought for them all my life. They are the first steps in a long journey, but look at what we have done within the first 100 days. I have only mentioned a few.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald) says, we are repealing the minimum service levels laws and most of the Trade Union Act 2016, and ensuring that individuals have employment rights from day one, including sickness pay, although there is an argument that sickness pay is far too low. We are looking at bereavement payments and so on from day one. We are looking to address the scourge of zero-hours contracts. We are looking to address the scourge of fire and rehire. We are looking to introduce flexible working and entitlements to paternity and parental leave. We do this because it is the right thing.
I could spend hours outlining what I think is right in the Bill and perhaps some things we need to focus on in the coming weeks, but I will not do that. The reality is that this is a historic Bill that sets a framework for fairness for generations to come. Remember, the louder the screams from the Conservative party—the screaming, shouting and chuntering—the more we on the Labour Benches know that we are winning the argument. We know we are doing the right thing, so however loud you shout, we welcome it.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
I congratulate those hon. Members who delivered their passionate and authentic maiden speeches today.
I am proud, like so many Members, to represent a constituency that is home to so many small and medium-sized businesses, which comprise the backbone of our local economy. I am deeply concerned that the reforms in the Bill will hurt both businesses and employees, as well as damage the economic growth that the Government claim to be striving for. The previous Government introduced and raised the national living wage, ending low pay and ensuring that work always pays more than benefits. They banned exclusivity clauses in zero-hours contracts, banning businesses from stopping workers on a zero-hours contract having another job, and delivered 800 jobs a day from 2010. The Conservative Government also introduced shared parental leave, giving more choice to families. We introduced new regulations on shared parental leave to give families more choice over how they take parental leave following the birth of a child.
Changes to business regulation need to strike a careful balance, but Labour’s Bill gets it wrong and will instead make it harder for businesses, damaging job creation and economic growth in the process. The Labour party has introduced a Bill at pace that does not strike the correct balance. As a result, our economy will be less competitive and growth will be hindered. Those warnings come not just from the Conservative Benches, but from across industry. The Scottish Chambers of Commerce highlighted how
“The proposed new rights to a tribunal access from day one will inevitably lead to more settlement agreements to avoid a lengthy and costly tribunal process, placing more burdens on businesses.”
The changes to employment law risk “fuelling long, complex litigation”, according the Recruitment and Employment Confederation.
There are a few parts of the new Bill to which I would like to draw attention. The likelihood of drawn-out dismissal processes has already been referred to. There is the question of how poor performance will be proved. There is the unnecessary right that will be given to trade unions to gain access to workplaces. On zero-hours contracts, many employers and employees do not want guaranteed hours and a minimum threshold. On flexible working, there is the material change proposal, a reasonableness test that will make—
Suella Braverman
My hon. Friend is making a very good speech highlighting the fatal flaws in the Bill. Does he agree that the Government’s own impact assessment on the economic implications show that it will be a disaster for small businesses, not just in Bromsgrove but in Fareham and Waterlooville? The costs that will be borne by businesses will cripple investment, strangle job creation and further stagnate growth.
Bradley Thomas
I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for her intervention and agree wholeheartedly with her points. The Bill will inhibit economic growth and ultimately bear down very heavily on those the Government claim they are trying to protect.
The reforms will prevent businesses from hiring new people and expanding. The Institute of Directors has warned that 57% of businesses are less likely to hire due to measures in the Bill. There are concerns that the Government have not carried out a consultation on collective redundancy, and have failed to outline why they view those proposals as beneficial. Make UK, an important industry body, has warned that the regulations will “significantly increase” red tape for businesses that are forced to make redundancies, and UKHospitality, which represents thousands of businesses on which many of our constituencies rely for their economic vitality, has said that for 90% of workers on zero-hours contracts, those are the desired contracts for them.
What we see here is a generational shift in employment law that will ramp up grievances and disputes and entrench unproductivity. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Fareham and Waterlooville (Suella Braverman), pointed out, it will make it easier to strike and send us back to the 1970s, supporting militant unions. It will increase the number of strike hours in public service, and, as Unite the Union has pointed out, it is like Swiss cheese: full of holes. I hope that, as the Bill progresses through Parliament, the Government will listen to both the Opposition and industry in order to limit the damage it will cause businesses and working people.
Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)
I congratulate the Deputy Prime Minister on introducing this groundbreaking Bill within the Government’s first 100 days. It is a careful product of many years of work and thought. I proudly declare the interests set out in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, including my position as chair of the Society of Labour Lawyers, which has considered and campaigned on these issues for years. The many measures in the Bill create the conditions for jobs around which people can build lives and families, and will prevent legitimate businesses from being undercut by those who avoid their responsibilities. I welcome the provisions to tackle exploitative hiring and employment practices, which will benefit workers and businesses.
I will confine my remarks to enforcement and the fair work agency, because a right is not worth the paper it is written on unless it can be enforced. I was a barrister for 17 years, and for part of my career I had the honour of representing working people. I saw at first hand the race to the bottom on employment that took place under the last Government. Our country is unusual in having no labour rights commissioner, or central or local regulator. Many of the rights that successive Labour Governments have established, and for which the wider Labour movement campaigned, are instead delegated to individuals required to act themselves through the employment tribunal system.
As the Low Pay Commission has found, low-paid and exploited workers can be reluctant to speak out about abuses of their rights. Regulation of the labour market in the UK is fragmented and under-resourced, with an estimated one inspector per 10,000 workers. The creation of a fair work agency will help to enable enforcement of the national minimum wage, statutory sick pay, and a wider range of rights such as holiday pay, so that everyone plays by the same rules. It will help to protect businesses that are undercut by acting as a real deterrent. The current system clearly does not do that: last year 1.1 million employees did not receive any of the paid holiday to which they were entitled, and one in five of those on the minimum wage do not receive the correct pay. It is to the Government’s credit that the fair work agency will help the most vulnerable workers, including those who are victims of human trafficking. I hope that, as the Bill progresses, we will be able to consider whether the agency will also be able to help with safety and other workplace rights.
We have seen Conservative Governments provoke conflict and disruption in industrial relations, but growth and prosperity are only served by better co-operation and work practices, and that is what the Bill will deliver.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
I rise not to speak about the Bill as a whole, but to focus on the provisions that will have an impact on unpaid carers. I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a trustee of the Links Trust. I am to become a member of the board of the Fife Carers Centre, which supports unpaid carers across Fife including my constituency, and that will shortly be published in the register. It should therefore be no surprise to the Government that the first issue that I want to raise is their failure to include paid carer’s leave in the Bill, or even to commit themselves to it in their “Next Steps to Make Work Pay” document. I think that that is a mistake, and also a U-turn from their previous position. I remember that during a debate on my private Member’s Bill that became the Carer’s Leave Act 2023—I double-checked this in Hansard—the hon. Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain), who was then shadow Minister for employment rights and who is no longer in the Chamber, said:
“We of course support the Bill, but it falls short of what unpaid carers really need, which is paid carer’s leave. Under the proposals set out in our new deal for working people, the next Labour Government will legislate to introduce just that”.—[Official Report, 21 October 2022; Vol. 720, c. 1004.]
Indeed, he committed himself to doing that at all subsequent stages.
I acknowledge that the “Next Steps” document does make some promises in relation to carer’s leave—both to review the operation of the 2023 Act that I was proud to pass, and to look at the benefits of making that leave paid—but that is it. I looked with excitement at today’s written statement—I do not know what that says about me—only to find four consultations, none of which referred to unpaid carers. My Liberal Democrat colleagues and I are calling on the Government to give certainty to unpaid carers: certainty about when that review will take place, certainty about what it will entail, and certainty that the Government are keeping their pre-election pledges to move forward with paid leave.
Will the Government provide an update on what is being done to inform businesses about carer’s leave as it stands, namely unpaid? It concerns me that there is not enough information out there for employers or workers. What are the Government doing to ensure that companies are passing the information to their employees, and that it is being recorded correctly in systems? That last point is important. If the Government want to review the operation of the current Carer’s Leave Act, presumably they will want to know about take-up, but I am hearing worrying stories that carer’s leave cannot be properly recorded in HR systems, and is therefore recorded as general unpaid leave or something similar. We do not need to wait for a review to ensure that the new leave continues to be rolled out properly and effectively.
There are other elements of the Bill that I welcome, especially those relating to flexible working. We know that for unpaid carers, flexible working can be one of the most important tools for staying in work. My request of the Government is that during the passage of the Bill, they flesh out a bit more what they mean by a reasonable or not reasonable rejection of a request for flexible working. I urge the Minister to use his time today to reassure unpaid carers that the Government are not turning their back on them, now that he is in a position to help them.
Paul Davies (Colne Valley) (Lab)
Let me begin by proudly declaring my membership of Unite, the GMB and the Community trade union, and at some time in the past, a member of the National Union of Mineworkers, like my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery).
The Bill will transform the lives of workers across the United Kingdom. It is not just a set of reforms; it is a commitment to the hard-working people of this nation, a promise to ensure that their rights are protected and their voices are heard. For far too long, many workers in this country have endured poor working conditions, low pay, and a lack of job security. The previous Conservative Government failed to address these critical issues, leaving millions of workers vulnerable and undervalued. The Bill is the Government’s response to these injustices. It is a comprehensive package of reforms designed to upgrade workers’ rights, tackle poor working conditions, and benefit both businesses and workers. It is part of the Government’s broader effort to deliver economic security and growth to businesses, workers and communities.
One of the key aspects of the Bill is the improvement of pay and productivity. We recognise that fair wages are essential to the wellbeing of workers and their families. The Conservative Government’s policies led to stagnating wages and widening income inequality. The Bill aims to rectify that by ensuring that all workers in the UK are paid fairly for their hard work, and that businesses are incentivised to invest in their workforce. From my conversations with businesses and employees in my constituency, it is clear that fostering sustainable businesses and promoting growth are crucial. I have observed numerous businesses forming partnerships with their workforces, grounded in fair treatment that acknowledges employees’ dedication and hard work. The Bill supports and strengthens that approach. It also represents a new approach, a pro-business, pro-worker strategy that recognises the connection between economic growth and workers’ rights. By addressing issues such as poor working conditions and low pay, this Government aim to create a more balanced and sustainable economy.
The Bill is a testament to the Government’s commitment to creating a fairer and more equitable society. I am proud to support it, and to stand up for the rights of workers in my constituency and beyond.
Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
I begin by welcoming this Bill on behalf of my Green colleagues. I would like to gently comment on the tone of some of this debate. I find myself on the Opposition Benches, but that is not to say that I share the sentiments expressed by Conservative Members. In particular, it is a shame that we have seen some very polarised debate today. I want to challenge the rhetoric of, “It’s workers versus employers and unions versus small businesses.” That is both ahistorical and economically illiterate, frankly. It is ahistorical because if we did not have workers organising together to improve their conditions, we would still have children up chimneys and women being paid a small fraction of what men are paid for doing the same work.
Such rhetoric is economically illiterate because inequality is bad for growth. It is not just me and Labour Members who say that; the International Monetary Fund has specified that inequality is bad for growth. Let us try to look for the common ground together, and to welcome measures that will improve work and the security of people who work. Let us recognise that, frankly, this Bill is long overdue, because we have seen the erosion of workers’ rights over decades. We are now in a position where work does not pay well enough for far too many people in our country, which is why we have so many people on in-work benefits.
I really welcome the sentiments expressed by the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), who pointed out that there are much better labour relations in countries where there is a positive recognition that workers’ rights go along with improved economic growth. As a country, let us try to move towards that point.
I want to briefly mention a few areas where I would like the Government to go further. The Bill’s failure to fully ban fire and rehire practices is inexplicable. It leaves a loophole or get-out clause that effectively condones this practice, and I do not think there can be any grounds for treating workers in purely transactional terms.
Zero-hours contracts are a complex area. I know that some people welcome the opportunity to have zero-hours contracts, but this flies in the face of what the majority of the public wants. The current model leaves far too much power in the hands of employers.
I want to briefly mention other aspects of equality. It is disappointing that this Bill does not uphold previous Labour pledges on mandatory disability and ethnicity pay gap reporting. It will lead to increased inequality between migrant workers and others, because it does not address the risks that migrant workers face when their visas are dependent on employers, and they may exit the country before they have had a chance to pursue their employment claims.
I would like to see kinship care treated in the same way as adoption leave. The hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling) talked about foster carers, too.
In summary, I welcome this bill, but there are areas where I would like to see the Government go further to protect workers’ rights.
Mike Tapp (Dover and Deal) (Lab)
It is an immense privilege to be here today as the Member of Parliament for Dover and Deal. I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests: I am a proud small business owner and a union member, and it is fantastic to see so many Labour Members who are small business owners speaking in support of the Bill.
Over the past two years, I have knocked on thousands of doors, spoken to families, business owners and workers, and listened to their hopes and concerns. Today, I bring their voice to this House, but first I pay tribute to my predecessor, who was and still is an ardent champion on housing issues. Before the general election, she sent a clear message to the country when she crossed the Floor of the House to join the Labour party.
Dover and Deal is the gateway to Britain, with our port bringing £144 billion of trade into the country, but it is also a place rich in history, resilience and community spirit. From the iconic white cliffs to the finest castle in Britain, and from the newly reopened Roman painted house to the proud former mining communities in Aylesham, Snowdon and Betteshanger, we represent the very best of what it means to be British. We also have beautiful coastal paths with some truly great pub stops along the way, as Members have probably seen from my social media; they include the King’s Head and the Forresters in Deal, the Zetland Arms in Kingsdown and Cullins Yard in Dover. We have castles in Dover, Walmer and Deal. I wonder whether my constituency has the most castles in the country, but I am open to challenge on that.
My commitment to public service and hard work stems well and truly from my upbringing. One grandad flew the Catalina flying boats that took out Nazi submarines, and then went on to sell Colman’s mustard from Cambridge. The other grandad was a lifelong, distinguished Royal Mail worker, and that generation’s unwavering spirit of hard work runs through my family. My father, a dedicated police officer, and my mother, a social worker, showed me that real service is about standing strong for others. Their steadfast dedication to helping those in need taught me that strength is found not in titles, but in the service we provide to those around us. That lesson has guided me in my own life—in the Army, in a counter-terror role at the National Crime Agency, and now as the proud Member of Parliament for Dover and Deal.
But I do not stand here alone. I pay tribute to my wife—my hero—who came from Estonia at just 18 years of age, 16 years ago. She has always been and will always be my rock, having supported me through a very difficult and long campaign. Linda has shown remarkable resilience and dedication in turning her passion for dogs into her own thriving small business, which will continue to thrive and grow under this new Bill. We have two dogs of our own. Some of you will know Scooby from the campaign trail. He has become so famous that my Wikipedia page simply states:
“Personal life: He has a dog called Scooby.”
I assure you that I have more of a personal life than that—and a second dog, a puggle called Monki.
It is no secret that I am just a little bit patriotic. When you represent Dover and Deal, how could you not be? For centuries, we have stood strong against invaders and threats, from Napoleon to the Nazis. Dover and Deal has always been at the heart of Britain’s story, and I am committed to ensuring that we remain a proud and prosperous part of the country’s future. Dover and Deal is where national challenges meet local reality. We are a community on the frontline of issues such as border security, immigration and trade. We face these challenges with the strength and sense of duty that has always defined us. Under this Government, Dover and Deal will be treated with the respect it deserves. My vision is for a Dover and Deal where our community can thrive, with improved infrastructure, stronger public services and more opportunities for young people to build their futures there. We are more than a point of transit; we are a community of hard-working people who keep our port running, our businesses thriving and our public services going.
As we debate the future of workers’ rights, I want to say on record that the P&O Ferries scandal, which affected so many of my constituents, must never be repeated. That is why I fully support this Bill.
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Dover and Deal (Mike Tapp) on his maiden speech. I look forward to the best dog in the world, Monty, taking on Scooby in the Westminster dog of the year competition.
Everybody in the House knows that every Labour Government in history have ended with unemployment higher than when they started. Bills like this are part of the reason why, whatever the intention. If the purpose of this Bill really is to improve workers’ rights, and it is not just about paying back £40 million of union donations made over the past few years, why is there no provision addressing one of the worst labour market abuses in our country: substitution clauses, which allow delivery drivers to lend their identities to others? These clauses are in contracts from huge firms such as Amazon and Deliveroo, and they fuel worker exploitation and immigration crime. We know that hundreds of thousands of people, many of whom cannot work here legally, trade identities. By undercutting British workers and exploiting those with no right to be here, these companies are privatising profits and socialising the costs that they cause, so why is that issue missing from the Bill?
Why will the Government do nothing about the international trading system? Countries aiming to run trade surpluses, such as China, hold down their labour costs and destroy industry in deficit countries such as ours. Trade wars, as two authors like to say, are class wars, and the Labour party usually likes to fight a class war, yet this Government want to flood Britain with cheap Chinese electric cars because of the Energy Secretary’s obsession with net zero. That is just one way in which our economic model needs to change, because while the Government’s characterisation of their inheritance is, I am afraid, cynical and wrong, there is a case for economic change, if only the Government were prepared to undertake it. I think the Business Secretary might be one of those capable of doing that, but I am not sure that some of his colleagues are. Today, Ministers could be launching a plan for reindustrialisation, for competitive energy prices, for domestic steel manufacturing and for a strategy taking in better infrastructure, skills and training, planning, regulatory reform and more—[Interruption.] Would the hon. Lady like to intervene?
Nick Timothy
The Government could be doing something about the fact that nearly 22% of the workforce is economically inactive and a record number of men is leaving the labour market. They could be backing British business.
Robbie Moore
This again highlights the point that there is so much detail yet to be released into the public domain about this Bill. I highlighted this before. Does my hon. Friend agree that if we had that detail, we could provide more reassurance to the small and larger businesses dealing with the challenges he has mentioned?
Nick Timothy
My hon. Friend is exactly right; I agree.
The Government could be backing British business, not burdening it with all these new regulations. Instead, we have an Energy Secretary driving up energy prices, a Chancellor planning a jobs tax, increases to capital gains tax and the imposition of inheritance tax on small family businesses, and a Deputy Prime Minister reregulating the labour market at a cost to business of £5 billion, to pay back the unions who fund the Labour party. The Prime Minister promised us that his priority was “growth, growth, growth”, but like everything else he said before the election, he did not mean it, because the only three things that this Bill will bring are more costs, less investment and fewer jobs.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
Let me start by proudly declaring that, like 1.3 million working Brits, I am a member of Unison. Bracknell is a fantastic place to do business, and since my election I have spoken to plenty of businesses in my community, from SMEs to international businesses. In speaking with them, two things have come out time and again. First, there is relief that they finally have a Government who will put economic stability at the heart of everything they do, instead of chaos. Secondly, there is recognition that the Bill will be good not only for their workers but for businesses, because well supported staff who have more control over their lives and more reliable hours will work harder and for longer.
Workers who can adjust their terms, who are free from the threat of dismissal right after starting a family, who are entitled to leave after a loved one’s death, who are given the time to recover when they are sick, who no longer face exploitative zero-hours contracts or fire and rehire, and who are free from harassment are obviously happier and more committed. Indeed, many Bracknell businesses already offer many of the rights in this Bill, because they recognise that doing so makes them more attractive to good, skilled workers.
This Government are pro-business, pro-growth and pro-worker, and this Bill demonstrates that commitment. I note that the chief executive officer of the CBI, Rain Newton-Smith, has said:
“The government deserves credit for its willingness to engage with businesses and unions”.
There is a body of economic research that substantiates what we all feel to be true: workers’ rights are the foundations of a resilient, growing economy.
Nick Timothy
The hon. Gentleman just quoted the CBI approvingly. Can he name the chief executive of a real business who approves of this Bill?
Peter Swallow
I have spoken to many chief executives in my constituency who approve of this Bill. I will not go into private conversations, because I have not warned them that I was about to quote them in the House, but I am sure that we will hear many such examples in contributions from other Members.
This Bill will bring in historic new rights for working people. It will make work pay, and it will be good for boosting our national productivity and supporting businesses and growth in this country, because we all know that when workers feel that the jobs that they do are valued, they contribute more to the economy. That is why this Bill is good not only for workers but for businesses.
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
I associate myself with the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain), and commend her for all her work on the Carer’s Leave Act 2023, which came into play in the previous Parliament. I want to build on that, and to emphasise the importance of the interplay of paid and unpaid care in ensuring that we look after the people in society who need our care. The comments of a constituent of mine in Mid Sussex come to mind. She was an unpaid carer for her mother, and told me that having paid carers come in helped her to sustain a normal mother-daughter relationship for that little bit longer.
The care workforce, and looking after the care workforce, are extremely important, and the Liberal Democrats welcome the fair pay proposals in this Bill, but we would like the Bill to go further. As I mentioned when I intervened on the Deputy Prime Minister, we would like the minimum wage for care workers to be £2 higher than the normal minimum wage. We would also like to build the esteem and career path of people who work in paid care—for example, by establishing a royal college of carers. Without that, we have a blocker to our workforce productivity. Caring and working must go hand in hand, but because regulations do not enable unpaid carers to look after their loved ones adequately, 600 people a day give up work to care for a loved one.
One of those people is Amanda, who used to live in Mid Sussex. She and her husband Nick look after their 21-year-old son Archie, who is autistic and learning disabled. Amanda is a modern foreign languages teacher, and there is a shortage of such teachers. As Archie was approaching adulthood, they realised that West Sussex county council would not be able to provide enough care for him, so the best thing that she could do was take her teacher’s pension early and claim the carer’s allowance. Because of the £151 a week limit on earnings for those on the carer’s allowance, Amanda is now excluded from the workforce. She cannot take up offers of supply teaching or exam invigilating that would boost the family income and be good for her mental health. We need to ensure that people can give care while being in the workforce, because this situation is not good for the nation’s productivity, or for the Government’s ambition to deliver growth.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call Kenneth Stevenson to make his maiden speech.
Kenneth Stevenson (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to follow the maiden speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Dover and Deal (Mike Tapp), and the excellent maiden speeches of the hon. Members for Leicester East (Shivani Raja) and for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam), and my hon. Friends the Members for Hyndburn (Sarah Smith), for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Dr Tidball) and for Blackpool North and Fleetwood (Lorraine Beavers).
I make my maiden speech with a great deal of pride. Serving the people of Airdrie and Shotts is an immense privilege, and one that I will never take for granted. I hope that my dad, Howard, will be pleased as he watches at home, and that he knows that it is the value of hard work that he and my mum, Millie, instilled in me—along with the assistance of many others, including my wife, Julie, who is watching here today—that has brought me to this place.
The opportunity for me to make my maiden speech today is all the more special because we are debating the Employment Rights Bill. As we chapped doors across the constituency for over a year, our key commitment was to deliver an upgrade to workers’ rights the like of which has not been seen for a generation. I am delighted that we are making such rapid progress, and I thank the Minister and the Government for putting this at the forefront of our efforts to give Britain back its future. I look forward to seeing the impact of this Bill on workers in my constituency of Airdrie and Shotts, and across the country.
I pay tribute to my immediate predecessor, Anum Qaisar. I never questioned her commitment to the job she was elected to do, nor to the causes for which she fought so passionately. I wish her well in the future.
Looking back a bit further into the history of the Airdrie and Shotts constituency, and of the seats that came before it, I have to mention some of the giants who have served these communities. From Jennie Lee, a key figure in the creation of the Open University, where I obtained my qualification, to Peggy Herbison, a Shotts woman to her core, who led the way for women in politics and whose impact is still felt in Shotts to this day; and from John Reid, a pivotal figure in the last UK Labour Government, to John Smith, a truly excellent leader of my party, taken before his time, who put the Labour party firmly back on the path towards Government. Although, on reflection, I may be making a rod for my own back by mentioning such influential and consequential figures, it is only right that I recognise their contributions to this place, to the communities I now represent, to the Labour movement and, indeed, to this country.
Members will be surprised to hear this, but I am going to make a comparison between Airdrie and the ancient city of Rome—before Members ask, it is not the weather. Like Airdrie, Rome is also built on seven hills. A popular Airdrie pub quiz question is to name them, but I will not attempt to do so today, because of the risk of missing one out—what a start that would be!
The communities of Airdrie and Shotts, along with the many surrounding villages, are steeped in industrial history. These towns and villages, including Harthill, Eastfield, Salsburgh, Allanton, Bonkle, Hareshaw, Hartwood, Morningside, Cleland, Holytown, Newarthill, Newmains, Plains, Chapelhall, Gartness, Calderbank, Glenmavis, Caldercruix, Upperton, Longriggend, Wattston and Greengairs, are of great importance to the history of Scotland and the wider UK.
In coalmining, manufacturing, textiles, engineering and pharmaceuticals, the communities of Airdrie and Shotts have been home to skilled employment, and they have been at the centre of the various advances we have witnessed in previous decades. In fact, I completed my apprenticeship at a modern manufacturing facility in Shotts that was sadly closed during the times of rapid deindustrialisation. It was there that I learned my trade as an engineer and grew as a person. The advice of ex-miners, steel workers and foundry workers was invaluable. My second career as a lecturer at Anniesland college was informed by the people of Glasgow. I learned so much from my fellow lecturers and from the area’s students.
The Shotts factory humour is not generally something I would repeat in this Chamber, but I can share the first piece of advice I got as an apprentice: “Never argue with anybody stupider than yersel, son.” Oscar Wilde, it was not, and having listened to the discourse in this place, I am sure I will not need that advice here. Regardless, I will forever be indebted to the people of the area I was born, raised and worked in. I hope that legislation such as the Bill we are debating today will reignite the industrial and technological potential that exists within these communities.
There are two things I could not go without mentioning in my maiden speech. The first is the groups and organisations at the heart of my constituency. My Scottish colleagues will be well aware of the work and impact of St Andrew’s hospice in Airdrie. Many, if not most, people in Lanarkshire will have a relative or a family friend who was cared for by the hospice, and will therefore know its incredible value.
It is an immense honour and privilege to serve these people and communities. In me, they have a Member of Parliament who has lived in the constituency throughout my life, who values its potential and who is determined to overcome the challenges it faces. I will do my best to abide by my Stane primary school motto, “Persevere”, and by my Calderhead high school motto, “Facta non verba”—deeds, not words.
Today’s debate on the Employment Rights Bill is a critical step towards delivering a long-overdue new deal for working people, and it will be the working people of Airdrie and Shotts who I have in mind throughout my time in this Parliament.
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Kenneth Stevenson) on his maiden speech. Knowing his constituency a little, I can guarantee that the weather is not the link between Airdrie and Rome. I congratulate him on taking his place in this House.
Today’s debate is deeply important, and it will have huge ramifications for businesses of all sizes across the country. Hiring new staff is a big moment for small businesses, like many in Keighley and Ilkley, and it comes with huge potential but also risk. That is why many businesses in my constituency have contacted me in advance of the introduction of this Bill to express their concerns about the proposals before us today.
At a time when we need to grow the economy, we do not need a Bill that the Federation of Small Businesses has described as
“rushed…clumsy, chaotic and poorly planned.”
It has to be noted that this Bill will have a disproportionately negative impact on smaller businesses compared with larger companies that have their own HR departments.
Simply put, Labour’s day one rights and other similar measures are worrying for many small businesses across the country. The Government have made this situation worse by adding clause after clause of clarification, exception, regulation and definition, in an attempt to micromanage every possible situation for businesses across the country. This has created a quagmire of regulatory jargon that small businesses will simply have to cope with, and they will not be able to cope. The fear of falling foul of these regulations has been made clear to me by many businesses in Keighley and Ilkley.
The Bill will also prevent the backbone of our economy from hiring staff, expanding and growing our economy. Even the Government’s own economic analysis stipulates that the risks are highest for workers with the weakest attachment to the labour market, such as low-paid workers, disabled workers and the youngest workers, who are still gaining the experience and skills they require.
Rebecca Harris
An SME in my constituency once found someone sleeping rough on its premises and offered them a job. Does my hon. Friend agree that, when this Bill is enacted, it is very unlikely that a business will go to such lengths to give someone that kind of break in future?
Robbie Moore
I absolutely agree. My hon. Friend highlights that this Bill will not give businesses the certainty and confidence to recruit individuals who need that little bit more experience to get into the job market. Indeed, the Government’s own analysis points to an unintended consequence:
“Where businesses cannot absorb the increase in labour costs, they may look to pass them onto workers by reducing expenditures that benefit workers (e.g. staff training) or scaling back future improvements to T&CS (e.g. wage growth).”
This is not a pro-growth Bill, and it is not even a pro-work Bill; it is a pro-union Bill. The Government have even said this themselves. Their plan to make work pay has referred to this Bill as an “Employment Rights Union Bill”. Perhaps that is because the Bill is chock full of changes to union regulation made by our previous Conservative Government—changes that were specifically designed to protect the public from the unscrupulous practices of the unions and their more militant members.
Minimum service provisions were introduced by the last Government specifically to protect the public from being caught in the crossfire between the unions and the Government—yet, by lifting those restrictions with this Bill, Labour is showing that it is more interested in appeasing its union bosses than in ensuring that minimum service is guaranteed throughout any dispute between the public sector and the Government.
Nick Timothy
Earlier, I asked the hon. Member for Bracknell (Peter Swallow) whether there are any business leaders who actually support the Bill. Is my hon. Friend aware of any?
Robbie Moore
I have spoken to and received correspondence from many businesses, both small and large, in my constituency, but not one gave the Bill their full backing. In fact, they raised concerns about the relationship between the employer and employee being tampered with by the Government.
One of the most unsurprising parts of the Bill is clause 48, in which the Government want to force union members to pay into the political fund of the union, unless they explicitly decide to opt out. No matter what views hon. Members may have about unions, this clause is simply not right; working people should not be paying into political funds without giving their prior consent, especially when that money ends up in the pockets of a political party. Having received over £29 million in donations from the unions, we know which political party that money will end up going to—the party in government; and all this from a self-proclaimed Government of supposed transparency. Every employment is different, every job is different and every circumstance is different, but this Bill fails to recognise that.
Mr James Frith (Bury North) (Lab)
I will start by offering some home truths to Opposition Members: someone can be both a member of a union and an employer. I am a proud member of GMB, which donated to my campaign, but I am also proud to have started my own business. I have been an employer, taken risk, and understand the balance of risk and reward. Throughout the debate, Conservative Members, who claim to represent the party of business, have made false representations that are out of date and out of kilter with the debate that we are leading, having been elected with the majority that we have. They are keen to talk among themselves, with their plans to end maternity rights and all the progress the Labour party has made sacrosanct in British law and the experience of work in our economy, but I urge them to look at the result of the election and understand the direction of travel: the Labour party is once again making progress in this country.
Today’s leap forward for workers’ rights sits alongside the Government’s No. 1 mission of economic growth—that is, done with the workers not to them. We will be more productive, protective and prosperous, pro-business and pro-worker. The Bill rejects the idea that justice and fairness in the workplace need to come with an arbitrary waiting period. Day one rights will capture headlines, but will not cause alarm for most employers. The hon. Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy) asked which chief executives support this provision. I met chief executives on Friday who told me that as leaders in their field, they already do much of what we are advocating—so I say to those on the Opposition Benches: get with the programme.
Labour has a proud record to recall again today, as we advance these new rights. We have a record of raising the floor and the horizon for workers’ rights, whether through securing maternity, paternity or foster care leave, introducing the minimum wage or ensuring bank holidays. Through a principled link with our trade unions, the Labour party has fought for and delivered rights that once seemed radical but are now woven into our national life and experiences of work. These very advances, initially opposed by the Tories, have now come to be seen as the very standard of how working life in this country should be, and I am all for it, Madam Deputy Speaker—with time to spare.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
As hon. Members may be aware, I am not a career politician. I worked as a pork delivery driver with Henry Denny’s, until I opened my own small business as a pork retailer. I worked from early morning, before I did my work for the council and then for the Northern Ireland Assembly. I employed staff members. I did the books as well as I could, then handed them to my accountant. I delivered to local businesses and shopped local. I understand what it is to be a part of small business; indeed, it was a microbusiness. I say respectfully to the Minister that I know I would have struggled to implement some of the things currently under discussion, so I remind hon. Members of the implications of the Bill on small and microbusinesses. The Northern Ireland statistics will show why I hold those concerns.
Microbusinesses in Northern Ireland are no different from those in the United Kingdom mainland. Employment law is mostly devolved, but much of the law in Northern Ireland follows the direction of what is passed in the House of Commons, which is why I want to make my comments in a constructive fashion. The fact is that most employers are not skilled at making changes. The changes made by the Bill and additional obligations on employers must be made clear, be cost-effective and not mean that they need to hire an HR consultant, which is simply out of the question.
For example, I recently heard about a case of a small business that had worked out holiday pay using the online Government calculator. An employee moved to another job and queried the holiday pay. The Labour Relations Agency has said, according to the employees’ representation, that the owner owes approximately £800 per annum to each staff member. The owner has told me that they will need to close the business. I gave that example because I want to show what can go wrong—and, my goodness, it can go wrong at an absolute volume—with regulations that the Government put in place. The business is viable, but does not have the capacity to pay £10,000 in back pay to its staff. It used online tools to get it right, and yet has been left in an untenable situation. That makes it clear that when changes are made to employment practices, the advice for employers must be accurate and easy to understand. This is clearly not currently the case.
With great respect to colleagues on the Government Front Bench, the Bill is a curate’s egg—it is good in part, but not in every part. I welcome some of the measures, such as the end of zero-hours contracts and the enhanced protections, and look forward to seeing the minutiae of the detail.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
On Friday, I attended an event hosted by the Northern Ireland Chamber of Commerce and Industry. It offers the Government no ill will and wants to engage positively and pragmatically on the issues, but it is concerned. Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be useful if, instead of continual hubris and politics from one side to the other throughout this debate, there were a willingness on the part of Front-Bench Members to engage thoughtfully with businesses?
Jim Shannon
My right hon. Friend makes exactly the point that I want to make. Through the Bill, the Government are pushing forward legislation that is necessary and welcome, but they need to work better and more closely alongside small businesses and microbusinesses of the kind I worked with many moons ago, whenever I had hair—that is a thing of the past. We cannot expect almost 80% of small businesses to behave as if they have an HR department, a payroll department and a board when most of them are simply retailers as I was, hiring local people and trying to be a good boss in a world with changing obligations.
Support must be central to any change in legislation. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), I ask the Secretary of State to take that point on board. If he is able to do so, I believe we can move forward constructively and help our businesses to maintain their status as employers.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call Imogen Walker to make her maiden speech.
Imogen Walker (Hamilton and Clyde Valley) (Lab)
It is an honour to speak for the first time as the MP for Hamilton and Clyde Valley. I am delighted to have the opportunity to declare that I am a proud member of GMB, which does so much for so many.
My constituency has played an important part in the progress of employment rights, for reasons that I will come to shortly, so it is fitting that it is acknowledged here today. First, I pay tribute to Angela Crawley, who represented a large part of the area that I now cover and who has been so helpful in ensuring a handover; she was a dedicated MP and I am grateful to her. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen (Michael Shanks), who is always a source of good advice and good humour. His historic win in Rutherglen and Hamilton West was the first sign in Scotland that people were prepared to put their trust in us again. We will remember that.
Hamilton and Clyde Valley is an extraordinary place. The ancient woods of the Clyde Valley are the oldest in Scotland. Entering them is like stepping into another world: you are as likely to meet a rabbit or a red deer as another human. You might see glimpses in the undergrowth of walls, buildings or just piles of stones. It is impossible to say how long they have been there, but they serve as a reminder that so many people have made their lives here before us. Most are long forgotten, but not all. The great Roman general Agrippa is thought to have set up camp just outside Lanark, but he did not stay. Opinions vary on how the Romans were ousted from Scotland: some that believe the Caledonians were just too much for them, while others say that the tribes were nowhere near as bloodthirsty as the midges.
Either way, Lanark is a very welcoming place now. People come from around the world to see New Lanark, Robert Owen’s vision of decent working and living conditions. He believed that people deserve more than just the means to survive, that men and women are equal and that how we treat our children matters. Most importantly, he put his principles into practice. That is what we must do here, because the progress we have made is hard won. It takes courage as well as compassion, and it must never be taken for granted.
In South Lanarkshire alone, nearly 5,500 people are paid at or below the national minimum wage. Many more have working conditions that can and will be improved by this Government. Across Hamilton and Clyde Valley, people need a Government who are back in the service of working people—from Hamilton, the fourth largest town in Scotland and home to 55,000 people, to Larkhall, Lesmahagow, ancient Lanark and our many villages, which all have their own character and close-knit communities. From the deep forests to farms, villages and towns, we truly have everything.
From there to Westminster is quite a journey in so many ways. I will not forget that I made that journey to serve and to protect the things that people care about: their homes, their families and their jobs. I have been given the chance to do that because of the support of so many people, starting with my dearly missed mother Isobel. She would have been so happy to see me here. She, too, believed in the power of education, hard work and opportunity to transform lives. Every evening, the television would go off so we could do our homework in peace. I can tell you from the bottom of my heart, Madam Deputy Speaker, that that was incredibly annoying when I could have been watching “Dallas”, but of course she was right.
On my father Jamieson’s side, generations across South Lanarkshire were shopkeepers and metalworkers, the kind of people who keep our country going and whose lives are changed by the decisions we make here—knocked back if we get it wrong and raised up when we get it right. I am the product of generations who sometimes thrived, often struggled and were ultimately given the opportunity to fulfil their potential through hard-won rights. I want that for everyone: the chance to make a good life for themselves and their loved ones. That is why I am here, and that is what this Government will do.
Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)
It is a privilege to follow the maiden speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton and Clyde Valley (Imogen Walker). I visited New Lanark on a school trip when I was younger, as many people in Scotland did, and it was a fantastic portrait of a beautiful part of the country. I pay tribute to other Members who have made a maiden speech today, including my hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Kenneth Stevenson). I, too, know some of the language to which he was referring.
I draw attention to my declaration of interests, including my proud membership of Unison. I will use my short time to emphasise two elements of the Bill. Not only is it the greatest increase in workers’ rights in a generation, but it will ensure that the UK economy adapts to the changed landscape in which we find ourselves and to the businesses that will contribute to it and make us a success.
Melanie Ward (Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and to my proud membership of Community and Unison. My hon. Friend and I are both proud to represent Fife, but in some areas of Fife as many as one child in four still lives in poverty. Does he agree that by giving over 8,000 more workers more money in their pocket, the Bill will mean that more families have more money to spend and will help to make an important contribution to tackling child poverty in Fife?
Graeme Downie
Absolutely. At the core of the Bill is the need to raise wages for people across Fife, across Scotland and across the UK. That will be a key achievement of this Bill, which has been undertaken by this Labour Government within the 100 days that we promised the electorate.
The change in the landscape has been caused by a rapid advancement of technology in our economy, a shift in working patterns, the evolution of the largest contributors to the economy and welcome changes to the nature of family life, with an increase in shared parenting, as we have heard from so many Members across the Chamber. It is nothing but shameful that the previous Government took no action to adapt to those changes or help them to drive forward our economy. As ever, it has fallen to the Labour party to make the radical changes that we need to see. A look at the Opposition Benches tells us how much the Conservatives care not only about workers’ rights, but about the economy for the future.
I welcome clause 7, which will apply the objective test for an employer to refuse a reasonable request for flexible working. Like hon. Friends who have spoken today, I ran and owned a small business for 10 years. I know the benefits that businesses get from welcoming and embracing flexible working patterns. They assist with staff retention and improve and facilitate communication between employers and employees. They lead to more constructive relationships at work and—as I saw at first hand—to more productive teams and a business that is better for everyone involved. A shift to a clear objective test will further aid the process and will help both businesses and employees.
I also welcome clauses 20 and 21, which will provide additional protection for working parents. Along with my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Josh Simons), I am delighted to support the Dad Shift campaign, which has been campaigning for better statutory paternity leave to help mums, dads, children and our economy. The benefits of modern and flexible paternity leave would help families to raise their children in the way they see fit, so they can still progress their own careers and contribute to the economy and to society. I would like to see more progress on those issues during the passage of the Bill, as hon. Friends have highlighted, but none the less it is an important first step in making sure that new parents have the right protections.
This is a long overdue Bill that would only ever be brought forward by a Labour Government—a Government who understand the changing nature of business, of society and of our workforce and who realise that only by bringing the three together can we push forward and grow our economy together, creating a more prosperous and fairer society across the UK.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. I will give an advisory notice: a lot of Members still want to get in, and interventions are cutting into other speakers’ times. The only people who suffer will be you. I am leaving the time limit at three minutes, which could just about get everyone in.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will keep an eye on the time.
Like many other hon. Members, I refer the House to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a proud member of GMB and Unison. We have all just fought a general election; the reality is that general elections can be expensive, so I make no apology for receiving support from the CWU, ASLEF and GMB unions. Without that support, I would not have been re-elected. It is important that we recognise that it is clean money from our hard-working trade union members. We should not be ashamed of that at all.
For many people in my constituency, the nature of the workforce has changed since 2010, yet over the past few years successive Governments have almost rolled back the hard-fought employment rights that we and many trade unions before us have fought for. During the covid pandemic, as I mentioned in an intervention earlier, a number of household-name organisations—multinational business making profits in the multimillions —thought it was okay to fire and rehire their staff. I stood up in this Chamber and raised concerns about constituents who faced the threat of sacking, including many BA workers and many GMB workers who worked for British Gas/Centrica. At a time when we wanted those workers to go out and do their vital jobs, the fact that those jobs could be taken away and they could be re-employed on worse contracts was just wrong.
We should welcome this legislation, which will be a big game-changer for many people across the workforce. In the short time I have, I want to highlight two areas in which we will see a big shift.
Vauxhall and Camberwell Green is home to many young people. TUC stats show that many people in their 30s have been with the employer for less than two years. Young people should be able to go to work, be proud of their work, put their roots down and start a family. Instead, they have insecure work with the threat of dismissal over their head and a lack of security. If young people are planning to start a family or purchase a house, they can be discriminated against by their boss. We want to see rights that will protect the very people we want to contribute to UK plc.
I ask Conservative Members to get with the times and help us to support growth for this country and its workers, including the many workers who are trade union members and who contribute to society. It is about time we supported workers and passed this legislation so that its pro-business and pro-worker measures can support UK plc.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Ind)
I draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I have to start with reflections on some of the speeches from Conservative Members, although their Benches are now deserted. Those speeches brought back memories from when I was younger of watching my favourite actor, Rik Mayall, in his role as Alan B’Stard MP. Many Conservative Members seemed to be trying to reprise that role today. It was incredible and left me wondering what planet they are living on. It also took me back to Conservative Members objecting to the last Labour Government introducing the national minimum wage. They said it would have a cataclysmic effect on jobs across the country, when in fact it helped to move people towards getting a decent wage. Conservative Members do not seem to understand that many good employers follow such standards already, and we are enabling those good employers to operate on a level playing field with bad, rogue bosses who seek to undercut good employers left, right and centre.
Before I was first elected back in 2015, I was a trade union lawyer for 10 years, and I saw day in, day out how working people are held back by weak protections and anti-trade union laws. I am really proud to be here today to welcome and vote for this significant step forward in employment rights by a Labour Government. There is so much in the Bill to improve workers’ rights in a range of areas—parental leave, paternity leave, unfair dismissal, statutory sick pay, collective redundancies, tips, the duty to prevent sexual harassment and the requirement for firms of more than 250 employees to make equality plans. The Conservatives think this is bad news for business, for workers and for our country, but that could not be further from the truth.
As this important Bill makes progress, I hope that the Government will find ways to clarify and strengthen a small number of points. Some loopholes on fire and rehire need to be closed, and it would be great if we could further strengthen the rights of union access to workplaces. I would also welcome improvements in a host of other areas. For example, it is 30 years since the Tories took away prison officers’ right to strike, and I would like to see that returned. If people succeed in proving unfair dismissal at an employment tribunal and get a reinstatement order, I would like to see it made much more likely that they will, in fact, be reinstated.
I welcome the Bill, I am proud to vote for it and I think it is shameful that the Tories will vote against it.
Olivia Blake (Sheffield Hallam) (Lab)
I wish to make Members aware that I am a member of the GMB, as many Members on this side of the House seem to be.
It is great to take part in the debate. It is important to recognise the great history of women on these Benches and in our movement, such as Eleanor Marx’s role in setting up the GMB, Barbara Castle’s in passing the Equal Pay Act 1970 and, today, that of our very own Deputy Prime Minister in setting out another game-changing piece of legislation.
I want to focus on gender, because since the introduction of gender pay reporting in 2017, we have made some progress in making people aware of pay disparities in some of our workplaces, but the facts are still stark. The gender pay gap is stubbornly stuck at 14%. That is horrific enough, but in certain sectors, including care, the gap is even higher. Pay inequality compounds over the course of a woman’s life, meaning that she is more likely to live in poverty as a pensioner, and unable to gain opportunities that her male counterparts have had through their lives.
According to the TUC, the pay gap means that, on average, women effectively work for free for nearly two months of the year compared to men. At the current rate of progress, it could take another 20 years to close the gap. That is 20 years too long. While reporting has become an accepted part of employment practice, we must do much more than just raise awareness of the issue. We need concrete action, which is why I am proud that the Bill introduces much-needed regulations to require employees with more than 250 staff to publish a plan to address their gender pay gap. That will ensure that organisations are not only transparent about pay inequalities, but actively work to close them.
Another critical part of the Bill is the provision to support women experiencing menopause. Women between the ages of 45 and 54 make up 11% of our workforce and 23% of all women in the workforce—around 3.5 million women. Despite the growing number of women in the labour market of that age, the challenges they face from the menopause are often overlooked, leading to discriminatory practices and a lack of adequate workplace support. BUPA estimates that nearly 1 million women have been forced out of the labour market by menopausal symptoms. That is simply not good enough, which is why I am proud that the Bill takes steps to address it. Employers will be required to publish how they will better support women going through the menopause.
Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)
I declare my interests as a member of the GMB, Unison and the Chartered Society of Physiotherapy.
Dudley is home to thousands of small businesses and gig economy workers. Some 89% of those businesses are microbusinesses, and they will be watching closely to see that the Bill strikes the right balance between being pro-business and pro-worker. I believe that it does so. Alongside the “Next Steps to Make Work Pay” policy, the Bill offers a consultation period for businesses and a probation period, allowing them to shape practical and beneficial reforms, giving a voice to businesses and time to adjust, as it will not be rolled out until 2026. I dismiss the claim from Conservative Members that the Bill is rushed, and I hope that the Business Secretary will reaffirm that and reassure Conservative Members that specific guidance and support will be provided to smaller businesses in places such as Dudley so that they can implement the reforms effectively, without excessive costs.
The Bill includes welcome provisions that will strengthen statutory sick pay and provide financial stability for workers. Currently, 10 million people are not able to access basic health support at work, including up to 12,600 people in Dudley. The changes will ensure that no one is forced out of work due to ill health, helping to create workplaces that protect and promote the health of all employees.
For too long, workers have had to wait months for basic protections such as unfair dismissal rights. The Bill will change that by making them day one rights, so that workers are protected from the start of their employment.
Under successive Conservative Governments, access to justice for workers was weakened. Tribunal fees made it harder for workers to hold bad employers to account. Although those fees were eventually scrapped, the damage remains, and the Bill corrects those failures by giving workers the protection that they deserve from day one.
The Bill is also a significant step forward on gender equality. It makes parental leave a right from day one, allowing parents to access leave as soon as they start their job. That is particularly important in Dudley in sectors such as healthcare, education and the beauty industry, and will ensure that being a parent does not undermine a person’s job security.
At university, I was on a zero-hours contract in one of the biggest industries in Dudley. I remember when my colleagues and I would wait for the supervisors to produce a rota, and the uncertainty of not knowing who would be on the shift next. We were not alone; more than 1 million workers in the UK are stuck on these contracts, with more than 80% of them seeking predictable hours. The Bill reflects the values that we stand for of fairness, equality and dignity.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
I proudly refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Bournemouth is blighted by insecurity, and Britain is paralysed by low pay. As somebody who grew up in very significant financial hardship, caring for two disabled parents, work for me was a route out of poverty. By working on several shop floors in Salford, I was able to earn enough money to go to university. Were it not for that opportunity, I would not be here today. Things were hard then, but they are so much harder today, so I welcome the Bill.
The Bill gives workers in Bournemouth the rights that they need, employers in Bournemouth the security that they need, and our economy in Bournemouth the tools that it needs to grow sustainably. I thank people across Bournemouth East, the constituency that I am so proud to represent, who have shared their thoughts and insights, and met with me about the Bill. I have represented their views and been a voice for their arguments, and I believe that the legislation is stronger as a result.
Across Britain, more than 1 million people on zero-hours contracts will benefit from the new guaranteed-hours policy; 1.5 million parents will benefit from unpaid parental leave as a day one right; and 9 million people who have been with their employer for less than two years will benefit from the new day one unfair dismissal policy. An estimated one in 25 employees did not get any of the paid holiday that they were entitled to last year. The new fair work agency will enforce holiday pay for the first time.
The Bill is a crucial, long-overdue step that directly benefits women at work. It will increase protection from sexual harassment. One in two women have been sexually harassed in the workplace, and four out of five do not report it to their employers. The legislation will empower tribunals to raise compensation in cases of sexual harassment where the employer failed to take reasonable steps to prevent it. An estimated 4,000 pregnant women and mothers returning from maternity leave a year will benefit from new protections. The Bill will also introduce gender pay gap action plans, and strengthen protection for workers through the menopause.
The Labour party made a promise to level the playing field at work by introducing the Bill early in the life of this Government. Promise made, promise kept. I am so proud and excited to be voting for this pro-worker, pro-business, pro-growth, pro-economy measure, and I commend the Deputy Prime Minister for bringing it forward. Bournemouth and Britain have been held back for too long. Together, we take a big step forward, with a measure that has been agreed and negotiated with businesses, trade unions and workers. We are fixing the foundations, and together we are shortening the journey towards the fairer society that so many people elected a Labour Government to bring forward.
Yuan Yang (Earley and Woodley) (Lab)
I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, in particular the perhaps interesting fact that, like the majority of journalists at the Financial Times, I am a proud member of the National Union of Journalists. I am able to enjoy that right to membership of a trade union, and the right to assembly and discussion that follows from it, because I am fortunate enough, unlike many of my aunts, cousins and uncles, to be a British citizen living in the UK who enjoys protection of not only my right to vote but my right to collective bargaining and representation in the workplace.
It is fitting that, in this historic debate on this advance in workers’ rights, we in the mother of Parliaments defend not just the right to representation in Parliament through our electoral system, but the right to representation in the workplace through collective bargaining and union access, because strong unions are a workplace form of democracy. I have seen what happens when people are denied that right. I have reported on labour abuses and wildcat strikes—the desperate measures that workers across the international supply chains of Amazon and Apple have gone to when their ability to form a union and advocate for their rights has not been protected by the state. That simply pushes problems underground.
Labour Members know that when workers have issues, there needs to be mediation and they need to be represented properly, through legal means. If that does not happen, it stores up long-term structural challenges for the economy. In the British economy, the wage share of our economic output has fallen since the 1980s. Union representation and density has also fallen throughout that time. It is no coincidence that the two things go together, in the UK and many economies across the OECD. There is a correlation between the strength of unions, and union density, and strong wage growth and worker protections in the workplace.
Beyond the costs to the economy, there are costs to individual households. When I vote for the Bill, I will be thinking of residents and households in my constituency of Earley and Woodley. I will be thinking of the parents I have delivered food parcels to with Woodley Lunch Bunch, who, despite working multiple jobs, are still unable to make ends meet and must resort to using food banks. I will be thinking of the supermarket workers in the Lower Earley Asda, who are—like many of their colleagues across the country—concerned about the threat of fire and rehire.
Above all, I will be thinking of frontline NHS workers in the Royal Berkshire hospital in the centre of Reading, who went to work day after day during the pandemic to clean up after people, suffering the threat of contagion. Many of them—especially those outsourced from private companies—were not afforded statutory sick pay because they were below the lower earnings limit. During the pandemic, the sick pay of many outsourced workers in the NHS was less than a quarter of the national living wage. That is a tragedy. Presenteeism caused by the lack of sick pay costs our economy by reducing productivity and increasing the likelihood of chronic health conditions. I am very proud to support the Bill.
Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)
I am glad to draw the House’s attention to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and to my membership of the GMB and Unite trade unions.
The Bill is at the start of its parliamentary stages, but today is also the culmination of years of hard work and consultation. It is important to recognise the accomplishment that the Bill’s introduction represents, and the Ministers, civil servants and special advisers involved deserve great credit. The Bill was born out of the undermining of the dignity and protection of work over many years, which falls heaviest on those in working-class occupations. We all know the effects that 15 years of wage stagnation has brought, the shameful limits that in-work poverty places on the potential of the people we represent, and the unfairness shouldered by those who are trapped on insecure contracts, including in the security and retail sectors in Birmingham Northfield. The Bill will make a real positive difference to their lives.
In the short time available to me I will focus on three measures. First, the 3,000 school support staff and care workers in my constituency are some of the lowest-paid people in public services. They are predominantly women who work under inadequate and outmoded terms and conditions, and their professionalism has gone unrecognised for far too long. I hope that the creation of a school support staff negotiating body and an adult social care negotiating body will have cross-party support.
Secondly, the condition of outsourced workers in public services has also been neglected. They are the invisible workforce who keep our hospitals running and our nation secure. For more than 100 years, under the fair wages resolution and the initial version of the two-tier code, Governments of all colours recognised the principle that outsourced workers should not be placed at detriment. The reinstatement of that principle is of critical importance.
Finally, I welcome the proposed reforms to trade union recognition and access arrangements. When the system has been shown to be open to abuse, it must be changed. In that sense, there is a direct line of continuity between the Grunwick dispute of the ’70s—in which the late Member for Birmingham Erdington, Jack Dromey, played such a prominent role—and the creation of a statutory recognition regime 20 years later. I have heard directly from GMB members about the disgraceful anti-union tactics that they have faced, which were not anticipated when the current law was drafted. They must not wait 20 years for remedy. This Bill is important and necessary, and I am proud to vote for it tonight.
Josh Simons (Makerfield) (Lab)
When Sam Woods, one of my predecessors as the MP for Makerfield, started his working life at just seven years old, he accompanied his father in the pit. By the time he died in 1915, he had become a strong representative for his fellow miners. He played an instrumental part in the formation of the Labour party and championed the legal limit of eight hours for a single mining shift in the Coal Mines Regulation Act 1908. He was, like me—as my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests will attest—a proud trade union member.
Sam Woods’s story is partly about the Labour party’s moral purpose: to improve through Parliament the conditions, security and pay of working people in the United Kingdom. But his story is also about the transformative power of work itself. At its best, work is how we contribute to our family, our community and the trajectory of our nation. Coalmining powered Britain’s industrial revolution, providing industry, warmth and energy. It bound the work of ordinary men and women to the path of our nation. That spirit of production instilled the values of respect and hard work in the communities I represent—values I continue to hold dear. By contrast, the Conservative Benches—sadly, once again so sparsely populated—always sought to resist the change that makes work more secure and better paid. They pit the interests of businesses against workers, of finance against industry, and even sometimes the interests of men against women.
In Sam Woods’s time, Conservative Members said that regulations would bankrupt businesses and even increase unemployment. They said that they would harm communities such as mine. That is why I am particularly pleased the Bill introduces day one protections for pregnant women and rights to paternity leave. The impact assessment clearly anticipates the reforms will have a positive economic impact, which is good for mums, for dads and for growth. I look forward to the upcoming review of shared parental leave, which will cover maternity and paternity leave.
Through work, women organise their power to advocate for equality at work and at home. Through work, we build social bonds, relationships and our sense of purpose. Now, Britain once again has a Government who recognise that work is at the heart of how we participate in, and contribute to, our families, community and country. The industry and ingenuity of working people up and down this country is what makes us who we are. A century ago my predecessor Sam Woods changed the law because he understood that. Now, I am proud that this Government are once again restoring respect and dignity to work, as well as ensuring that all work is secure and well paid. That is why it is an honour to support the Bill tonight.
Darren Paffey (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)
As a proud member of Unison, I am delighted to refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. It is such a pleasure to be here on the Government Benches and rise to back this pro-growth Bill. I do that proudly on behalf of the people of Southampton Itchen, because I know that it will change my constituents’ lives for the better. It is the largest overhaul of working people’s rights in decades, and it will truly make work pay. That is what this Government are about.
As things stand, unfortunately too many employers put their profits before their staff, and for 14 years the Tory Government were happy to just sit back and do nothing about that. One of my constituents shared with me their experience of having their contract changed to zero hours behind their back, leaving them without shifts and unable to make ends meet. That has to stop. The Bill rebalances that relationship and puts an end to the underhanded moves used by some employers. Instead it gives over 1 million people on zero-hours contracts those guaranteed hours, and provides all workers with the protections they deserve.
We know that a secure job is about more than just a salary; it is about someone having the peace of mind that they can put food on the table for themselves and their family. The Bill enshrines such basic rights in law. With over 16,000 unfair dismissal cases a year brought to tribunals, and over 200 cases every month in the south-east alone, workers are clearly facing unjust treatment. Removing the qualifying period for unfair dismissal will offer people greater security from day one and promote a fairer workplace.
I want my constituents to have better pay, a better life at work and better parental leave. They are already telling me about their optimism for the Bill. It is a Bill that will benefit employers too, by helping to keep people in work, increasing staff retention and reducing recruitment costs for employers. That is happening because this Labour Government are pro-business and pro-worker. By increasing those protections, levelling the playing field and modernising our working practices, today a new dawn is breaking for working people. I am proud that it is a transformational Labour Government bringing forward the crucial Employment Rights Bill within our first 100 days.
Kirith Entwistle (Bolton North East) (Lab)
I declare that I am a proud member of GMB, Community and the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers. I point Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, where I declared donations from those unions. I stress that without that money, as a young mum with a small baby, fresh off maternity leave, I would not be standing in this place today. That is a privilege that I believe many Members on the Opposition Benches, which I note are largely empty, take for granted.
I welcome what is the biggest uplift in workers’ rights in a generation, building on the legacy of previous Labour Governments. Bolton North East has over 50% more youth unemployment than the national average. Those workers deserve dignity, stability and to know that their Government are on their side, and for the young people in my constituency, it is about knowing that they have a future. That is why I am incredibly proud to stand in this Chamber today, and I commend the Deputy Prime Minister and my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Benches on bringing this legislation before the House.
Improving the lives of working people is one of the things I came to this place to do, as I am sure many of my colleagues did too. With the Government’s “Next Steps” document already published, I sincerely hope Ministers will continue that close collaboration to finalise the practicalities of the Bill with our trade union movement—the fine details that will make all the difference to families in my constituency. Extending workers’ rights and protections is a crucial step towards making work pay, and I look forward to seeing further measures to make work pay, such as extending rights and protections for self-employed people so that all working people can benefit from these widespread changes.
This Bill marks a turning point for working families, not just in Bolton but across the UK. As a member of the Women and Equalities Select Committee, I am particularly pleased that among the Bill’s 30-plus reforms are increased protection from sexual harassment, the introduction of equality action plans, and strengthened rights for pregnant workers. I commend the Deputy Prime Minister and her ministerial team on bringing this Bill before the House, and I look forward to seeing its progression.
Mrs Sarah Russell (Congleton) (Lab)
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my membership of the Employment Lawyers Association, the Industrial Law Society, Unite the Union, Community and the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers.
The treatment of women in Harvey Weinstein’s companies, UKFast, and plenty of other organisations across the UK is notoriously horrific. A significant number of women work in workplaces that are basically run like medieval fiefdoms. Corporate governance in the UK appears to largely serve to cover up sexual harassment, and to do very little to prevent it.
As someone who has negotiated settlement agreements for a lot of women who have suffered sexual harassment or maternity discrimination, I do not recognise the descriptions of UK employees that I hear from Conservative Members. They appear to regard employees as desperate to bring employment tribunals at any possible opportunity, but my experience of representing women in those situations is that they are desperate to avoid bringing employment tribunal claims. They think that if they talk about what has happened to them, it will cause them significant reputational damage—that they will be blamed for their experiences, and that they will never work again.
As such, they sign settlement agreements meaning that they cannot talk about what has happened to them. They do so knowingly, and often for really quite small sums of money, because they are terrified of the amount it will cost them in legal fees if they try to pursue a claim to tribunal. That is one of the reasons why I am proud to be a member of trade unions and to have given advice to trade union members, because that enables those women to get the support they need to assert their basic workplace rights.
A 2016 TUC report talked about the fact that young women in particular, as well as women on zero-hours contracts, seem to be reporting higher levels of sexual harassment at work than other, older women. In short, those of us who get to a certain age like to hope that things have got better because we stop personally experiencing sexual harassment at work. Unfortunately, the reality is that younger workers, who have less access to advice and support and are more economically vulnerable, continue to receive that harassment year after year. Things are not getting better. Employment rights are fantastic, and it is great that we are improving access to them through this Bill, but when Conservative Members oppose our moves to restrict the use of zero-hours contracts, they do not understand—so far as I can tell—that those contracts, which keep women in precarious employment, are one of the mechanisms by which sexual harassment occurs. As such, I commend the Bill to the House.
Jon Pearce (High Peak) (Lab)
I, too, am a proud member of the GMB. I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
This Bill delivers on a key Labour manifesto commitment. It provides a framework for the biggest change in workers’ rights in 50 years. We have heard in this debate that it will ban exploitative zero-hours contracts, abolish the scourge of fire and rehire, and modernise trade union laws. I would like to focus my comments, though, on the vital reforms that this Bill will deliver for young families, and particularly women, in my constituency of High Peak and across the country.
As the Conservative leadership debate is shamefully focusing on whether women should have less maternity pay, and whether a woman can be a mother and a leader, let me tell Opposition Members that they can—and they are, in businesses up and down this country. If the Conservatives joined us from wherever they are—perhaps somewhere in the 1950s—they might understand that far better.
Before I entered this House, I was an employment lawyer advising businesses small, medium and large. One of the occupational hazards was friends and families wanting advice about workplace rights. The most depressing aspect of those chats was that new mums wanted and needed those conversations most. The story was always basically the same: they had just returned to work from maternity leave, and their employer had informed them that they were no longer needed, their job no longer existed, or that they were at risk of redundancy. The joys of that first year to 18 months with a new baby were all but tarnished because of worries about the security of the mother’s job.
An estimated 4,000 pregnant women and mothers returning from maternity leave are dismissed each year. We have to do better if we are to improve productivity and grow our economy. We have to show young families and young mums that they matter, and that their contribution to society and our economy is valued. This Bill will do that. It will create the power to ban the dismissal of women who are pregnant, on maternity leave, or in the six months following their return from maternity leave.
It is depressing that the Opposition wish to portray protecting mums from dismissal as red tape and a burden on businesses, when good businesses know that this is the right thing to do. When I vote for the Bill, I will do it to show every working family in High Peak and in Britain that we are on their side. We are the party that values families.
Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Speaker, for allowing me the privilege of speaking in this debate on the Government’s historic legislation. This really is the moment that all Labour Members fought so hard for. This is what I promised my community, the people of West Dunbartonshire, that my Labour Government and our Prime Minister would deliver. Some whom I spoke to on the doorstep had given up hope that anyone could change their life for the better. We promised them that we would deliver change—that we would make work pay, and make work fair.
This Bill will bring an end to years of low-paid, insecure employment, which not only failed our people but failed the economy. As a solicitor in private practice, I grew tired and demoralised from regularly having to advise my clients that there was nothing they could do to save their job or improve their working conditions because they had not worked for their employer for two years or more. We will establish day one rights, but please let us also take on board the Law Society’s advice. We must properly resource employment tribunals and fully fund legal aid to allow access to this justice that we seek to introduce.
I received a thank-you card from my constituent Sharon from Clydebank. She said to me:
“I wanted to tell you how the New Deal for Working People will make a difference to me. I am employed in social work. My wages have not increased in line with inflation, meaning a loss of income. I do a difficult, stressful job in public service and all staff are at breaking point. From banning exploitative zero hour contracts to ensuring we have access to workers’ rights from day one—thank you for supporting a New Deal for Working People.”
That is the change we promised.
This Bill signals the largest rights upgrade for workers in my constituency of West Dunbartonshire in a generation by ending exploitative zero-hours contracts and fire and rehire, and by establishing day one rights. Some 7% of the overall workforce in West Dunbartonshire is paid at or below national minimum wage rates. This Labour Government will make work pay for the lowest-paid in West Dunbartonshire, and assist employers in my constituency by helping them to retain their hard-working staff.
In Scotland, we had two bad Governments, and our job in Scotland is only half complete, because it has taken the SNP 15 years just to attach conditions to the Scottish Government’s grants on living wages—
Antonia Bance (Tipton and Wednesbury) (Lab)
As a proud member of Unite and a former TUC staffer, I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. In addition, I think ASLEF and the GMB for their kind support of my election campaign.
During the election, I met a young man in Great Bridge in my constituency who was living in a caravan on his parents’ drive, working in a warehouse on a zero-hours contract and not knowing what his pay packet would be from one week to the next. I say to him, to the one in eight black and Asian workers trapped in insecure jobs, and to the 1 million fellow citizens denied the security and the dignity of secure work: “We get it. We know you didn’t choose a zero-hours contract.” Eight in 10 workers on zero-hours contracts want regular hours. We will ban those disgraceful contracts and—listen up, colleagues —we will do so with the support of reputable businesses, such as Julian Richer’s Richer Sounds.
Raising the amount of collective bargaining is indispensable if we want to drive down poverty and inequality, and that is what this Bill will do. This Bill will allow unions to get into more workplaces and tell more workers why they should join a union. No employer needs to fear unions if they are confident that they act fairly towards their workers, and that their sites are safe, so we will legislate to make sure that unions can get into every workplace. After all, do we really think that ambulances would have been at those Sports Direct warehouses 76 times in two years, including for a woman who gave birth in the toilets, if there had been unions checking safety on that site? That is why unions need the right to go into workplaces. As a side note, the rules on access have to be practical, so I gently say to my right hon. Friends that the access agreements as drafted in the Bill give rogue employers just a few too many ways to keep unions out, and I hope we can sort that. This is not just about getting unions into workplaces; it is about getting unions recognised, and having the right to negotiate as equals at the table with the boss on wages, conditions and more. The changes on recognition are fantastic, and are to be celebrated. I hope we can go just a little further and end the three-year lockout, following a failed recognition ballot, that has kept unions out of the workplace, just as GMB workers are kept out of Amazon.
The working class are the backbone of this country. Contrary to what Opposition Front Benchers say, workers are the dog, not the tail. We all deserve security at work and a decent wage. I will be so proud to vote for this Bill—
Steve Yemm (Mansfield) (Lab)
I, too, draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, and my membership of Unite and the GMB.
I welcome the Bill, and I know that my constituents in Mansfield will, too. There are two key aspects of it that they will be particularly keen to see. First, it offers the right to collective bargaining on pay for those in social care. People in that sector do incredible work, with long shifts and unsociable hours. I am sure that the whole House will join me in thanking the more than 1.5 million people who work in social care across the UK. It is a scandal that, despite the importance of their work, many are paid the minimum wage and struggle to provide for their family. I recall a particularly striking encounter on the doorstep in Mansfield during the recent general election campaign; I spoke to a former adult care worker, who told me that they had become a dog walker because the pay was better. We are a nation of dog lovers, but that is not acceptable to me.
The second aspect relates to sick pay. Millions of workers in the UK are entitled to minimum statutory sick pay only, which stands at £116 a week, and they are not eligible for any sick pay for the first three days of sickness. Opposition Members clearly feel that that is perfectly acceptable, because they took no action on it over the past 14 years, but I wonder how many of them could feed their family and pay their bills on £116 a week. Only recently, almost 300 workers in my constituency have been on strike, including porters, cleaners and cooks employed by Medirest, a private contractor in my local NHS trust in Mansfield. Supported by my union, the GMB, they took a stand, because Medirest company bosses refused to keep their terms and conditions, including on sickness pay, in line with those of colleagues employed directly by the NHS. All those workers wanted was the right to reasonable sick pay. The Bill will help to strengthen statutory sick pay, and for that reason my constituents and I support it, and I commend it to the House.
Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab)
I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am a proud GMB member; I am told that there are now more of us here than there are Conservative MPs.
Our economy is fundamentally rigged against millions of workers. How else could we describe an economy where many people’s pay does not cover the essentials, where there are people in work who are reliant on food banks, and where the state has to top up poverty wages through universal credit? Nottingham has some of the lowest average incomes in the country, and my constituents are tired. They are tired of living from pay cheque to pay cheque, tired of being unable to save, and tired of having to choose between going to work sick or falling into debt. People’s mental health is suffering as they work multiple jobs to make ends meet, or worry that they will not be given enough hours to pay the bills. That cannot go on, which is why the Bill is so important.
The Bill is about making work pay and creating a better work-life balance, and a more family-friendly economy. It is about fixing the problems that previous Conservative Governments allowed to fester, or even encouraged. The 1 million people on zero-hours contracts deserve security, and the Bill will give them the option of guaranteed hours. Those who miss work because they are sick deserve to be paid, and the Bill will entitle them to statutory sick pay from day one. Every worker deserves to earn enough to afford the essentials, and the Bill will mean that the cost of living is accounted for when setting the minimum wage, and remove discriminatory age bands.
The Bill is an investment in our future. Making work pay will give people more money to spend in the local economy, and improve people’s health, easing the pressure on public services. We have heard scare stories from Conservative Members before. They told us that the minimum wage would cause an unemployment crisis; it was not true. They want the public to fear trade unions, but trade unionists are not the bogeymen that the Conservative party presents them as. They are our postmen, our child’s teacher, and the nurse who cared for our sick parents. Trade unions are the combined power of millions of ordinary working people. From health and safety improvements to holding bad bosses to account and advancing gender equality, trade unions are a force for good in all our lives. I welcome their strengthening through the Bill, but I would like us to go further and scrap every anti-union law introduced since the Thatcher Government came to power. We must not stop here. The Bill is a vital first step to delivering the new deal for working people and resetting our rigged economy, but it is just that—a first step. We must also close all fire and rehire loopholes, create a single status of worker, and extend collective bargaining.
Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)
Like many of us today, I proudly say that I am a member of the GMB and of USDAW. Alas, I cannot declare any donations from either of those organisations, but we do still have a good stock of USDAW carrier bags, which everybody knows are the cornerstone of any Labour campaign centre. I was also recently the director of a mid-sized technology firm. The attitude from those on the shadow Front Bench towards flexible working is frankly out of date and divorced from where the labour market is currently in that sector and many others. Perhaps they might like to reflect on that.
I welcome the Employment Rights Bill and its potential to reshape the landscape of employment in our country to help deliver economic growth and to make work pay. For too long, British workers have endured the burdens of insecure contracts, low pay and inadequate protection in the workplace. That cannot and must not continue, and it is exactly what the Bill will fix. It will enhance the rights and wellbeing of workers and restore dignity, fairness and respect to the workplace, while fostering a robust environment for businesses and contributing to the overall health of the economy. Whether it is ending exploitative zero-hours contracts and fire and rehire practices, establishing day one rights for paternity, parental and bereavement leave for millions of workers, or strengthening statutory sick pay, this Bill is a pivotal step towards achieving fairer and more equitable workplaces.
In the limited time I have, I want to consider the Bill’s provisions on collective bargaining in two sectors. The return of the school support staff negotiating body is an important and welcome first step in improving the pay and conditions of teaching assistants, technicians and others who do vital work keeping our schools running. Their work often requires specialist technical knowledge. They are providing essential support for children with special educational needs, and they are also disproportionately women, and their pay has not kept pace with teachers because of wider pay freezes in local government. I hope that this step will precipitate a broader reassessment of the value of school support staff and ultimately bring about the demise of unfair “term-time only” contracts that see staff lose around £4,000 a year.
The Bill’s provision to establish an adult social care negotiating body is also incredibly welcome, but I urge the Minister to go further and provide a framework to provide for a negotiating body in any sector, with the sectoral specific definitions implemented in secondary legislation. That would the allow the Secretary of State to roll out collective bargaining more quickly and easily to other similar sectors. I urge Ministers to give that consideration, as the Department brings amendments to the Bill in its passage through the House.
Taken as a whole, the measures in this Bill, along with our wider plan to make work pay, promise to create a future where every worker can thrive, businesses can flourish and our economy can prosper. That is why I am proud to support it.
Alex McIntyre (Gloucester) (Lab)
I must declare that I am a proud member of the Community and GMB unions, and—this may be of interest to the Opposition— in my previous role I was an employment lawyer to organisations from FTSE 100 companies to our NHS. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) might like to reflect on and apologise for his patronising comments to Government Members.
The Bill will provide the most substantial upgrade to workers’ rights in a generation and greatly benefit many in my constituency of Gloucester. Secure, well-paid work for all my constituents is the best way to tackle the legacy of the Tory cost of living crisis. The Bill will take action on zero-hours contracts, which leave workers vulnerable to financial instability and uncertainty. I support the Government in ending that exploitative practice, so that my constituents can benefit from guaranteed hours.
The Bill will strengthen the right to flexible working, which is essential not only for enhancing work-life balance, but for reducing pay gaps in our workplaces. I support measures by the Government to support people in Gloucester to enter back into work in an inclusive and supportive way. The Conservatives doubled the qualifying period for unfair dismissal, leaving 8.5 million workers without protection. The Government will establish an unfair dismissal policy from day one, which will directly support many of my constituents, particularly those on lower incomes.
The Bill will strengthen paternity leave and champion the rights of women in the workplace through enhanced menopause support and protection from sexual harassment. It will improve the pay and conditions of school support staff and social care workers. We all rely on those vital services, and I am pleased to support the Government in valuing the vital work of our social care workers, particularly those in my constituency.
Let us not forget the consequences of Conservative policies, which have led to chaotic industrial relations, leaving many of my constituents worse off amid a cost of living crisis. After 14 years of stagnating wages, millions of lives has been disrupted and our economy has suffered immensely. Industrial action in the NHS alone cost taxpayers £1.7 billion—a staggering sum that could have been invested in the public services that we all rely on. The Conservatives have consistently opposed workers’ rights, but we will always champion them. I have been shocked by the vitriol from the Opposition towards hard-working people getting basic rights like not being sexually harassed at work; they are out of touch.
This Government will deliver a stronger, fairer and brighter future by making work pay, growing the economy, raising living standards and creating opportunities for all. The Bill marks the beginning of a new deal for working people and a brighter future for Gloucester.
Lee Barron (Corby and East Northamptonshire) (Lab)
I declare my proud membership of the Communication Workers Union and that, by virtue of my last name, I am the only legitimate union Barron in this House—I am proud of that fact.
The Bill is a step change and a new deal for working people. It is transformational for so many in my constituency of Corby and East Northants because, for too long, the world of work has not paid. Let’s make no bones about it: this is about growth. We do not believe that the economy can grow based on insecure jobs, zero-hours contracts and bogus self-employment. People need more than that to feed their families. That is why the Bill is so essential. This legislation will give working people a sense of fairness in the world of work, where they can play their part in building our economy and be treated as they should be in our society—with the security, dignity and respect that a job should bring. Our values should not stop at the front door of our workplace; they are an essential part of it.
In this debate, Opposition Members have turned around and said that we are doing this to them: “Businesses don’t want this; no one wants it apart from you lot.” Well, if they had a look at the poll conducted by the Institute for Public Policy Research along with the TUC, they would see that 60% of employers said that employees should have more security at work; 74% believed that strengthening employment rights would improve workforce retention; 73% said that strengthening employment rights would boost productivity; 61% thought that stronger employment rights would have a positive impact on business profitability; and 73% said that they would be prepared to support giving employees protection from unfair dismissal from the first day. This is not being done to anybody. It is being done with them, and we should be proud of that.
Here is my final point: we pay millions to people who look after our money, but we pay peanuts to those who look after our people. That needs to change. That is why I am so pleased to support the improvements to pay and conditions through fair pay agreements, starting in the care sector. They are the ones who need it. We need to deal with the recruitment and retention of the people who look after our loved ones, so that they know from one day to the next who will be coming around and washing their bodies. It needs to be done; it cannot stay as it is. That is why we should support the Bill.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
As many Members have done, I proudly register my membership of the GMB and Unison, and that I am a co-owner of a small business.
One of the consequences of the last 14 years is insecurity in every part of British life. Hartlepool people, who I represent, are insecure in their communities, in their homes and in their jobs. That is why I welcome the Bill, which has security at its heart, banning exploitative zero-hours contracts, ending fire and rehire, and providing day one rights. Listening to Opposition Members—maybe the shadow Minister could reflect on this in his wind-up speech—I would like to know on what day the Conservative party believes it suddenly becomes not okay to unfairly dismiss somebody. What is that time? If it is anything other than day one, then quite frankly they are abandoning the workers of this country.
The Bill does more than give security to workers. It gives people dignity: the dignity to grieve without having to ask permission; the dignity to choose to become a parent without having to worry if it will affect their opportunities in the workplace; the dignity of knowing that they can afford to be ill; and the dignity of knowing that they can turn up to work and be safe. Security and dignity are what British workers, including in Hartlepool, deserve. When people have security and dignity in the workplace, they get opportunity: the opportunity to grow, to develop, to train, to become better at what they do and to become more productive.
In recent days, I have heard people on the right of politics suggest that the Bill is somehow an attack on the “wealth creators” of our country. What nonsense. Let us be absolutely clear: the wealth of this country is created by its workers. Through the dignity, security and opportunity that the Bill provides, we will grow our economy and give respect to every worker in my constituency and beyond.
Kirsteen Sullivan (Bathgate and Linlithgow) (Lab/Co-op)
I draw the attention of the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
As a GMB member, it is a great pleasure to speak in this debate. I feel, and my hon. Friends feel, that a substantial uplift to employment rights is long overdue. For far too long, it has been too difficult to get ahead, and too many working people—people who have worked hard—have seen their finances deteriorate, pushing them into hardship. They have done the right thing that society expects of them and they are getting very little in return: they have cut back on the essentials; they have sought extra hours at work; they have had to find second jobs; they have sold furnishings and accessed food pantries just to keep their heads above water—and they find that there is still too much month at the end of their money.
In 2022, the Low Pay Commission estimated that 20% of minimum wage workers and 20% of living wage workers did not receive what they had earnt in wages, sick pay and holiday. The great pay robbery will not be left to continue anymore. That is why it is crucial that the Bill establishes the fair work agency, making sure that everyone is playing by the same rules—and those rules are simple: dignity in work and fair pay. The Bill is long overdue and far too many are missing out on what they are owed.
In the groundbreaking first days of this Labour Government, they mandated that the minimum wage must reflect the cost of living not just this year but every year, matching the earnings of hard-working people to the bills they face for food, energy and transport. Across Scotland, that means a direct pay boost to over 100,000 people, including to over 2,500 people in the West Lothian area and 3,000 people in the Falkirk area. I am proud that this Labour Government are leading business and trade unions to work together to get the economy fired up and to make sure that the people of this country are paid fairly.
The Bill is starting where we left off, with a plan to make work pay, and with fair sick pay, real holiday pay, a clampdown on precarious employment, an end to fire and rehire, and proper hours of work and proper earnings to match. The Bill makes it clear that it is time to go for growth: a stronger, fairer, brighter future for work in the UK.
Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)
Let me declare first that I am a proud member of both Unite the Union and the Community trade union, and secondly that I am even prouder that the Bill will positively transform thousands of lives across the Clackmannanshire and Falkirk council areas that I serve in this place.
I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) for their comments about prison officers. Under section 127 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, prison officers were banned from taking industrial action. Correctly, the Scottish Parliament restored the right to strike in 2015, but today prison officers in the rest of the United Kingdom find themselves in a poorer position than their Scottish counterparts, in that they are not allowed to withdraw their labour.
Section 127 has also limited trade unions’ ability to protect prison officers from wage stagnation and attacks on their terms and conditions, which has led to a recruitment and retention crisis and, naturally, to low morale. As in professions such as nursing, the police, the fire brigades and teaching, it is often the camaraderie of colleagues on the shift that keeps things going in a job that provides a vital public service that has been disgracefully underfunded.
The state of our prisons is well documented. Ruthless Conservative austerity has hammered the service. More than a quarter of prison officers have left since 2012. Prison officers were not exempted from the Conservative Government’s raising of the public sector pension age to 68, which, given the physical nature of the day-to-day work, is obviously unfair, unrealistic and, of course, incredibly dangerous. Since that wealth of experience has left, violence directed at both officers and prisoners has escalated.
The prison system is another mess that this Government have inherited and must now sort. Prison officers should have the right to retire at 60 or after 30 years’ service: it is just the right thing to do for employees. No one should feel like a disposable commodity that is there to be exploited and then discarded when every last ounce of work has been wrung out of them. It is also right that prison officers in the rest of the UK achieve parity with Scottish prison officers: they too should have a fundamental right to withdraw their labour.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. There will now be an immediate two-minute speaking limit.
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)
I declare my interest as a member of Unison and Unite. In May last year, I condemned the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023 for the consequences that it would have for trade unions. I welcome the fact that this Bill will repeal that Act, and I pay tribute to trade unions and their members for their tireless campaigning. I am keen to hear from the Minister whether the protections for pregnant workers, specifically the right to maternity pay, will be a day one right, and whether there is scope to circumscribe redundancy during pregnancy and maternity leave. If so, will he consider adding those changes to the Bill at a later stage?
There is no doubt that the Bill is hugely positive. However, like my hon. Friend the Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman), I want to say something about prison officers, who cannot strike because of section 127 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act, that Tory-era legislation. There are three prisons in my constituency and I know about the hardships that prison officers face, which are pushing many of them to the brink. I hope that the Minister will be able to meet representatives from the POA and work to repeal section 127 so that its members can have real equality with their fellow trade unionists in other unions.
What we have here is a series of policies that will drastically improve the lives of workers across the country. The Bill is an important first step towards ensuring that all workers can realise their own dignity and worth through their work. The fact that we have it before us today is a testament to the strength of organised labour and the resolve of trade unionists throughout the country.
Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Ind)
I am a member of Unite the Union and am the parliamentary chair of the Fire Brigades Union. I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
After years of Tory attacks on trade unions and workers’ rights, the Bill will begin to reverse decades of Thatcherite anti-union laws, marking a real shift in the balance of power at work. The repeal of minimum service levels for strikes is a major victory: those laws were tools of class warfare that were designed to break the unions and silence workers. Scrapping them restores the right to strike, a win for every worker.
Equally important is the removal of the undemocratic ballot thresholds imposed by the Tories in 2016. Those barriers undermined collective action. By removing them, we reclaim the power taken from us. Permitting electronic and workplace balloting is another welcome move that will expand democratic participation, but it is not enough. We must go further and repeal every single anti-trade union law since Thatcher.
In its current form, the Bill retains the six-month mandate on strike ballots. Strikes are not battles of a few days or weeks; they are drawn-out struggles for justice and dignity. Workers in Coventry South who are fighting union-busting corporate giants such as Amazon know that these fights can last years. They need mandates that match the reality. We should abolish them entirely and repeal the Trade Union Act 2016 in its entirety, as the Government committed to doing.
Sectoral collective bargaining for social care and support staff is a good start, but all workers across all industries deserve that protection. Voluntary agreements on union access are not enough. Union organisers need guaranteed automatic access. We should also guarantee automatic union recognition when a majority of members join.
Workers have already waited for a decade under Tory rule while their rights have been stripped away, their wages have stagnated and they have been subjected to rogue operators such as P&O. We cannot afford more delays while powerful interests water down reforms. This legislation is a victory for the trade union movement, but the fight is far from over. We need radical change, and that is what I will keep fighting for.
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
I draw hon. Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am a proud member of the Communication Workers Union and the GMB and am a former official of Unison.
It is a huge source of personal pride to me as a former trade union official that our Government have introduced a Bill that will deliver the greatest uplift in workers’ rights in a generation. While the Conservatives have focused on scaremongering during this debate, it is important to remember the facts. Hard-working people are the trade union movement of this country. No one on the Government Benches will deny our pride in that.
The TUC estimates that 1.1 million employees did not receive any of the holiday pay to which they were entitled last year. This Bill supports those ordinary hard-working people. Last year, 4,000 pregnant women and mothers returning from maternity leave were dismissed. This Bill supports those hard-working people. Some 1.7 million people are out of the labour market because they have to look after their family. This Bill supports those hard-working people. There are 3,800 workers across my constituency of Paisley and Renfrewshire South who earn the minimum wage. This Bill supports those hard-working people. I commend it to the House and am pleased that our Government have strengthened its enforcement measures.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. The Front-Bench speeches will start at 9.40 pm, so the final Back-Bench speaker will be Michael Wheeler.
Michael Wheeler (Worsley and Eccles) (Lab)
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, to my membership of USDAW and the GMB and to the fact that I chair USDAW’s parliamentary group.
I spent my career as a trade unionist working to better the lives of people in low-paid and insecure work. They are exactly the sort of people who will benefit from the measures in the Bill, but the Bill goes so much further. I am proud to have stood on an election platform that put improving the conditions of all workers at the heart of the change that was promised. I am even prouder to be stood here today supporting the Government who are delivering that.
I will focus on one element of the Bill: the right to a contract that reflects the hours that someone regularly works. Too many people are contracted for pitifully few hours and are utterly reliant on additional hours that can fluctuate too wildly to provide financial security, with no guarantee that they will not be taken away at the whim of an employer. Measures in the Bill will take steps to rebalance that. If the hours are regularly needed by the employer and worked by the worker, it is only fair that they are guaranteed in the contract.
While hugely welcoming the Bill, I urge the Minister to consider the use of the word “low” in its drafting, as it might unfortunately limit the benefits and lead to unintended consequences. I ask the Minister to work with trade unions, as the organised representatives of workers, to ensure that the maximum number of working people benefit from this new right. I will be proud to vote for this Bill tonight. I commend it to the House.
Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)
We are approaching the end of a long and robust debate, with a total of 71 speeches so far and no fewer than seven maiden speeches. The hon. Member for Hyndburn (Sarah Smith) spoke powerfully and very impressively. The hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Dr Tidball) spoke memorably of overcoming considerable adversity and of her considerable achievements, culminating in her arrival in this House. The hon. Member for Blackpool North and Fleetwood (Lorraine Beavers) gave a moving tribute to her late parents. The hon. Member for Dover and Deal (Mike Tapp) laid down an ambitious claim to have the highest number of castles in his constituency and talked of his grandfather serving on flying boats in world war two, which is something that he and I share. The hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Kenneth Stevenson) spoke of his and his family’s great pride in his taking his seat here in Parliament. The hon. Member for Hamilton and Clyde Valley (Imogen Walker) spoke fluently about the history of her constituency, in a deeply impressive speech.
On the Opposition side, my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Shivani Raja) talked about the entrepreneurial spirit of Leicestershire and about her fears that it could be eroded by the Bill. She also, I suspect, achieved a first for Parliament by managing to shoehorn a reference to Showaddywaddy into Hansard. My hon. Friend the Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam) spoke movingly of her grandparents’ escape from Nazi Germany and amusingly of the Labour party’s contribution to introducing her parents, ultimately leading to the creation of a future Conservative MP. I commend all hon. Members who made their first mark in this House in a debate on so important a subject. I am sure that they will serve their constituents diligently in the coming years; I wish them all well.
There is much that the Opposition believe is wrong with the Bill, but I have limited time, so I will focus primarily on one element—the role of the trade unions, because their influence runs right through it. If, as expected, the House declines to support the amendment in the name of the shadow Business Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), and grants the Bill a Second Reading, there will be time to explore the Bill’s many other problems in Committee.
A running theme throughout the debate was hon. Members’ enthusiastic declarations of membership of trade unions, but for some reason they forgot to mention how much they have received in financial donations from them. I remind them and the House that, according to the LabourList website, the Government MPs who have spoken today have accumulated a total of £371,974 in donations from the trade unions. Those donations are no surprise. The public are quickly becoming acclimatised to the idea that this Labour party is in the pocket of the highest bidder, whether that be Taylor Swift, Lord Alli or indeed the trade unions.
I was, however, pleasantly surprised by the number of hon. Members on the Government Benches who have spoken in today’s debate. When I attended the Bill briefing kindly organised by the Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade, the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders), just a handful of Labour Members were in attendance, but today they have turned up in great numbers to sing the Bill’s praises. It is to their credit that they are here. Perhaps they have read or watched news of the harm that this Bill will bring and are quietly apprehensive, but have put their heads above the parapet regardless. However, when push comes to shove, they remember that they will be up for re-election in four or five years’ time, and they have to think about their trade union donors.
Very early in this debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti) said that the Bill is about not growth, but ideology. He is right. This is a trade union charter that will send Britain back to the 1970s. Of course, we know that that is a goal of the Deputy Prime Minister, who has said that she wants to repeal union legislation dating back as far as the 1980s. I appreciate that neither the Secretary of State for Business and Trade nor the Deputy Prime Minister was born until the 1980s, so they will not remember the time when Britain was brought to a grinding halt by the trade unions. The lights were switched off, bodies were left unburied and rubbish piled up all over the place. It is at this point that I remind Members that their constituents will see how they vote today.
I understand that the inboxes of Labour Members are already full, following the freebie scandal, the cash-for-access scandal, the political choice to take away the winter fuel payment and the concerns about tax rises in the Budget. They have my sympathy, but I warn them that their inboxes are about to get even busier. When the junior doctors strike, meaning that their constituents cannot access important medical treatment, they will know that it was facilitated by this legislation. When local councils strike, meaning that their constituents cannot get their bins collected, they will know that it was facilitated by this legislation. When the train drivers strike, meaning that their constituents cannot see their loved ones, they will know that it was facilitated by this legislation. And when small businesses fail because they cannot cope with the massive extra bureaucracy and costs, they will know that it was facilitated by this legislation. As the letters pile high from constituents who are unable to access the services they expect, Labour Members might want to hire more staff, or ask their current staff to work late, but they will be prevented from doing so by the very regulations brought in by this legislation, which they support.
Labour’s misunderstanding of labour relations goes right to the top. When the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care announced that a deal had been reached with the British Medical Association, he said that he was making a real difference. However, we now know that the deal has failed and the BMA is already beginning preparations for further strike action just weeks after accepting the pay deal.
I represent a Greater London constituency and I, of course, remember the Mayor of London’s promise that there would be no Transport for London strikes under his regime, but that is not going very well either. We now learn, thanks to the latest copy of Civil Service World, that there are set to be strikes in the Secretary of State’s own Department. All of that was before this Bill was introduced.
It is clear that, despite being in the pocket of its trade union paymasters, Labour’s approach to industrial relations has failed and will continue to fail. Much of the reason for that future failure will be the rushed job that is this Bill. It has been rushed to the House so quickly that it contains fewer than half of the measures included in the plan to make work pay—a fact recognised by the Government’s “Next Steps to Make Work Pay” document. A vast amount of it will require secondary legislation to take effect.
The Prime Minister has talked incessantly of the Government’s mission to pursue growth, which is an entirely laudable aim, but growth does not just happen. Sometimes, the Government have to do things to facilitate it, and sometimes the Government must not do things that would jeopardise it. The measures in this rushed Bill threaten to destroy any prospect of economic growth.
I am sure the Secretary of State will deny it, but the fact remains that the trade unions will always win out against the Labour party. The unions have donated almost £30 million to the Labour party since 2020. According to LabourList, 16 Cabinet Ministers and more than 200 Labour MPs have received training and donations, averaging £9,500 each. This rushed Bill is the first part of what the trade unions have bought with their money: the chance to massively increase their power base, not just in the public sector but in the private sector, especially in small businesses. This will not lead to growth, unless the Prime Minister is talking about growth in red tape and growth in the trade unions’ ability to choke the economy.
This rushed Bill is not a charter for economic growth; it is a charter for industrial strife, plunging productivity, rising unemployment, inflation and economic ruin. This rushed Bill is not fit for purpose, and the Government should withdraw it and think again.
The Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Jonathan Reynolds)
I thank right hon. and hon. Members across the House for an informed debate on the Employment Rights Bill and the Government’s plan to make work pay. In closing, I declare to the House that I am a proud member of the Unite and USDAW trade unions. Even more proudly, I declare that I come from exactly the kind of working-class family that stands to gain from the measures.
As this is Second Reading, let us remember the history and context leading up to the debate. In recent times, work has changed a great deal. We have seen the impact of technology and the gig economy, and we have had working from home in the pandemic. Many things have changed what work is for many people. That has created a need to consider whether our employment laws are up to date.
Indeed, it was the Conservatives, under Boris Johnson, who first promised an employment Bill in their 2019 manifesto, but they did not deliver. The subsequent Queen’s Speech, after the 2019 election, included an employment Bill, but again the Conservatives did not deliver. In contrast, this Labour Government not only promised an employment Bill; we have delivered one, and in just 100 days. Meanwhile, it appears that some Conservative Members do not even support the existing provision of things like maternity pay, so there have been some differences in opinion between Members on opposite sides of the House today.
It is a proud day for the new Government, but it is a prouder day for Britain’s workers, many of whom can now look forward to a future with far greater security and stability than they have at present. Quite simply, good work and good wages are what this Labour Government were sent to this place to deliver, and that is exactly what this Bill is about.
I take pride in the fact that the new Government have worked closely with all parties in drawing up this legislation, acting pragmatically and listening at all times. The result is a Bill that will make a huge difference to the lives of millions of working people, while being proportionate, fair and reasonable in the asks it makes of business, recognising that the majority of businesses operating in the UK already do so to a higher standard than even this Bill would introduce.
We would not have known that from listening to the depressing speeches made by Conservative Members today. People would not know that Sainsbury’s already pays a living wage; that instead of zero-hours contacts, McDonald’s already offers contracts that provide guaranteed hours; that the Mace Group offers full trade union access to workers on construction sites; that Mars Wrigley offers equal parental leave; and that BT Group already has carer’s leave. Frankly, what we heard from the Conservatives today was binary, outdated and extremely depressing, but I was delighted to hear such significant support for the Bill from the Government Benches, and from all around the House.
Some Members raised specific points. I wish I had time to respond to all of them, but I want to acknowledge the tremendous maiden speeches we heard. The hon. Member for Leicester East (Shivani Raja) gave an incredibly gracious speech about her predecessors, in a very skilful way, which is not easy when she had to defeat several of them to get her place in the House. The hon. Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam) told an incredibly powerful family story, woven into a wonderful description of her constituency, and she extolled the romantic benefits of campaigning for the Labour party, which is something we can all get behind.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Sarah Smith) captured the glorious industrial heritage of her area in a way that was extremely relevant to today’s debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Dr Tidball) gave a speech that testified to the fact that politics can be a force for good, and it was wonderful to hear. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Fleetwood (Lorraine Beavers) showed passion and commitment in every word she spoke; I cannot wait to hear more from her. My hon. Friend the Member for Dover and Deal (Mike Tapp) showed his commitment to public service, which has run throughout his entire life; again, it was a wonderful speech to listen to. My hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Kenneth Stevenson) managed to draw a comparison between his constituency and ancient Rome, which was particularly skilful. His speech was funny, warm, authentic and passionate. Finally, my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton and Clyde Valley (Imogen Walker), the MP for the area known for Robert Owen, made a wonderful and apt contribution to the debate, with a tribute to hard work and the rewards it can bring—again, it was wonderful to listen to.
Unfortunately, I must give the House some negative advice: to reject the reasoned amendment in the name of the new shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake). Quite frankly, lads, it is a bit of a mess, isn’t it, as motions go? It claims credit for measures the Conservatives once opposed, such as the minimum wage. It opposes the fair work agency, which they used to support. It claims that there will be more strikes, when they presided over a record number of days lost to strike action, and it shows even less self-awareness when it comes to the burdens on small businesses. Let us not forget who called the referendum on leaving the European Union, with no preparation for either result.
The serious point is this: the Conservative record was one of stagnant wages, low business investment and low productivity. Frankly, it was a record of failure. That is why we must act differently. The shadow Secretary of State claims that the Bill is rushed. Nothing could be further from the truth. The fact that the Bill is ready in 100 days is testament to the brilliance of the civil service and the resilience of the British model of government.
The impact assessment we have published shows that these measures will increase total employment costs by 0.4%, but we know that smaller businesses face proportionately greater up-front costs from regulatory changes. That is why we are working with them closely to make sure that these reforms, and the speed at which they are implemented, work for them. However, I want to be clear that we will not allow for the creation of a two-tier market where someone’s protection as a worker depends on the size of their employer. That would create an uneven playing field and exactly the kind of disincentive to grow that we saw too many of under the last Conservative Government.
The shadow Secretary of State also raised the question of vexatious claims under day one rights. The point he missed was that there are already some day one rights. Protection for whistleblowers is a day one right. Disability discrimination protection is a day one right. If his worry is vexatious claims, those could be brought under the existing system. I thought that was a major weakness in his argument.
We heard speeches paying tribute to what this Bill will do on parental leave. On fire and rehire, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald) for his work preparing these measures.
I will also say one more thing on impact assessments to set that 0.4% impact on the UK’s total pay bill in context. Last year, the UK’s total wage costs were £1.3 trillion. To draft a Bill that will have such an impact for so many workers, with a direct benefit transferred to low-paid workers, and to keep it as proportionate as that is, I believe, an achievement.
Finally, on zero-hours contracts, we are not taking away flexibility, but making flexibility two-way. We are ensuring that workers have the right to a contract that reflects the number of hours they regularly work, while allowing them to remain on a zero-hours contract if that is what they want. We are making sure that flexibility works in both directions. There is no reason why that should in any way adversely affect seasonal work compared with what we have at present.
To close, this is a proud day for this Labour Government. This is a change of direction. It is a change to a better and more productive culture of industrial relations in this country. In the case we are making as a new Government, we are not alone. Study after study shows the benefits of investing in the workforce, in better productivity, better resilience and more market dynamism. This Bill makes good on our promise to the British people to change their lives for the better, to deliver an economy that works for them, and to end the poor pay, poor working conditions and poor job security that have held too many people back for too long. For all those reasons, I proudly commend this Bill to the House.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Employment Rights Bill (Second sitting)
Tuesday 26th November 2024
(1 year, 4 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Employment Rights Act 2025 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 26 November 2024 - (26 Nov 2024)
The Chair
I remind Members that questions are not limited to what is in the brief, but your questions must be within the scope of the Bill. In line with this morning’s session, for each panel of witnesses I propose to call the shadow Minister to ask the first question, then the Minister, and then the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. I will then go back and forth between the Government and Opposition sides. Anyone who wants to ask a question should catch my eye. We must stick to the cut-off times specified in the programme order, so I will interrupt questioning if necessary. I remind Members that they must declare any relevant interests both when speaking in Committee and when asking questions. We are being broadcast.
Before we start hearing from witnesses, do any Members wish to make a declaration of interests in connection with the Bill?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Justin Madders)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Vaz. I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and to my membership of Unite and the GMB.
The Minister for Equalities (Dame Nia Griffith)
I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my membership of USDAW, the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers.
Michael Wheeler (Worsley and Eccles) (Lab)
I refer to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my membership of the GMB and USDAW.
Anneliese Midgley (Knowsley) (Lab)
I refer to my declaration of interests and my membership of Unite and the GMB.
Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)
I refer to my declaration of interests and my membership of Unison and the Writers’ Guild of Great Britain.
Jon Pearce (High Peak) (Lab)
I refer to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am a member of the GMB.
Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)
I again refer to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my membership of the GMB and Unite trade unions.
Alex McIntyre (Gloucester) (Lab)
I am a member of the GMB and Community unions, and until the general election was a member of the Employment Lawyers Association.
Dr Marie Tidball (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
I refer again to my declaration of interests and to my membership of the Community union, Unison and the GMB.
Uma Kumaran (Stratford and Bow) (Lab)
I refer Members to my declaration of interests and my membership of the GMB union.
Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
I refer Members to my declaration of interests and to my membership of Unison and Community trade unions.
Examination of Witnesses
Allen Simpson and Neil Carberry gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear oral evidence from Allen Simpson, the deputy CEO of UKHospitality, and from Neil Carberry, chief executive of the Recruitment and Employment Confederation. We have until 2.30 pm for this panel. Would the witnesses introduce themselves briefly?
Neil Carberry: I am Neil Carberry. I am the chief executive of the Recruitment and Employment Confederation, which is the sector body for the UK’s talent, recruitment and staffing businesses. We represent about 3,200, mostly family-owned, businesses across the UK.
Allen Simpson: Hello everyone. I am Allen Simpson. I am the deputy CEO of UKHospitality which, as the name suggests, represents the hospitality sector in the UK—about 3.5 million people in total.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
Q
Good afternoon. May I start with Mr Simpson? UKHospitality has been quite critical of this Bill in the media and in a wider setting. You have just said you represent a very large number of people. Do you think after this Bill is passed and becomes an Act—I think we can safely assume it will, with the parliamentary arithmetic at the moment—there will be more, or fewer, people employed in hospitality in the United Kingdom?
Allen Simpson: I would slightly reject your characterisation. I think in general we agree with the principles behind the reforms, and many of the substantial reforms themselves. There are areas where we will have to nuance the detail of things like reference periods and zero-hours contracts—we will get into that, I am sure. My bigger concern, however, is the aggregate costs of what we saw in the Budget with the regressive impact on lower earners in particular. Will this create more or fewer jobs? I think the Government’s analysis suggests that it is fewer, but let us balance that against making sure that workers’ rights are protected.
Greg Smith
Q
Allen Simpson: I have a red, amber and green list in front of me, so I can tell you what is on the red if that is useful. First, it is the aggregate cost: the cost of this, alongside the employer national insurance and national living wage increases, is going to be a barrier to employment. You can take the 50,000 job losses that the Government’s impact assessment describes or the 100,000 that Deutsche Bank have, but there is an aggregate cost question.
More specifically, there is a question around the variation of contracts—we can talk about that in more detail—and making sure that that protects against what we can probably call a P&O event. Equally, we need to allow for like a restaurant moving from one high-street premises to another so that contracts are not accidentally novated. There are questions around how we manage union thresholds, which we need to think through in detail. Those would be my reds, but equally, I have ambers and greens as well.
Greg Smith
Q
Allen Simpson: There is something around statutory sick pay, which is worth considering. There is a tendency, when we look at what a good job means, to build around the paradigm of an office, when working in hospitality—not unlike my wife, who is a nurse, working in a medical setting—is a different way of working. We need to think about whether or not sick pay kicking in from day two might be more appropriate than day one. Equally, I have an amber around the notice of shifts and how we manage things like major events at Ascot, Wembley or anywhere else. You did not ask, but I will say that for green, I am very supportive of changes in general to zero-hours contracts.
Greg Smith
Q
Allen Simpson: It is about 17% in total. If you look at who those people are, they are largely who you would think—students and people with caring responsibilities. I think about my mum, who worked on what we would now call a zero-hours contract while raising me and my brothers. That 17% is going to skew younger and largely skew female. There is a really interesting question around making sure you have a legal structure that allows people who want to work flexibly to do it, but also making sure that the people who want to work in a more settled, structured way—maybe because they have more responsibilities financially—to be able to do that as well. I broadly think the proposals in the Bill are the right ones.
I have a question about the reference period. I know Ireland has a 52-week reference period for estimating what your set of regular hours is, which possibly feels too long. I have always held 26 weeks in mind as a number which allows you to cope with things like seasonal working, but equally allows the worker the right to choose whether they want to work flexibly or in a more fixed way.
Greg Smith
Q
Allen Simpson: I come back to the point that you need the right legal structure. I think it is legitimate for someone who in practice is working 30 hours a week regularly and has been doing so for the last year to ask for that to be reflected in a different form of contract. That is absolutely right. It is worth saying that the data shows—and it does not matter how you look at this—that most people on zero-hours contracts are happy with that. In fact, if you advertise a zero-hours contract, you will get more applicants. To a degree, as long as it is in the gift of the employee to say, “Well, I am working these regular hours and I want that reflected in a permanent contract”, that is the right balance. However, it is important that the Government move their thinking, as they have, to recognise that zero-hours contracts are a really important social fairness point because they allow access to work for people who cannot necessarily offer their employer set hours every week—again, I come back to my mum when I was a kid. Having that distinction in law is really important.
Greg Smith
Q
Neil Carberry: I will not repeat what Allen said about the aggregate cost of the Bill, but clearly it is an enormous piece of legislation, coming at a time when businesses—particularly consumer-facing businesses—have been through the pandemic, are carrying more debt and are struggling to drive the growth that the Government want. Among my members, as with many business organisations, the tone of the debate about the Bill was changed by the Budget. That was particularly around the shift on the threshold, which directly pushes up the costs of all of the people for whom an employer’s decision to hire is maybe more marginal. I associate myself with Allen’s comments on that.
More specifically, for those who are not familiar with it, our sector places 1 million people into new permanent jobs every year, but it placed 1 million people as temporary workers into workplaces today. So I come at this from the point of view of what do those people need to have good, positive, healthy working lives. Colleagues may remember the attempt to change the conduct regulations to allow agency workers to replace striking workers, which we opposed, because at the REC we believe in protecting temps and putting them in the right space.
The most important thing for our sector is the proposal to apply the same tests and rules on zero-hours contracts to agency workers as to directly employed workers. I will be really frank about that: there is a power in the Bill, we have been through the consultation, and we cannot see how any of the approaches in the consultation work. For some of the reasons that Allen has set out, agency workers are well protected. They benefit from the Employment Agencies Act 1973, from their own set of conduct regulations—the Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses Regulations 2003, passed by the last Labour Government—and from the Agency Workers Regulations 2010.
There is a lot we can do to deliver the Government’s commitment to more certainty for agency workers—it is just not by applying the powers in the Bill. We fear that the Government are trying to avoid direct employers moving to agency to avoid the powers in the Bill. A few direct employers doing that is not worth damaging the employment prospects of 1 million people. For instance, if a supply teacher in a school has worked the autumn term to cover a sickness absence, and then the absent teacher comes back, we cannot see how giving that supply teacher a right to a contract from that school is good for the school or the supply teacher. Ultimately, we think that we will just see a move to using more overtime and lengthening the working hours of existing staff. That will be net negative for the workforce.
I think there are things that we can do on the zero-hours rules to protect agency workers, but it is not applying the proposals in the Bill. More generally, I think our members would say that the Bill feels a little undercooked in its thinking. I think it is a very quick Bill, and that there is quite a lot in it that employment lawyers and our members are looking at and thinking, “How would that work?” A classic example would be the collective consultation sections of the Bill. I do not think it is in anyone’s interests for large companies employing thousands of people to be stuck in perpetual collective consultation when they are shutting down one site with 20 people in it. That is just an example of one of the things that maybe need to be worked out through regulation—lots of this is in regulation—but we need to ensure that we are not putting up barriers to employment with the Bill.
Justin Madders
Q
Allen Simpson: It is more about the unknown. Again, reasonable notice is an important principle and there should be protections. I think that the challenge will be—I notice, by the way, from what I understand from having read what is, again, a complex and lengthy piece of work, that the Government are intending to leave it to case law and employment tribunal systems to figure out what “reasonable notice” means. In general, with different sorts of work, it is reasonable to say that there are different versions of what “reasonable notice” means. If I were going to go and work on an oil rig for three months, I would want more notice of a change of shifts than if I was going to work in the local pub. Therefore, I think it is partly about figuring out what the right starting position for notice is. It is partly about reflecting differences in things, such as whether it comes with a residential element; there are questions around that.
Then there are some practical things that I think will come out in the wash, but do need considering, such as shift swapping. What if two chefs say, “Do you mind covering Saturday, because I want to go out with my friends?” “Yes, of course; that’s fine.” Is that allowed, or can that decision only be taken outwith that notice period? There are also questions around other things. What if you put out a message saying, “There is a shift available; does anybody want it?” Have you made an offer of employment to everybody you have put that message out to? Is there a time after which you are not allowed to do that? One last thing: what if somebody agrees to move their shifts around—so you say on the Friday, “Do you mind coming in this Saturday and you can have next Saturday off?” “Yes, absolutely. Fine.” Is that acceptable?
Therefore, there are there are some practical questions about, first of all, the principle of different suitable notices of shifts depending on different forms of work, and about some practicalities, which I am sure are solvable, around the management of it.
Justin Madders
Q
Neil Carberry: I think it is reasonably well noted that we were disappointed that an employment Bill was not brought forward in the last Parliament. It is time to raise enforcement standards. One of the most common worries that I hear about this Bill, for which I will not hold you accountable, Minister, is the experience that businesses have had of being the ones who comply and take on the on-costs—there are quite significant costs associated with this Bill—and then watching people flout the law and not face enforcement, so a fair work agency is a good idea.
If I may, I have a couple of guide points that we have heard from our members. One is that we are great fans of the Employment Agency Standards Inspectorate. We think it does excellent work as our regulator. It sometimes annoys the hell out of me, but that is what it is for. The team there are deeply expert, and, in the creation of the fair work agency, I would be—if you would forgive a Scottishism—scunnered if we lost that expertise. Maintaining expertise as we move into the FWA is really important, and that goes with properly resourcing the FWA and giving it the capacity to maybe draw down some of the claims that currently take two years to go to employment tribunal.
The other thing, which is maybe a bit more challenging, is that, when we have done this in the past, success has been delivered by making these bodies of the labour market, not of the Government. If you go back to the 1970s, the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 was guided into existence for its first two decades by the Health and Safety Commission.
As a former low pay commissioner, I will say that we hear a lot about businesses’ views of the minimum wage in the ’90s; they were against the minimum wage at £7.20 an hour in 1999, and that is why it was not introduced. They were in favour of one at the introductory rate, which was developed by the Low Pay Commission. I would really like to see the FWA have that kind of tripartite guiding force to make sure that it is as much of us and our union colleagues as it is of the Government.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
Q
Allen Simpson: Yes, I think so, but fundamentally—because of the dispersed nature of hospitality, which is one of very few sectors that employ people everywhere, versus other sectors, which are much more clustered—I would make the broader point that we have a tendency to think of economics in terms of raw productivity, when actually there is the need to think about it in terms of social productivity and access to growth.
My sector is one of a relatively limited number of sectors that provide a substantive route into careers training and management for non-graduates around the country. Anything that has an asymmetric impact on my sector is going to have an asymmetric impact on the people my sector provides employment for. Again, we saw this with the Budget; increases in national insurance contributions are going to take away nearly half the pay rises expected to lower earners, and maybe 20% or 25% of the pay rises expected for higher earners. That will of course have the same geographic footprint as you would expect.
Steve Darling
Q
Neil Carberry: I regret that we are not at the end of the session, because it would have been lovely to meet Jennie.
Let me reflect on the REC’s experience. Over the past two years, we have placed 3,200 people into work from long-term unemployment through the Government’s restart scheme, and many of those people have faced barriers associated with disability. Allen reflected earlier on the flexibility offered by hospitality. Agency work also gives us a chance to do things a bit differently; it is not nine-to-five in the office. Access to Work is obviously an excellent scheme, but it only goes so far.
I will give you an example from Birmingham, where we have placed a single father into work. His challenge was not his own disability; he has a severely disabled child. The school to which one child goes is on one side of the city and the mainstream school the other child goes to is on the other side of the city, so he cannot do a nine-to-five. We have been able to place him into work on a flexible contract—when he can work, on a zero-hours contract. That is creating some opportunity.
What is really important in the whole Bill is to meet the workforce where they are, and they are somewhere different from where they were 10 or 15 years ago. This need for flexibility is how people manage. Let me round off with my favourite example. We have a member which fills Christmas shifts for John Lewis up at Magna Park in Milton Keynes. That is 3,000 jobs every day between August and Christmas, making sure that you get your Christmas presents. Ten years ago, they needed 3,500 candidates to fill those jobs because people got sick, had a week off, and obviously did not work seven days a week. Now they need 12,000 candidates, because people have greater choice: they are sitting at home, signed up to five or six of my members, and they are taking the shifts they want. For instance—this is an example that we have used in our own “temp work works” campaign—we have a temp worker who is managing a chronic illness, and they are working in the ways that they can work. If we think about the Government’s agenda today, I think embracing flexible work and agency work on that front, as an enabler for people, is really important.
Michael Wheeler
Q
Allen Simpson: Turnover is higher in hospitality than in many other sectors. Part of that is what you might call non-regretted turnover—that is, people who are in hospitality for a period and move on to their wider career, people who were students, or people with caring responsibilities. There are also people who move on for other reasons.
For people who want to be on a fixed-hours contract and are currently on a flexible contract, I absolutely agree that the ability to move from one to the other should help with retention—that seems absolutely true, yes. Equally, there are other elements of the Bill that provide a really suitable balance towards the worker and that will have exactly the same effect. The question is balancing that real value, which is absolutely there, against the unintended consequences of, as Neil has indicated, creating a hurdle rate, which means that it is hard to bring people into the workforce.
We saw, I think today, that there are 2.8 million people in the UK who are unemployed for health reasons. This is a sector able to bring those people in, and we need to make sure that we are both retaining and giving opportunities to people already in the sector and providing access to the sector for those 2.8 million people.
The Chair
Before I call Nick Timothy, we do not have long left now, and other Members are indicating that they want to speak. Could questions be quick and answers be slightly shorter, too?
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
Q
Allen Simpson: I think that is right, but the bigger impact was the Budget. Whether you take the Government’s number of 50,000 or Deutsche Bank’s number of 100,000— I have no way to tell between those two things, so let’s split the difference—there will certainly be job losses as a result. We should expect that those job losses will heavily weigh on people on minimum wage, because you can adjust the demand curve when you get to set the prices, but you cannot if the prices are set. Hospitality will bear a disproportionately large number of those losses, for sure.
If you want some qual, I was speaking to a publican who runs a series of pubs across the south-east, and his net profits at the moment are about £300,000 across the set of pubs. He estimates that next year, running the same numbers with next year’s costs, he will lose about £60,000. Clearly, his judgment is about exactly how much of that bears on raising prices, on him reducing his profits and on reduced salaries for the workers.
Alison Hume
Q
Neil Carberry: I am happy to say that from our point of view, it does not. Allen mentioned earlier the reference period, and that is how you would allow for seasonal work to be properly reflected. That balance to be struck is between protecting the interests of workers in the east coast’s hospitality industry while also protecting hospitality businesses who we know are often, as Allen said, hard-pressed. The reference period is absolutely key.
Allen Simpson: I recognise that. I said 26 weeks as a sensible reference period. Ireland’s 52-week reference period is probably longer than we need. The clarity on exclusions around fixed-term contracts and genuine casual work is material. And then, there is something in the Bill around where there is no work available after that period. It does need to be no work or limited work, because you could have a business that is still open, but the number of people staying in the hotel, say, is materially down. It needs to be possible to reflect that, and I do not think the Bill does at the moment. But that is a practical matter that does not affect the principles of what the Bill is trying to achieve.
The Chair
Order. That brings us to the end of the time allotted for the Committee to ask questions. On behalf of the Committee, I thank both our witnesses for their evidence.
Examination of Witnesses
Jamie Cater and Jim Bligh gave evidence.
The Chair
Good afternoon. We will now hear oral evidence from Jamie Cater, the senior policy manager for employment at Make UK, and Jim Bligh, the director of corporate affairs for the Food and Drink Federation. We have until 3 pm for this panel. Could the witnesses please briefly introduce themselves for the record?
Jamie Cater: I am Jamie Cater, the senior policy manager for employment at Make UK.
Jim Bligh: I am Jim Bligh, the director of corporate affairs at the Food and Drink Federation. We represent thousands of businesses around the UK in the food and drink manufacturing industry in every constituency in the country.
Greg Smith
Q
Jamie Cater: It is worth starting by saying that we welcome the underpinning principles of the Bill. UK manufacturers are committed to providing good, well-paid work. We think that genuine exploitation and bad practice in the labour market should be addressed, so we are supportive of a lot of what the Government are trying to achieve through this legislation.
There are specific measures that reflect policy recommendations that Make UK has made previously on behalf of manufacturers—for example, the extension of eligibility for statutory sick pay, making it an entitlement from day one of sickness and removing the lower earnings limit. We think that is the right thing to do, although we would like to see additional financial support for the smallest employers to help with the cost burden of that—a rebate scheme, as there was during the covid-19 pandemic. Our members also support some of the measures on things such as equal pay, parental leave and family-friendly rights.
I would list four areas of concern for us: two on individual rights and two on collective rights. On individual rights, we have some concerns around the detail of the implementation of the right to guaranteed hours. Some of that detail around the definition of regular working hours and the scope and structure of the 12-week reference period for that right to guaranteed hours will come forward in the secondary legislation. Secondly, we have concerns about the structure of the statutory probation period that will accompany the day one protection from unfair dismissal.
On collective rights, the first area of concern is around consultation requirements for collective redundancy and the impact that that will have on businesses, particularly large businesses, in our sector. We have concerns about the extent to which they will be required to consult and the potential disruption associated with that. The second area is dismissal and re-engagement, or fire and rehire, where there is a very high bar set. We think it is right that there is a robust approach to that practice and we have supported previous measures, such as the existing code of practice. But we are concerned that the approach taken in this legislation might restrict the ability of employers to take the action they need to take and that the way the measure is worded in the Bill is currently too restrictive.
Jim Bligh: We pride ourselves on being good employers of the half a million people around the country who are sector employees. We simply would not be able to feed our population of 70 million people without their commitment, hard work and dedication.
We know that a flexible labour market is the hallmark of a growing economy, and we are keen to protect that. We are very receptive to a lot of the ideas in the Bill, thinking about maternity and paternity provision, the pregnancy improvements, the lower earnings limit for the statutory sick pay rules—which is a sensible thing now we have moved away from that being a state benefit —and the recognition of the importance of flexible working, which our sector offers, too. We are strongly supportive of a single enforcement agency.
There are some areas we would like Government to look at in a bit more detail, and to consult fully with businesses in a way that follows best practice, through 12-week consultations in particular. We note with interest the concerns that the Regulatory Policy Committee expressed yesterday in its analysis.
For us, there are five areas where we think Government could work with businesses and unions to come up with a pragmatic solution that will help meet the objectives of both. For us, those are around unfair dismissal and probation periods; collective redundancies and similar concerns to those other witnesses have expressed today; some technicalities around zero-hours contracts and, specifically, definitions; flexible working and the admin burden that that poses for smaller businesses, now the burden of proof is shifting; and some concerns about the secondary powers of Ministers, which are quite wide-ranging, particularly on ballot thresholds. Broadly, however, we are receptive to the ideas in the Bill, and we look forward to working with Government to implement them.
Greg Smith
Q
Jim Bligh: Unfair dismissal and the probation periods are a concern for us. Most of our sector uses three or six-month probation periods now. About 85% of our members have told us that that is what they will use. About 6% use 12 months. There would be, I think, a concern about a nine-month period—the reduction from two years. It is critical that performance management from day one does not put a significant burden on SMEs in particular, and it is important that we keep the flexibility. If something is not right for the employee and not right for the employer—that performance is not there, that quality standards or whatever are not met—there should be flexibility in ending that employment relationship, on both sides.
What concerns us about the Bill’s proposals is that young people or people re-entering the workforce—which rightly is a priority for Government as well, and I note that Liz Kendall is speaking about this in the House at the moment—could be shut out under the changes that are coming through in the Bill. Our proposal would be to revert to a 12-month probation period. Obviously, people automatically qualify for unfair dismissal on some elements. It is right that those elements are retained, but it is important to us that you keep that flexibility from 12 months, that you have a light-touch approach and a process there as well, but also that we have enough time to implement.
What concerns us is that we are talking now about changes that will come in, I think, in two years’ time—that is a commitment from Government. That period is welcome, but we are not certain what the final provisions of the Bill will be. There is a long commitment to consultation, which we also welcome. Our proposal would be to implement two years after Royal Assent, to make sure that that concrete security and guarantee is there and that the goalposts are not shifted for employees and employers as they start.
Jamie Cater: I would echo that and agree with those comments. Stepping back slightly to look at the bigger picture, it has become difficult for us, with members, to separate out the impact of the legislation and the impact of the autumn Budget—the increase in employer NICs in particular, but in general the tax burden on businesses. That, taken together with the measures in the Bill, increases the cost and the admin associated with taking on people. There is a risk that that disproportionately impacts people on the edges of the labour market, I suppose.
It is very welcome that the Work and Pensions Secretary is today talking about how to reduce economic inactivity, particularly focusing on skills and health. We really support that focus, but there is a danger that the measures in the Bill, combined with the total cost impact, will make employers less likely to take that risk on someone.
On the protection for unfair dismissal in the statutory probation period, we typically hear from members that the usual approach would be to have a six-month probation period in an employment contract. They might then have a bit of additional flexibility for someone who is a borderline candidate if they need to be kept on probation for a bit longer, perhaps if they need a bit more skills training, experience or additional guidance in something before a firm decision is made about permanent recruitment.
Members often talk to us about effectively a six plus three model, where there is a contractual six-month probation period with the flexibility for an additional three months’ probation if there is a bit of uncertainty. The Government’s stated preference for a nine-month statutory probation period feels about right. That is probably the minimum; we would not want to see it go any lower than that. I think our preference would be 12 months, just to give that additional leeway, but nine months is probably about right for what we see reflected in standard practice from our members.
Justin Madders
Q
Jamie Cater: To come back to the impact of things like statutory sick pay, I think that will help with productivity and retention. We see a huge amount of feedback from member companies about their own investment in health and wellbeing, and the positive impact of that in keeping people in work, helping with productivity and reducing presenteeism. I think the measures on statutory sick pay will help with all those things, including reducing long-term sickness absence, reducing presenteeism and improving people’s productivity. I think all those measures are really positive.
However, what we need to be careful of, and what we are concerned about—going back again to the impact of the Bill alongside the autumn Budget—is that it does not reduce or restrict employers’ ability to continue to invest in all those other things that also improve productivity. We have heard concerns about impacts on training budgets, internal budgets for things like occupational health and wellbeing, and investment in technology and new machinery that can help workers to become more productive and efficient. There is a risk that some of the costs associated with the Bill and the autumn Budget mean that those internal investment budgets will be squeezed. There is an opportunity, through some of the measures in the Bill, to improve productivity and improve security for people in the labour market, but we need to ensure that some of those other measures are not undermining those benefits.
Jim Bligh: I agree with that as well, and I endorse everything that Jamie just said. I think that the statutory sick pay clarifications are particularly helpful, and the clarity on parental leave should be helpful too. Flexibility is also important, and we need to ensure that the flexible working practices that are already widespread in our sector, as I know they are in other sectors as well, are protected and clear. I think there are concerns that potentially outweigh some of those benefits, which we are very keen to explore with the Government through the consultation periods.
Justin Madders
Q
Jim Bligh: I think we would accept that your manifesto had a pledge to remove it from two years and take it back down. We are aware, and we are grateful for the fact, that Government have moved it from day one up to nine months—I think that is really important. Pragmatically, we should look at a 12-month window instead, which worked well before and we think could work well again in future.
Jamie Cater: This depends on the detail of what comes in secondary legislation and on further consultation about exactly how that statutory probation period works, particularly the light-touch process for fair dismissal during the nine-month period.
From our perspective, the lighter touch the better. Businesses will want to know that they will have what they need in terms of following the correct process. I am thinking about ACAS having the capacity to update things like their disciplinary and grievance procedures. If and when there are claims going to an employment tribunal around unfair dismissal, the tribunal system must have the resources to deal with the potential uptick in the number of claims going through that system. So it is about how that fair dismissal process works following the consultation process, and then ACAS and the employment tribunal having the right resources to cope with that.
Steve Darling
Q
Jim Bligh: I want to speak specifically on that to flexible working. Most of our sector, as I said, offers flexible working. I think most employers do generally, and they really see the benefits of that for employee engagement. There are eight reasons at the moment why you might reject a flexible working request, most of which are based on business need, quality, performance and so on. The concern with the proposal in the Bill is that the burden has shifted to the employer to prove business need. It could be a real challenge for smaller businesses to have to evidence that point.
If you are a small business, as many of you will know from your constituents, you may well be running the business, the finances, the sales and the HR. This adds yet more process into what should be a fairly simple system—a system that we know works, through the stats. People will request flexible working and very often that will be accommodated. The concern for us is that small businesses will be unfairly penalised on that front in particular.
Jamie Cater: I agree. Coming back to the question of timing, it is helpful, as has already been mentioned, that there is a period where not only is there further consultation for organisations like ours to feed into the details and feed in the views of small businesses who make up around 90% of manufacturing, but a period for businesses to be able to see what is coming, plan for it and make preparations. That period between now and 2026 is really important.
Generally, there is a role for Government and organisations like ours, who represent those businesses but also provide support and advice to them, to work together around the communications and make sure that people are aware of the changes—what they mean for them in practice and for SMEs who might not have HR directors, HR departments and access to lots of specialist support. We can do what we can with Government to make sure that businesses really understand what is coming, how they can comply and how they can look at things like best practice to make sure they are ahead of the curve, if maybe they need to be.
Laurence Turner
Q
Jim Bligh: I would be happy to write to you with more details. We have not had direct feedback from members. Very often, the businesses that we work with in the UK, whether large or small, are the UK arm—they will operate their HR and legal policies and all the rest of it in and from the UK for the UK market.
To go back to something I said earlier, flexible labour markets are the hallmark of growing economies and of growing productive food and drink manufacturing sectors around the world. Global businesses would say that the UK has done really well on that front in recent years, so would not want to go any further backwards. I am happy to write to the Committee after this with more information about international examples.
Jamie Cater: Anecdotally, some concern has been expressed by our members about the competitiveness of the UK when it comes to manufacturing and the measures in the Bill. There is a concern from member companies that might be headquartered elsewhere or have significant operations in countries outside the UK that it is becoming harder, more expensive and more challenging to employ people in the UK.
The Government have done a lot of very welcome stuff in developing an industrial strategy that gives a lot more certainty and confidence for lots of businesses to invest generally in operations in the UK, but when we think about the total cost of the Bill and its administrative and regulatory impacts, there is a bit of concern that it is becoming less attractive to employ people in the UK versus elsewhere. We are increasingly having conversations with members about that.
Nick Timothy
Q
Jamie Cater: A lot of those up-front costs will have to go into training, in particular for HR managers, people managers and line managers, not just to ensure regulatory compliance but for employers that want to think about how their broader culture and organisational culture reflects the principles of the Bill. Lots will go into ensuring compliance and wider training of staff.
I mentioned earlier that there was concern that the Budget announcements on NICs—you mentioned the living wage and minimum wage as well—may make it more difficult to take the risk of employing people who might require additional training and, more broadly, that training budgets might get squeezed. It is already difficult and has been made challenging over recent years for our members to recruit the apprentices that they need; I am thinking about the apprenticeship levy and wider skills policy.
The challenge, I suppose, is that given that training budgets are getting squeezed the money effectively goes increasingly into training managers rather than necessarily into the young people who need the trade and technical skills to work on shop floors and production lines. The risk is that that could further weaken manufacturers’ already unfavourable position when it comes to investing in the technically skilled workforces of the future. That is where we see the real risk.
Jim Bligh: I agree with Jamie on all that and would add two more specific examples. I have mentioned the administration burden, which falls particularly on small businesses but really falls on them all. There are two examples of where that might come in. One is on the collective redundancy proposals for consultation, which remove the single establishment. If you are a large business with, say, four or five different sites and you are making more than 20 people redundant at one of those sites, the expectation will be, according to how we read the Bill, that you consult across all those sites.
Previous witnesses have called this a perpetual consultation, and that is a concern that we have as well —that it would be quite hard to manage. It is administratively really difficult to manage something like that across five different sites in a business. It could also lead to uncertainty and confusion among employees, who are being constantly consulted on restructuring and changes to other parts of the business in other local areas that have no impacts on them.
The other point on zero-hours contracts is that there is a risk that with a short reference period of 12 weeks, you end up not aligning with seasonal spikes in demand, so you end up paying people substantially more to do contracts that actually are not required, given that that does not reflect a full season. So our proposal, like others’, is for something more reflective and closer to the Ireland model. We would suggest a 26-week reference period; that covers most elements of seasonality in a business.
Chris Murray
Q
I think, Mr Cater, you said that a lot of your organisations already go beyond the provisions that are based in this law. Do you think that the legislation could lead to more of a level playing field, where the organisations that are already treating their staff well are unaffected, but others would have to change and improve—a kind of levelling up in how people’s staff are treated?
Jamie Cater: The important thing for levelling the playing field is the fair work agency, and making sure that we have an approach to enforcement of labour market policy and regulation that is properly resourced and does have that level playing field. I said right at the start that we support efforts to remove and address genuine exploitation and bad practice in the labour market. We have confidence that the fair work agency can begin to do that.
On our concerns about the Bill, we have talked a lot about statutory probation periods, but on guaranteed hours and so on, I think there is the potential to create a level playing field as long as we have the caveats that allow that genuine two-sided flexibility where it works in the interests of both the employee and the employer—retaining, for example, zero-hours contracts where they work for both parties, as in many instances they do, so that employers and employees can still benefit from those arrangements.
Some of our concerns around the right to guaranteed hours are in things like the definition of regular working hours, and the scope, which Jim has alluded to, of the reference period, where we think there is a risk of an unintended consequence because it captures a much broader range of flexible contracts than just literal zero-hours contracts or low-hours contracts. The example that we use in manufacturing is annualised hours contracts, where employees are guaranteed a minimum number of hours over a 12-month period. They have much more financial security in terms of pay, but those hours can still vary on a week-by-week or month-by-month basis. We would not consider that to be an example of, to use the words of the plan to make work pay, “exploitative zero-hours contracts”, but depending on where that 12-week reference period falls, and depending on how you define regular working hours and what the number of those hours might be, a form of flexible employment like that could end up being in scope when maybe it is not appropriate for it to be.
We want to ensure that there are no unintended consequences where arrangements like that, which provide financial security, stable employment plus flexibility for both parties—which should be retained—unintentionally fall within scope of the measures in the Bill, because that would mean that the Bill is not a level playing field; we would be in a situation where good options for both parties had effectively been taken off the table.
The Chair
We have a few seconds left.
Jim Bligh: For me, it is about enforcement and having a really strong, well-resourced enforcement agency. That means making sure that people are aware and can be supported to comply, and then that the enforcement, fines and so on come after that. That is about having a really well-enforced system. It is also about making sure that, on the other side, the employment tribunal system can cope. That is a really important part of enforcement. At the moment, at best, we have six-month employment tribunal delays; at worst, the delay is two years. That is an area of the system that we need to look at.
The Chair
Order. That brings us to the end of the allotted time for questions. I thank the two witnesses very much for their evidence.
Examination of Witnesses
Gemma Griffin MBE, Martyn Gray and Mick Lynch gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear oral evidence from Gemma Griffin, vice-president of global crewing for DFDS, Martyn Gray, director of organising for Nautilus International, and Mick Lynch, general secretary of the RMT. We have until 3.40 pm for this panel. Could the witnesses briefly introduce themselves for the record?
Gemma Griffin: Good afternoon. My name is Gemma Griffin. I am the vice-president and head of global crewing for DFDS, which is a pan-European, Mediterranean and African ferry and logistics organisation. I am based in Dover, where we operate a number of vessels between the UK and France.
Martyn Gray: I am Martyn Gray, the director of organising at Nautilus International. We are an international trade union and professional association representing 20,000 maritime professionals, primarily in the UK, the Netherlands and Switzerland.
Mick Lynch: Hello, I am Mick Lynch, general secretary of the RMT. We are a majority railway union, but the M is for the maritime sector. We organise the ratings, as opposed to Martyn’s officers—that is the way the world works. They are seafarers around the world, although they are less around the world these days, mainly in the ferries sector and in offshore energy, where we have crew service vessels too.
Greg Smith
Q
Gemma Griffin: Just to make it clear, we are talking about seafarers, so I am not here to represent the shore-based colleagues in our organisation. As it stands, I do not believe—my learned colleagues beside me have more experience with shore-based stuff—that our seafarers are currently covered by the Bill. My understanding is that there is an opportunity today to talk to your good selves about ways or mechanisms by which we may be able to enshrine something for seafarers, so that they can be afforded similar rights and opportunities as shore-based workers.
The key point in the Bill currently relates to fire and rehire. That is the sort of stuff that we as DFDS are very pleased that you will be banning, and I hope that it does actually refer to seafarers as well. For us, that is the biggest concern among the many others that we have, as an operator that is simply looking for a fair and level playing field. That is particularly the case when we talk about the straits of Dover, where we move from UK territorial waters straight into French territorial waters, with no international waters where one might use the normal ways of international seafaring legislation. We are really hoping that we can capture some of the things that we believe our seafarers are at risk of losing if we do not extend the legislation to them in whatever way we can.
Greg Smith
Q
Gemma Griffin: Our land-based staff are already covered.
Greg Smith
But on the question about the unintended consequences of elements of the Bill—
Gemma Griffin: Do I see any unintended consequences for our land-based employees?
Greg Smith
Yes.
Gemma Griffin: No, is the answer, because we are very much trying to create a situation in which our colleagues have rights and are treated fairly. The most important thing is that there is a level playing field and that whoever operates in the same space as us, the law applies to them. If we are all UK-based and have UK contracts, I imagine that would be the case.
To make it clear, my area of expertise is seafarers. I am not really involved on the UK side, so I do not want to overreach and maybe show my absolute ignorance in that respect. I apologise.
Greg Smith
Mr Gray?
Martyn Gray: To clarify, I am a director of organising for a trade union, so I will answer from the perspective of whether the legislation goes far enough, if that is okay.
Greg Smith
Sure.
Martyn Gray: No, is the very short answer to that. It needs to go further in terms of protections for those who work at sea. There are still monumental gaps in the protections that are afforded to seafarers compared with the protections afforded to land-based workers, even under existing employment legislation, and those gaps still need to be closed up.
This legislation comes some of the way to addressing some of the challenges we saw in the wake of the decision by P&O Ferries to terminate, without notice and without consideration, 786 people in March 2022, but it still does not go far enough to place the rights and protections of those who work at sea on parity with the rights and protections of those who work in shore-based roles and with shore-based employment contracts. More still needs to be done, and more can still be done, that will allow for greater protections to be delivered for those who work at sea. That is fully within the remit of this Parliament to legislate for.
Mick Lynch: From my point of view, I do not think there will be unintended consequences. I hope the intended consequences go far enough, but maybe we will have to have more legislation. We had lots of legislation against the unions under previous Governments, so hopefully we can get more legislation in favour of workers and their organisations.
The Bill does not go far enough, but we can improve it during this process. One of the things we would like to see is the power for trade unions to get redress—injunctive power—against people like P&O, which was never considered. We were told that if we took action against P&O—and there was a slim possibility of it—we could be liable for all its revenue loss for every day of trading, which could have been up to £15 million or £20 million a day. That is impossible for workers and their organisations to take forward.
You have to remember that P&O deliberately broke the law to get rid of its workforce and to undermine good shipping companies. We have employers such as P&O and Irish Ferries working out of our ports that undermine good businesses. I just caught the end of the previous session, when the witnesses hoped that there would be a lifting of all boats—to use that pun—to create a playing field that is fairer. It will never be completely level, but it would be fairer on all the good businesses in Britain—British businesses and those working in Britain—to make the pirates, which is what we consider P&O to be, come up to the standards of everyone else doing business here. Businesses should treat their workers well, treat the environment well and treat their passengers well. If you do all those things, you will run a successful business despite a marginal increase in overhead.
Let us not forget that people like P&O are dramatically resourced by the richest people on the globe. P&O deliberately took that step to exploit our laws—as poor as they were, left to us by previous Governments—because it knew it would get away with it. What P&O has got to be aware of in the future is that it will not get away with it without consequences for its business and reputation. Unfortunately, the previous Government allowed P&O to shed its skin and leave it behind, along with all those people it made unemployed, and carry on as if nothing had happened. That is a shame on all those people who allowed P&O to do that.
Greg Smith
Q
Mick Lynch: Not particularly. We make arrangements with our employers—we have private sector employers and public sector employers—through collective agreements. I imagine that we will always create decent arrangements with all our employers, whether they are road transport, rail or maritime, about appropriate release for our people, so that is not a thing that concerns us overly at this time.
Martyn Gray: I have no particular concerns about the way facility time seems to be structured. I think overall it will prove to be beneficial. I know there are some in the trade union movement who would like to see more on that, but again, I think that, with the maritime aspect and the practicalities of working around that, what is proposed in the Bill is helpful.
Gemma Griffin: There is not a problem from our perspective. We see both RMT and Nautilus as partners in our endeavours to do the right thing for our people, so we are fully supportive.
Justin Madders
Q
Mick Lynch: I am hoping it will be, Minister. I am hoping that bad employers will have to think twice about being badder again, in P&O’s terms. I have to emphasise that we were on good terms with P&O. We— both unions—were negotiating their new vessels. They deceived us deliberately. They took legal advice that, rather than negotiate with us the new-technology vessels that were coming in, they would rather sack all their people and break the law, and use security guards to get our people out.
We need good enforcement, a powerful agency that knows what it is doing and has a clear remit, and the right deterrents. I think that goes into company law in some ways. I do not think any of those people were worried about being disbarred as directors, as fit and proper persons and all the rest of it, and I do not think they were worried about their profits being affected by any fine they would get. As it happens, I do not think anything has happened to them at all. As a director, you have got to think about whether you are going to pay your VAT, whether you are going to pass on the national insurance, and whether you are going to pay the rates and all the bills from your suppliers. You should be thinking very seriously about the consequences for you in employment law, and other laws related to employment.
But as trade unions—as representatives of the workers —we have got to have the power to intervene where we know employers are breaking the law. That is a real shortcoming. The power is all with the employers. They can injunct me personally. They can injunct my trade union. They can close us down for making clerical errors on ballots—just misnaming or misbranding the grades in a dispute—and they will do it if they get any chance. We have no power to injunct them on behalf of our members, it seems. I think that needs to be considered. The fair work agency and its enforcement powers should be at the level of injunction to stop these rogues getting away with it in the future.
Martyn Gray: I agree with that. I would add that what is quite helpful is the Bill’s removal of vessels being treated as individual establishments. That is particularly helpful when it comes to redundancy consultations, and what we saw with previous case law under previous legislation. In the case of Seahorse Maritime v. Nautilus International it was determined that each individual vessel had to be treated as a single establishment. That removed the right for operators with significant GB links anyway—in those particular circumstances—to circumvent the need to consult with recognised trade unions on what amounted to mass redundancies. There were more than 20 people being made redundant from that particular employer, but they were able to circumvent that, because each individual vessel was treated as a single establishment. That is a really helpful feature of the Bill, and something that I think should be celebrated and praised. It is going to be very helpful in our being able to defend our members’ rights and hold companies to account for their responsibilities when going through a redundancy process or collective consultation on business restructuring in organisations.
Linking that point to P&O Ferries, it would not have made a difference there; each of the P&O Ferries establishments was more than 20, so there would have been a requirement for the collective consultation anyway. Indeed, two of the P&O Ferries operations would have been more than 100 people, so they would have required slightly lengthier consultation periods under the legislation. However, this Bill will be helpful in a wider maritime context, where there are smaller numbers of seafarers engaged, in being able to defend their rights and interests and really hold a company to account over the need to make those redundancies. The change to fire and rehire is quite helpful as well, with businesses needing to demonstrate a clear and identifiable need instead of seemingly being able to operate on a whim.
Gemma Griffin: I do not disagree with any of that. Talking about significant ties to the UK, this is something that you have to keep in your mind. Often in shipping there are myriad different employers based outside the UK—the flag of the vessel can be EU, in many cases, or UK or whatever. When you look at the Dover straits, yes, DFDS has both UK and French flagged vessels, but our vessels are doing 42 sailings a day in and out of Dover port, and up to 54 in the summertime. Other operators are doing more or less the same. If that is not a clear link to the UK, I would like to know what is. It is not the same as one sailing every day out of a port in the North sea.
As an operator that holds our seafarers in good stead as the absolute backbone of our organisation, I would like to be able to see a way of capturing that in UK law, so that we will not find yet another loophole, with the flag state being responsible but doing nothing and the port state, in this case the UK, wanting to do something but not capable of doing it. That sounded like a bit of a riddle—I do apologise.
Justin Madders
Q
Let me pick up on something you said earlier, Mick, though others can answer as well if they want. You talked about injunctive relief as a potential solution to the threat of fire and rehire. We are consulting at the moment on measures including interim relief as a potential action that unions can take on behalf of their members. Can you say a little bit about why you would prefer injunctive relief, rather than interim relief?
Mick Lynch: Interim relief can take time, and I am not convinced that tribunals will have the power and the kudos to achieve it. I am not a lawyer, as you know, Minister, but I want the ability for unions to make an intervention on behalf of workers. It would have to be based on law and something that the company has done wrong, but it seems to me that injunctions are immediate and carry the weight of a higher court. When we get injuncted under the anti-trade union laws, it is at the High Court and it is immediate, and there is no doubt about the effect of that injunction. If you want to defy it, it is on your organisation’s head, whether that is a trade union or a multinational company.
If it is not called injunctive relief, I do not mind—I do not mind whatever way the Bill comes out—as long as it has the power of immediacy and enforceability through proper channels. That is what we want to see. We do not just want a slap on the wrist that the company factors in; if you have added another £10,000 to the fine, but they are sacking 2,000 people, they do not really care. What we want is for them to be forced to stop the activity, subject to the full force of the law, not just a minor blip on their spreadsheet. Whether it is called an injunction or interim relief, I do not mind. If the tribunals are beefed up so that they can do that, that is fine, because that can be a good channel as well. I am open to suggestions on that, but I hope we get the power to do it.
Justin Madders
Does anyone else want to respond?
Martyn Gray: We have spoken about unintended consequences, but an intended consequence of this Bill is addressing an imbalance between the rights of employers and of employees and workers in the UK. As a trade union, we are subject to much higher bars and thresholds when it comes to being prevented from enforcing the rights of our members or the rights of workers, and from standing up for what is right, what is appropriate and what is fair. It would be good to have a mechanism where an employer can be held to the same scrutiny, can be held to account in the same way and with the same preventive immediacy, without the consequences that we would have to face—because employers do not face the consequences if that injunction is granted and it then turns out not to be fair or appropriate, or if it is done on appeal; that is just dealt with.
This measure is about fairness and being appropriate. It is right that unions can make interventions on behalf of the members they represent, and can do so without needing to worry about having to put significant amounts of members’ money at risk. Should that then turn out to be something that needs to be resolved at a later date, unions tend not to pick those particular fights and arguments without having first looked very carefully at what is within the realms of the law and what is not. It would be extremely unusual that that mechanism would be abused, should it be granted. It is really important to ensure that the intended consequences of placing the rights of workers and of employers, and of trying to increase the rights of workers to a point at which they can address some of the imbalance, are supportive here. That would be a big help in being able to defend the rights of workers.
Gemma Griffin: I agree. The very nature of the thing is that employers and organisations are larger than employees. If employees are not able to collect themselves to a sum total where their voices can be heard, then they have no chance. There is something fundamentally wrong in this day and age that a union agreement can just be put to one side and actions taken—just completely and utterly taking the voice away from employees. When we look at how the United Kingdom operates on an international level, we are quite happy to sit with the unions and employers to negotiate at International Labour Organisation level and International Maritime Organisation level and so on—but when we come home into our own shores, those rules do not apply. The unions are not the enemy of our organisations.
It is a really poor message that we are sending out: that organisations that do the right thing and, like DFDS, recognise employees’ rights are disadvantaged, because before we sell a single ticket to a passenger, we are already hugely more costly than our operators in the same field. But we make the choice to start a race to the top instead of joining that race to the bottom.
Steve Darling
Q
Mick Lynch: If it makes us come to the table and some employers—employer groups, even—feel that they are not exempted from collective arrangements, that will be better. Some people will not like this, but in the ’70s, 82% of the workforce were covered by collective bargaining; it is now 20%. There are arguments about that and I do not want to relive the last 40 or 50 years, but that figure is clearly too low. The ILO, the International Monetary Fund and all sorts of bodies are saying that the lack of collective arrangements is forcing this race to the bottom.
But it is not just workers who get pushed to the bottom; these businesses get pushed to the bottom as well. People are now bidding on contractual margins that are completely unrealistic. I hear it from some of the clients I go into; when I am talking about contract cleaners or contract caterers—all sorts of people—they know that the people bidding for the business cannot make even a reasonable margin of maybe 2%. In a business, you would be hoping to get 5%, 10% or maybe even better, but people know that they are underbidding other people, because that is the poor state of employment law. But it is also because we have not got sectoral collective bargaining. You have had previous speakers here from the Engineering Employers’ Federation, as it used to be called—it used to run a massive collectively bargained sector in this industry. If we had that, we would have better arrangements all round and people would not be allowed to go rogue. I am hoping that there will be some provision for that in the law, so that all employers will know—whether I am working on a construction site, or the high seas, or running a window cleaning business—I cannot go below a certain level, and there will be no sweatshops or mass exploitation in the future. The trade unions must have a say in that. They must have a say even in non-union sites. That is what we used to get: the big firms used to set the trends and the perspective of where an industry should be, and many smaller businesses voluntarily followed the union agreement. They were not just union agreements but industry agreements. We have to get back to some idea of that, that the industry stands for this. But many of those employers’ federations have broken up now, and they do not even feel they need to talk to the trade unions.
I hope this Bill brings a lot of voluntary recognition, so that in the future many workers—certainly more than 50%—are covered by collective arrangements in one form or another. By the way, the EU wants 80%, for those of you still hankering after that. That is the new measure.
Martyn Gray: I believe it was in the early ’90s that the National Maritime Board last met, which used to undertake sectoral collective bargaining between the shipping industry, maritime trade unions—which then would have been both of our predecessor organisations—and the UK Chamber of Shipping, which would establish the rates of pay for both unions to then take away to individual employers and build upon. The situation exists elsewhere in the world. In the Netherlands, my colleagues are negotiating an agreement with the merchant navy equivalent in the Netherlands for commercial shipping. They are negotiating that as we speak with shipowner representatives and seafarer representatives, and they are setting what that standard looks like in the Netherlands for the minimum increase, and then we work with other employers to build on that with what we can do. It sets the minimum standard.
Envisioning what sits within this, sectoral collective bargaining will be key. We see the start of that with the fair pay agreements as they have been coming through, but sectoral collective bargaining will really help deliver the biggest gains and the biggest partnership between unions and between employers, as it should work—and does in many instances—in the maritime context. It will be crucial for solving one of the biggest challenges the UK faces at the moment—the productivity crisis. Actually working together to solve that will be done not only through sectoral collective bargaining, but by talking about how industry works. Unions, the workforce and experts in each industry should be setting the standard of what that looks like and working together to improve it and generate those productivity gains. Everybody benefits when productivity increases: workers have better pay and conditions, and employers make a profit, and have better operations and better certainty. It is win-win.
Gemma Griffin: We operate in a number of countries with sectoral agreements like this—France, Denmark, and the Netherlands—and it does make a level playing field for all competitors. You know there is a rate of pay that is fair, and that everybody else is paying, and you can focus on just doing business.
Anneliese Midgley
Q
“In the fire and rehire proposals, there is a risk that we might be making it easier to make people redundant than to change contracts”.
Do you agree?
Mick Lynch: No, I do not agree with that at all. Defending fire and rehire, or fire and replace as P&O were doing, is defending the immoral. Maybe the CBI knows a thing or two about immoral behaviour—I do not know why they would be standing up against that. We negotiate contract changes all the time, and the great problem with P&O is that they deceived us. They told us that they were going to negotiate change for new technology, new vessels and new ways of working. There probably would have been some job losses, and we would have dealt with that through normal processes. They decided to sabotage that because it was quicker, and they wanted to get imported foreign labour on those vessels at £4 and £5 an hour, rather than a collective agreement. I do not see good employers struggling with that. I do not see decent businesses struggling with negotiating contract changes, staffing level changes or new technology agreements, which we will all need right across business. We will talk to DFDS about that, hopefully in the near future, as well as Stena and all the other good shipping companies.
We are talking about it on the railway. Every trade unionist who comes in front of any of you will say that we are constantly negotiating change. At the end of the second world war, my union had half a million members, while the railway employed 1.2 million people—that has obviously changed. We had sectoral collective bargaining all through that, and most employers had never heard of fire and rehire. You can retool an economy inside collective arrangements, and our European partners have shown us that. If you refit your economy based on consensus, change and looking after people who have to leave, you will have a more successful business. If you just guillotine the whole process, your reputation will be in ruins. I do not accept the CBI’s position. It was probably against the health and safety at work Act and the sex equality Act. All those Acts brought impacts on business, and there is no doubt that the Factories Act was a bit burdensome for the mill owners and mining companies of this country. Everything is difficult for a business, but you have to live inside the regulations in a democracy, and that is what it should be about.
Martyn Gray: I suppose to some extent it is the difference between doing what is easy and what is right. It is disappointing that there is an attitude among some elements of business in this country to opt for what is easy, as opposed to doing what is right.
Negotiating with trade unions is fairly straightforward. To use the example of P&O Ferries in 2020, at the height of the covid pandemic, we negotiated redundancies as it reduced its operations and went through that process. Mr Hebblethwaite did not want to get back around the table with us because we held P&O Ferries to account over its business proposals in 2020, and we ensured that the redundancies it made were absolutely necessary and were to rightsize the business. We fed back on all its proposals and we engaged very heavily in that process in 2020, when we went through two rounds of redundancies with that particular employer. P&O Ferries then said that we could not engage with what it was proposing, because it knew the proposals were wrong and morally reprehensible. It wiped out a long-standing, collectively bargained workforce that offered quality jobs, as well as employment and training opportunities, across many deprived coastal communities. The loss of those jobs is still being felt in Kingston upon Hull, Birkenhead, Liverpool and Dover. P&O Ferries was able to say, “Actually, because what we are suggesting is so wrong, we have just decided to push ahead and do it anyway, knowing that there will be limited repercussions,” and that is to some extent why we are here talking about it.
That highlighted just how easy it was for businesses to make the wrong decisions. It is shocking and abysmal, but unfortunately not surprising, that the CBI did not recognise that those easy options are what are putting us in this position, where regulation needs to be developed. I disagree with what the CBI said, and I disagree that this Bill would make it the preferred option to go through a redundancy, or fire and rehire, rather than to engage with trade unions. When negotiating with trade unions, we understand the business operations and we can help, and we have helped.
I have been engaged in countless redundancy conversations with employers in the maritime industry where we have been able to look at things differently. We have been able to support what those businesses are going through by talking about the number of redundancies that potentially need to be made, and we have supported them in building jobs back in, in their plans for growth and in their changes to terms and conditions. That has protected jobs, and we have negotiated our way through that for the betterment of the business and the people that it employs. For the CBI and some business elements to take the approach that it is easier to fire and rehire, instead of negotiating, is really short-sighted and problematic for the future.
The Chair
I am going to try to get in three more Members in five minutes, but would you like to respond to that, Gemma?
Gemma Griffin: Just to say that jobs either exist or they do not. It is very black and white for me. Fire and rehire is always a bit of a horror story, particularly when you look long term at the skills and intelligence that the people have on your operation on how to work. For me there is always another solution. That is my point of view.
Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)
Q
Mick Lynch: I think we have to be very careful, because companies are very good at creating entities that are subsidiaries of subsidiaries that are based in other jurisdictions, with all sorts of measures that are far too complicated for a simple soul like me. I would like the reporting of a business to be very straightforward. Everyone will know whether a business is failing, and fire and rehire for a failing business is not going to work in many instances. Certainly on the onshore side, it is likely that the business will fold before such measures can be brought. And of course it is very difficult to do what P&O did because it relies on bringing people from overseas to replace people.
Grant Shapps, last year, or the year before, said at one stage that he was going to replace all the railway workers in Britain, so there was actually a Government Minister promoting fire and rehire during our dispute. So I think we have to be very careful not to allow loopholes. I know that accountants and auditors are very good at creating loopholes, but as far as possible it has got to be plain for the layperson to see whether a business is struggling and has genuine business needs to get any hint of an exemption, and they should be very rare indeed if they are to exist.
Martyn Gray: Quite simply, if directors can sign off the business as still remaining as a going concern, fire and rehire should not be an option. If we are looking at a scenario where directors are happy to say under companies legislation that it is a going concern but they need to do a complete restructure, strip away the employment rights, strip away the benefits, strip away working conditions—things that have been long fought over for many years of negotiation or long thought over for many years of discussions: all the benefits that sit within employment contracts—and strip them back to a minimum, that business is not in a position where it can consider itself a going concern. So I would set a really high threshold and then allow for scrutiny from the relevant bodies. If it turns out that that could have been avoided—fire and rehire in those scenarios—it is clear that those directors should not have gone through that and there must be consequences. So there is probably room for improvement, some tweaks and changes, but I would put it quite simply.
Gemma Griffin: A classic example is that during covid, overnight 80% of our business was gone and we had vessels that were worth a lot of money and a lot of crew. There were the inevitable discussions on redundancies or just stopping and what was going to happen. We made a deal with Nautilus and RMT that we would work on this together, because we were hoping things would come back. It was only in year two that we really had some sense that things would come back. But one of the things that we did was collectively go out to our workforce and say, “It is these jobs versus how about if we work together and we do a pay freeze for the two years and we just take that pain together so that we can have the jobs at the end of it.” And we did that together. If something is going to go bust, it is going to go bust. But if there was a way of keeping the money in a better way—suspending the training and non-essential stuff—we made operational changes. It is too easy to leave it in as a loophole. That loophole is like you are just taking the profits out of the pockets of your people. So I think we need to be careful there.
Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)
Q
Mick Lynch: Well, we would like it very straightforward that there is going to be provision—an amendment—for sectoral collective bargaining. If there is proper sectoral collective bargaining across the economy, many of the issues that people are dealing with as individuals—individual rights, which they have to enforce for themselves, in many cases—will be dealt with. There is a lot of discussion about probation. We have probation agreements with every employer that we deal with, and we do not defend people who are incompetent or incapable. We have a process, and if we have sectoral collective bargaining, all those things will be covered.
The Chair
Order. I am sorry, but that brings us to the end of the time allotted for the Committee to ask questions. On behalf of the Committee, I thank all our witnesses for their evidence.
Examination of Witnesses
Paul Nowak, Maggi Ferncombe, Dave Moxham and Hannah Reed gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear oral evidence from Paul Nowak, general secretary of the TUC; Maggi Ferncombe, director of political strategy and transformation for Unison; Dave Moxham, deputy general secretary of the STUC; and Hannah Reed, co-ordinator of constitutional affairs for Unite. We have until 4.30 pm for this panel. I ask the witnesses to introduce themselves briefly for the record.
Paul Nowak: My name is Paul Nowak, and I am the general secretary of the TUC. We represent 48 unions and 5.3 million workers right across the economy in the UK.
Maggi Ferncombe: I am Maggi Ferncombe, director of political strategy and transformation for Unison. Unison is a public sector union representing 1.3 million members.
Dave Moxham: My name is Dave Moxham, and I am deputy general secretary at the STUC, which is the independent but sister organisation to the TUC in Scotland.
Hannah Reed: I am Hannah Reed, and I am co-ordinator of constitutional affairs at Unite. Unite has a membership of well over 1 million members. We represent members across a wide range of sectors, including manufacturing, food and transport, and services including health, local authorities and hospitality.
Greg Smith
Q
Paul Nowak: I think this will be the biggest upgrade to workers’ and trade union rights in a generation. It is very likely that we will see increased unionisation as a result of the Bill, and I think that would be a good thing. Bodies as disparate as the International Monetary Fund and the OECD have talked about the benefits of unions and collective bargaining in modern economies—benefits in terms of improved productivity and business performance, but also benefits for workers in terms of increased pay, better access to things like skills and more equal and fair workplaces. I do not think there is a direct link; you do not pass a piece of legislation and trade union membership and collective bargaining go up, but the repeal of the Trade Union Act 2016 and the repeal of the minimum service level legislation—the strikes Act—and other measures in the Bill will help unions to organise. That will be good for employees and good for workers, but good for employers and good for the UK economy as well.
Greg Smith
Q
Paul Nowak: It is important to put that £5 billion into a figure; that is something like 0.4% of the overall wage bill. The TUC has published research today, again involving very moderate estimates. In the impact assessment, the Government talked about potential benefits to the economy from this Bill, in terms of things like improved staff retention, improved productivity and bringing back into work people who are currently outside the labour market—there are now 900,000 or so less people in the labour market than there were before the pandemic. At a very moderate estimate, we believe that that will generate £13 billion for the UK economy.
For a small number of employers, there will undoubtedly be increased costs. If you do not pay sick pay from day one at the moment, or if you use zero-hours contracts, it may well cost you more. Those benefits will transfer directly to low-paid insecure workers. I think it is really important to make the point that most employers do not use zero-hours contracts. Most workers in this country are entitled to sick pay from day one. This Bill levels the playing field for those good employers who, at the moment, are in danger of being undercut by those who play more fast and loose with the livelihoods of their workforces.
Maggi Ferncombe: From Unison’s perspective, the Bill means that in certain sectors, workers will no longer be dispensable. There are some really perilous conditions out there for some of our workers, and we all know that valued workers who are paid a good salary and have better security at work are more productive. In our sector, we find that the public service is then better for service users, it is better for society and it will be better for the economy.
Dave Moxham: I will be brief. We have a productivity problem in Scotland and across the UK, and that is largely because workers are not, either collectively or individually, being sufficiently engaged or consulted, and they are not being sufficiently used to drive productivity and success within their own workplaces. Trade unionism, in my experience, helps with that. We are day and daily inundated with problems in workplaces that are not unionised, which have to be dealt with in other ways. The employment tribunal is full of these situations. Our experience, and it is long held, is that trade-unionised workplaces actually avoid those problems. I would say that we are fortunate in Scotland—it is not perfect—to already have a Government who recognise that collective bargaining and fair work are drivers for success, and I very much hope that this Bill will add strength to that for us and see that approach reflected across the whole of the UK.
Hannah Reed: Thank you very much for the question. We represent working people—that is what trade unions are. Overall, we represent nearly 7 million working people within this country. Being part of a trade union brings clear benefits for working people. It provides them with better legal representation and representation in the workplace to resolve issues at work. It will often provide them with better access to training, and it will provide them with better career opportunities.
We very much hope that this Bill will encourage and enable more people to make the positive choice of joining a trade union, and that could be done by providing a right of access to millions of workers. Regrettably, the majority of workers in this country do not have the option at the moment to meet with a trade union in the workplace. We hope that the Bill, through measures on the fair pay agreement, the new negotiating arrangements on school support staff and the changes to statutory recognition, will enable more workers to have a say over their pay terms and conditions. We also hope that, through the introduction of statutory equality rights, the Bill will ensure that issues such as harassment, bullying, sex discrimination and unequal pay in the workplace can be properly addressed in this country to ensure that all companies meet those standards. We know there are good companies that meet good standards in the workplace, but we would like to see more companies and organisations meeting those standards, and we very much hope that this Bill is a starting point for ensuring that everyone has a decent working life.
Greg Smith
Q
Hannah Reed: There are already statutory definitions in legislation of who is a worker. It will generally be workers—in some instances, it will be employees—who will benefit from the range of rights in this legislation. Our trade unions are also looking forward to working with the Government on their forthcoming review of employment status, the purpose of which may well be to look at extending protections for self-employed workers, such as freelancers and others.
Unite represents a lot of self-employed workers in the construction industry who are not self-employed by choice, and they have fewer rights as a result. We would like workers who face a higher risk of injury in the workplace and who often lose out on pay and conditions, as well as freelancers and others, to have full employment rights. We are working initially from the definitions of “worker” and “employee” that are set out in law, but we very much look forward to the Government bringing forward measures to extend protections to all working people.
Greg Smith
Q
Paul Nowak: Can I make a point first about the symbiotic nature of the relationship between Labour and the unions? We certainly have a shared history and shared values, and in some cases we have unions that are affiliated to the Labour party. The TUC represents those 5.3 million workers regardless of who is in government, and it does not have a formal relationship with the Labour party. Our job as trade unionists is always to want more and better for working people. I think it is important to recognise that this will be the biggest upgrade to workers’ rights in decades—I was going to say in a generation, but it is more than that. It will directly benefit millions of working people.
I came in at the end of the last panel, and Mick was talking about sectoral collective bargaining. The Government have indicated that the first fair pay agreement will be in social care. We would love to see that approach—those fair pay agreements—rolled out to other sectors of the economy. That is a point that we will make going forward.
It would be churlish not to accept that the Bill is a big upgrade to workers’ rights and to union rights. This will be the first time that a Government have repealed anti-union legislation in my 35 years as a union activist, and I think it is really important that they do. If we take the minimum service levels legislation as an example, we always warned that it would be unworkable. It was red-flagged by the Regulatory Policy Committee and by the Government’s own impact assessment when it was introduced, and not a single employer has ever used the legislation. We will be positive; there will always be more that we would like any Government to do on behalf of working people, but this is a really important piece of legislation.
Maggi Ferncombe: I agree. To be frank, as the largest trade union in the country, the political stripe of the Government does not matter to us; we will obviously do what we can to improve public services and the terms and conditions and salaries of workers in those public services. You asked what more we would want, but, to be honest with you, we want an extension of what is already in the Bill: the opportunity to have some sort of legal mechanism for collective claims. Individual workers, unions when they are involved, employers and employment tribunals spend hundreds and hundreds of hours trying to deal with individual claims from individual workers. An unintended consequence would be the savings to employers from not having to deal with individual claims that take years to go through tribunals. If there was an opportunity to have a mechanism to deal with it collectively, it would save everyone time and money, including employers.
Dave Moxham: We have a disproportionate number of zero-hours contracts in Scotland, probably because we have proportionally more small businesses as part of the UK economy. We welcome the moves in the Bill to address that. I heard the evidence given by the last panel, and from our perspective the majority of employers do not use them but they have an intensive impact. For the last 10 years, the STUC has run a campaign called BetterThanZero, which goes out daily and talks to these workers, who are predominantly, but far from all, young workers. The impact on their lives—ergo the impact on the economy because of their lack of stability, certainty and security—has a far wider effect than on just the individual and cannot be overestimated. When we look at the provisions currently in the Bill, we certainly believe that what defines a short-hours contract and some of the other things that have yet to be decided need to be quite strong. If you go on to the internet, you can already see discussions among employers about how they will circumvent the proposals, so that will be one area where we will be looking for strength.
Hannah Reed: There is an awful lot to welcome in the Bill, and I will not take up the Committee’s time by listing it. We can submit evidence to you on equality rights, trade union rights and so on.
Like all Committee members, I am sure, we are keen to ensure that the Bill comes out as watertight legislation that makes a real difference to people’s rights. There are some elements of the Bill where we would want to continue working with you as a Committee and with the Government to tighten up what we consider to be potential loopholes, and I will briefly name three areas.
The first is the provisions on fire and rehire. Unite’s concerns are that some of the uses of heavy-handed tactics by employers that we saw during the pandemic and since could still be lawful under this Bill. We are concerned that employers may be able to justify fire and rehire in certain circumstances, and our view is that there needs to be a total ban. We are not confident that the employment tribunals will look behind the corporate veil or question an employer’s arguments for why they needed to use fire and rehire tactics, so we do not think it goes far enough. Importantly, there is nothing in the Bill at the present time that stops the employer from sacking the workforce. While we welcome the Government’s consultation on interim relief, we, like previous participants. would like to see some measures before that that stop the employer and require them to open their books to demonstrate to forensic accountants that changes are needed, and to provide a genuine opportunity for negotiation with trade unions. We are very equipped; we know what needs to be done if changes are needed.
Secondly, we would like to see further measures in the Bill to extend collective bargaining. Very briefly, we recognise that there are important measures on statutory recognition in the Bill, but we would like the Government to consider going further, particularly to ensure that laws prevent the abusive practices seen in the recent Amazon campaign. We would also like faster routes to recognition. Workers often have to wait for six months and are repeatedly asked, “Do you want statutory recognition?” They repeatedly say, “Yes, we want statutory recognition,” but employers are given time to fight against the workers’ will. We think there should be a faster route to automatic recognition.
The last point I would raise is on access. I have already talked about the benefits of working people having the opportunity to meet with trade unions in the workplace, to tackle discrimination and press for better pay and conditions through negotiation. We would like to ask the Government to look at the access measures, to see if there are ways of having a default or free-standing right of access so working people have a genuine right to democracy and representation at work.
Justin Madders
Q
Paul Nowak: The research was based on a very modest estimate, taken from the Government’s own suggestions that there would be improvements on things like productivity, reducing absenteeism and bringing back into the workforce people who currently find it difficult to access the workforce, for example because they have caring responsibilities or a need to balance work and family life. We assumed a 1% uptick across those measures —as I say, a very modest assessment—which meant £13 billion-worth of positive impact on the UK economy.
In many ways, this just reflects what already happens in unionised workplaces. One of the things I do as the general secretary of the TUC is to visit places up and down the country, large and small. Some of the most successful and most productive employers in this country —whether it is Airbus, Jaguar Land Rover, Rolls-Royce or, indeed, our largest private sector retailer—are employers who have close working relationships with trade unions and treat their staff with respect.
This legislation is really important, Minister, because it does what it says on the tin. It is about making work pay, and for far too many people in this country, work does not pay at the moment. We have a problem with low-paid, insecure employment, with over a million people on zero-hours contracts. Overwhelmingly, when you ask those individuals if they would like the right to guaranteed hours, poll after poll shows that 80%-plus say they would. When you play that out in practice—I know that the Work Foundation did some work with Wetherspoons. When Wetherspoons offered their staff a choice between zero hours and guaranteed hours, 99% of their staff took the guaranteed hours. That is good for those workers, but it is also good for employers, because workers who are securely employed, who feel good about their work and who are supported at work are more productive, and employers are more likely to invest in them. I genuinely believe that this legislation is win-win—it is a win for employees and workers but a win for employers as well, and it is good for the UK economy overall.
Justin Madders
Q
Maggi Ferncombe: Let us take a sector within Unison such as the care sector, where you have low-paid workers who, some of whom are on zero-hours contracts or working away from home, potentially for 10 or 12 hours a day, but only getting paid for five of those. The amount of money they put into their local economy will be a lot smaller than if you had a fair pay agreement with proper regulation, where people were paid adequate salaries and had better opportunities to train.
We must bear in mind that the care sector has one of the largest vacancy rates, with 130,000 vacancies at the moment. That is simply because care workers are either taking on additional part-time jobs in the evening or morning—I do not know when they have time—or taking on jobs in supermarkets or call centres because they can get paid far more. If they were paid a better salary, they would put more money into their local economy and would pay more tax. Ultimately, that would be the benefit for the economy from that particular sector. Those 130,000 vacancies are a growing problem; we are an ageing population, and having a properly remunerated workforce in social care will bring nothing but benefits. It is very hard to quantify how much that will be; it all depends on what the fair pay agreement comes out with.
Dave Moxham: I will just quote a number of different quantifications. I know that small businesses, particularly in hospitality, have been a large focus for this Bill and more generally. The estimates made by hospitality businesses of the cost of staff turnover are anything from £5,000 an employee to £15,000 an employee, although none of those are my estimates. Then consider that it is an industry with incredibly high turnover—we are talking a 30%-plus turnover. I have not done the sums, because there are various estimates, but you can work out how a relative improvement in retention would impact the hospitality sector. Some of the measures here that we believe would encourage lower-paid hospitality members to stay in the workplace would have an incredible impact.
Hannah Reed: We do hope that the Bill will lead to an expansion in collective bargaining, because it is the tried and tested method and internationally recognised as the best way of improving pay and conditions and reducing staff turnover. We know that there is a skills shortage in this country; reducing turnover and investing in skills, which is what trade unions work with employers to do, will have significant economic benefits, including improved productivity.
I must confess that today I quickly read the Regulatory Policy Committee report, which raised questions about whether the measures in the Bill are justified. Speaking as a trade unionist who speaks on a daily basis to working people, there is not a single measure in the Bill that is not needed. One of the risks with impact assessments carried out by the Government—we hope that the Government will look at this—is that often they capture quantitative data but do not look at the qualitative data. What is the actual experience of working people in the workplace? Where is the harm and what needs to be addressed? We know that in hospitality, for example, one of the big issues our members face is a lack of security or certainty over hours. The costs of childcare for hospitality workers are huge, and the inability to pay rents or even dream of saving for a mortgage is a very significant problem.
There are also real problems of sexual harassment. One of the things that really surprised me was that the RPC said that it could not see a justification for further regulation of third-party harassment. To give some statistics, the NHS staff survey this year showed that 8.67% of NHS staff experience some form of harassment by either the public or patients every year. We know that there are major staff shortages in the NHS. Exposing our workforce to harassment by third parties is a major problem.
In hospitality, it is far more rife. Unite did our own survey that showed that 89% of our members reported being subject to some form of sexual harassment in the last year. Many of them—56%—said that that was from customers, and at least half our members said that they were considering leaving the workplace because of the sexual harassment they have experienced. There are many rights in the Bill that we believe will help to deliver better employment and support businesses to become more productive and more profitable.
Justin Madders
Q
Paul Nowak: I think it is a misplaced concern. Union recognition ballots are the only democratic test that we have where we would expect not only to get simple majorities, but to have 40% of those who are eligible to vote voting in favour. I think it puts a barrier in place towards unionisation. We would not use that democratic test in a parliamentary election, a local council election or the election of a leader of a political party, and it seems perverse to put that obligation on unions and workplaces.
Unions derive their credibility and their ability to represent people from being genuinely representative of the workforce, and it is in nobody’s interest to have a union that only represents a minority of the workforce. Unions are always striving to represent the majority of the workforce in workplaces, and I think we do that and prove that very effectively in workplace after workplace.
At the moment, the system is effectively gamed towards hostile employers to frustrate the will of people to join a union. We effectively count abstentions as no votes. Again, that is not a democratic test that we would put up anywhere else. Taken alongside the other provisions in the Bill, including the union right to access the workplace, the simplification of the recognition procedure is really important in representing the democratic view of the workforce.
Going back to a previous point, I think it is important to say this, Minister. No piece of legislation requires people to join a union or requires a workforce to vote for union recognition. All those decisions rest with the workers themselves. That is a really important underpinning point for the way we do trade unionism in this country. With this change in legislation, we get a level playing field for unions.
Justin Madders
Does anyone else want to come back on that one?
Maggi Ferncombe: Can I just make a point? It is almost like unions are the enemy, when you hear certain businesses talk. Unions have a common goal with every employer where we organise, and that is for the organisation to do well, because that means that the staff and the workers will do well as well. Especially in the sectors that I represent, we have an absolute common goal with all the public sector bodies. We want good-quality public services. Working with trade unions is the best way to achieve that, and good employers know that. Good employers know that working with us will save them time, money and energy. They will have a workforce that are much happier in what they are doing, and they will be more productive, with less sick days. The statistics are all around. Putting additional barriers in place where workers cannot undertake the fundamental right of joining a trade union—I think it is a false barrier, to be perfectly honest with you, because if workers really want to join, they will.
Dave Moxham: Very briefly on the access issue, individual workers should have the right to say yes or no, but in order to exercise their right, they need to know the possibility. The possibility comes from very simple, but hopefully very straightforward and not bureaucratic, arrangements that expect an employer once in a while to provide access for a union to speak to those workers. It should be really simple. You do not get to exercise the right to say yes or no if you do not know in the first place.
Hannah Reed: I have one quick comment. I totally agree with the points on access. Trying to think about it from an employer’s perspective, if a substantial number of workers within your workplace are saying, “We want trade union recognition,” ignoring that—saying no to those requests—must have an impact on staff morale.
Another point we would add is that our concern is that the statutory recognition provisions are not balanced. All the provisions at present tend to be weighted too much towards the employer, because the employer can delay the process, providing them with more and more time during statutory recognition to invest resources and put pressure on workers not to vote for recognition.
We welcome the consultation from the Government, and we want to work with them to strengthen the provisions to provide much earlier access, so that it becomes the norm in the workplace that the trade union is present and that workers can ask questions, but also that there are stronger unfair practice provisions. I know that we look at international practices, and I noticed in the States just last week that the National Labour Relations Board actually made it unlawful for employers to hold meetings with staff for the purpose of trying to convince them not to support recognition.
Could you imagine a law within the UK—we hope we could get to this point—where there is actually a level playing field, and where employers cannot create a hostile environment and say to workers, “You cannot have a democratic right. You cannot have your choice to have a say”? That is what collective bargaining is: giving workers a say over their own pay and their own terms and conditions. That is not something that is foreign; it is just about empowering workers to have their voices heard by their employers.
The Chair
Thank you. I would just say to the panel that we have lots of Members who want to ask questions, so please be brief, and do not necessarily repeat what everyone else has said. If you want to put in written evidence, you can do that too. I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, Steve Darling.
Steve Darling
Q
Paul Nowak: Absolutely, Mr Darling. I think the evidence is clear from research undertaken by, for example, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation that employers tend to invest less in staff who are insecure and low paid. What we want to do is create a situation where employers are investing in staff. We have a problem in the UK: if you look at employer investment in skills, it is about half the EU average, so I think we want to move away from a low-skill, high-turnover situation.
Somebody talked before about the impact of staff churn. I was at an employer at the end of last week where they had 46% staff turnover each and every year. As the trade union representatives pointed out to me, every new person being recruited by that business works out at around £4,500 per person. I think that the Bill actually incentivises employers to invest in their staff, and to invest in the way that they use staff, and that certainly will have a positive impact on productivity.
There is also the fact that, when you give workers a collective voice, they are more likely to work with employers on things such as the introduction of new technology. How are we going to get to net zero in a way that secures good-quality employment? What does that mean for training? It really does open up the potential for much more productive working relationships.
Uma Kumaran
Q
Paul, 136 years ago, Sarah Chapman was first elected as the TUC rep from the then-formed Matchmakers’ Union. She fought ardently for women’s rights, and she made great representations at the TUC for women’s rights, but it has been 136 years and there is still much more to do for women in the workplace. I am really pleased to see that the TUC has said that
“Labour’s Employment Rights Bill is so vital for women’s pay and equality.”
I am keen to hear your thoughts on why you think that is, and other reflections from the panel.
Paul Nowak: It would be good to hear from colleagues from Unison and Unite, who directly represent hundreds of thousands of women at work. We know, for example, that women are more likely to be employed on zero-hours contracts, and are more likely to be in low-paid occupations. I think things like the fair pay agreement in social care could have a transformative impact on the lives of hundreds of thousands of women who go out to work.
That is alongside all the other provisions in the Bill—for example, the presumption around flexible working, which will allow people to balance work and family life but also, crucially, allow us to bring people back into the labour market who are struggling at the moment to find work that suits their caring and other responsibilities. There is a whole range of provisions in the Bill that will have a direct, positive impact on women at work, and a direct impact on those sectors in which we know that low-paid, insecure employment is most concentrated—retail, social care and hospitality.
Maggi Ferncombe: I represent Unison. We are 80% women. I talked at the very beginning about the significant difference this Bill will make, but I will give you some examples. Paul touched on flexible working. You could sum up this Bill in lots of different ways, but it is going to make such a difference to carers who care as a profession but also to carers who have caring responsibilities outside work, most of whom are women.
I will not touch on the fair pay agreement, because Paul already has, but the other area is the reinstatement of the school support staff negotiating body. These workers are again majority women and majority working part time. It will be transformative for those workers to have a set of standard terms and conditions, opportunities for training and salary, and not to have to take part-time jobs outside of their school work to be able to make ends meet. That will be the transformation for women.
Dave Moxham: We have been fortunate in Scotland—not completely fortunate—to get a bit of a head start on some of this discussion, particularly about low-paid care workers. We have a strong developing consensus that care workers’ voices are women’s voices in the collective bargaining arena, and that is something that we want to develop in Scotland. It is something that I think the Bill may just have to address for Scotland, because this is one of those situations where, because of the devolved nature of the delivery of care, we may need to invest powers in the Scottish Government rather than the Secretary of State. That is something we would intend to submit to the Committee on.
But I think we have really good early indications that a living wage for care workers, and the full involvement of unionised care workers in the delivery and shaping of their services, can pay enormous dividends. We are a long way from getting it right in Scotland, but I think we have got a good start there, which I hope some of the legislation here will reflect.
Hannah Reed: Very briefly, I fully endorse what colleagues have said. I am not going to repeat it, so as not to take the Committee’s time. Many women are part of trade unions because they want their voices heard and they want to be able to address issues such as inequality, bullying and pay discrimination in the workplace. The introduction of equality reps’ rights will provide an important focus to say that equality must be at the heart of the negotiating agenda within workplaces.
Alongside that, I recognise that there are improvements to parental rights that will help to ensure that there is a fairer share of parental responsibilities in the home. We have already talked about a lot of zero-hours contract workers being women. One of the things we are very aware of in hospitality is that, too often, employers bring in too many workers for shifts and say: “Sorry, we do not need you any more. Go home.” They then cancel a shift without any compensation for the workers for their travel time, costs or childcare. We hope the Bill will help to address some of those concerns.
Chris Law
Q
Dave Moxham: There is a growing consensus in favour of the devolution of employment law to Scotland, but I think we all know that the Bill cannot achieve all of that, whether this Committee was in agreement with it or not. What is of interest to us is the interface between employment law at a UK level and the responsibilities of the Scottish Government, who obviously employ the vast majority of the public sector in Scotland. In a sense, that is what I am referring to here. Through procurement and other regulations, the Scottish Government are working with us to deliver collective bargaining arrangements in Scotland, which interface and have a potential complication—if not conflict—with what is in this Bill. We would like that to be looked at.
It is important to recognise that not all employment law is reserved to Westminster. In Scotland, there are the Agricultural Wages Board and the employment tribunals already, and a range of other things are devolved. Partly with respect to Wales, which I will not try to speak for, but definitely with respect to Scotland, which I will, there may be aspects of this Bill that might need to be looked at, particularly the relative responsibilities of the two Parliaments.
Dr Tidball
Q
Paul Nowak: Why is it so important at the moment? We have 8 million people who are reliant on statutory sick pay, which does not kick in until day three of illness. That means that you literally have people, often disabled workers but not exclusively, dragging themselves into work despite the fact that they are ill, and they are often then spreading ill health. I will give you a practical example, Dr Tidball. I was at a mental health hospital in Blackpool last year where a group of women workers had needed to take strike action, while working in an NHS mental health hospital, because they did not have access to day one sick pay. They are people who were going into an NHS setting when they were clearly unwell, because they could not afford to take time off.
We also have an issue where we have over a million very low-paid workers, mainly women, who do not get any sick pay at all because they do not meet the lower earnings threshold. I think that the Bill will be transformative, and we will get to a situation where people are not afraid to take time off if they are ill because they are worried about whether they will be able to pay the rent, mortgage or bills. I think it is absolutely essential, and a really important part of those basic day one rights that every worker should be entitled to.
Maggi Ferncombe: I concur with everything Paul said. I would only add that we end up with different workers working in the same workplace under different terms and conditions. One group of workers who cannot afford to take a day sick, because they do not get paid, potentially bring in an illness and infect other people. In the public sector, such as in health settings, they are infecting not only the workforce but the public. It will be significantly different for all of those people.
Hannah Reed: As we saw from the pandemic, it is really horrendous when people feel pressured to go into work and put themselves and their colleagues at risk. Therefore, day one rights to SSP are obviously really critical. Moving forward, we would like to see an uplift in SSP because we still have one of the lowest rates in Europe, but the Bill represents a significant step forward, as does the recognition that there will be more collective bargaining. We as trade unions will negotiate for day one rights, often at full pay and not simply at the level of statutory rights.
We are also looking forward, not just with the Bill but moving forward with the wider “Make Work Pay” measures, to working with the Government on the health and safety review. It is regrettable that there is nothing in the Bill on health and safety. We hope that the Government will continue to prioritise that, addressing not only issues about mental health in the workplace but the impact of long covid, which disadvantages some people. We recognise that not everything can be done with this Bill, but we look forward to that ongoing programme of work.
Nick Timothy
Q
Paul Nowak: Perhaps I could have a quick go at those questions. I would not describe it as a fundamental rebalancing; I would describe it, as I said, as the biggest upgrade in workers’ rights in decades, and one that has been desperately needed for years. I hesitate to say this, but I think there has been a political consensus that this rebalancing, if you want to describe it as such, needs to take place. If you cast your mind back to 2016-17, Theresa May commissioned Matthew Taylor to undertake his review of modern employment practices. I think there were between 50 and 60 recommendations in his piece of work. The then Government promised 20 times or more in Parliament that they would bring forward an employment Bill and they did not. There was actually a recognition under successive Conservative Governments that the labour market was not working, that it was letting down far too many workers and that it was not working on its own terms, with low productivity and so on.
I hope that there is a political consensus that we do need to shift the balance. On the relationship with the Departments, I have been at the roundtables with union colleagues and also with representatives from the CBI and the other business organisations, and I think it genuinely has been a collaborative effort. What has been said to trade unions and what has been said to business has been exactly the same. The message has been consistent, and I think that is a good way of working.
I do not think you can draw a line between this legislation and an increase in industrial action. Indeed, I would flip that point. Previous Governments introduced the Trade Union Act 2016, which was designed to make it harder, effectively, for workers to take industrial action, and then last year they presided over the biggest strike wave in our recent history. I stood—not because I am some trade union anorak on these issues—on more picket lines last year than I have in the previous 20 years combined, despite the fact that it was made harder for workers to take industrial action. Actually, I think the focus of the previous Government, and I think the focus of this Government, is not on trying to legislate industrial problems out of existence, but on trying to resolve disputes and on finding ways of working together.
I was on the council of ACAS for 11 years. There will always be individual and collective disputes in workplaces; that is a fact of life in modern workplaces. How you manage those disputes and how you put in place the right, proper framework of law to give workers an effective voice is really important, and I think this legislation helps to do that.
Maggi Ferncombe: Good industrial relations will mean fewer strikes; it is as simple as that. If workers feel that they have been listened to through their trade union, and that we have been able to find a solution—hopefully—to any of the issues, the likelihood of workers feeling that they have no option but to take strike action will lessen.
Dave Moxham: I fully concur.
Hannah Reed: From Unite’s perspective, we would say that this is a step towards rebalancing power relations in the workplace. We think that at the moment there are too many gaps in the Bill and we have to include in that zero-hours contracts. We think it is too easy for the employer to game the measures, but we look forward to working with the Committee on tightening those provisions up.
I want to pay absolute tribute to the Department—the civil servants as well as the Ministers—for the work that it has done in recent weeks and months, and for genuinely engaging. I have been in employment rights policy work for generations, and I have never seen anything like this level of engagement in terms of civil servants and also Ministers giving their time to both sides of industry.
I want to reiterate the point that I think has been made by Unison: collaborative working relationships are dependent on both sides. Too often—we have experienced this in recent years—employers have resorted to hard strong-arm tactics such as fire and rehire, sacking workforces and driving up casualisation in the workplace. That increases insecurity and damages morale in the workplace. We would like to be in workplaces where employers come to the table, have genuine negotiations and recognise the importance of investing in the workforce, building security and offering a genuinely fair share of the outcomes from what workers do, not simply increasing the profit margin.
Alex McIntyre
Q
Paul Nowak: It has a massive uncertainty in terms of people not being able to plan their lives and not knowing whether they are going to be working enough hours to pay the bills and to meet their rent or mortgage at the end of the month. Overwhelmingly, those on zero-hours contracts want guaranteed hours. The vast majority of the British public, regardless of who they voted for at the last election, want to see an end to zero-hours contracts. We polled 1,000 large, medium and small employers, and 70% of them believe that getting rid of zero-hours contracts will drive improvements in productivity.
I will make one final point. We hear a lot about the potential cost to employers, the potential impact on recruitment and so on, but some of those points were made during the introduction of the minimum wage.
The Chair
Order. That brings us to the end of the time allotted for the Committee to ask questions. On behalf of the Committee, I thank you all for your evidence. We now move to the next panel.
Examination of Witnesses
Jemima Olchawski and Joeli Brearley gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear oral evidence from Jemima Olchawski, chief executive officer of the Fawcett Society, and Joeli Brearley, founder and CEO of Pregnant Then Screwed. We have until 5 pm for this panel. Could the witnesses briefly introduce themselves for the record?
Jemima Olchawski: Hi, I am Jemima Olchawski, chief executive of the Fawcett Society. We are the UK’s only member-powered organisation dedicated to ending sexism and misogyny for all women.
Joeli Brearley: Hello, I am Joeli Brearley. I am the CEO and founder of Pregnant Then Screwed. We exist to end the motherhood penalty. We run support services for women who experience issues at work and we campaign on issues that we think cause the motherhood penalty.
Greg Smith
Q
Jemima Olchawski: At Fawcett, we really welcome the Bill. Overall, we still have an economy and workplaces that consistently disadvantage and exclude women. That means that they are much more likely to be on zero-hours contracts, to be in low-paid work and to be held back by a lack of access to quality flexible part-time work. Each of those issues is intensified for most black and minoritised women, and for disabled women. The situation results in serious consequences for individual women. We have a gender pay gap of just under 14%. On average, women take home just over £630 a month less than men. It also has a detrimental impact on our economy, because it is a marker of the ways in which women are not fully participating or contributing to the economy at their full potential. Estimates indicate that that means we are missing out on tens of billions of pounds of GDP.
We strongly support the measures as an important step towards redressing that balance. In particular, we are pleased to see the inclusion of equalities action plans as an important way to get employers to drive forward progress on the gender pay gap. We are glad to see the emphasis on the importance of flexible working and the day one right to statutory sick pay, which will have a disproportionate beneficial impact on women, as well as further protection from sexual harassment in the workplace. Some 40% of women experience sexual harassment at some point during their career.
There are areas where we would like to see additional inclusions or things going further. Flexible working is incredibly important for women who have caring responsibilities and continue to do the majority of unpaid care, and having access to flexible work is vital to enable them to progress and earn to their full potential. We would like to see a duty on employers to advertise jobs as flexible, rather than a situation where women have to wait until they are in a job before they can begin that conversation. You cannot move into a new job if you are not sure whether you will be able to replicate the flexibility that you have in an existing role. That leads to women being under-employed and their skills underused.
The day one rights to maternity, paternity and parental leave are important, but they have to be remunerated. There has to be a day one right to pay if we actually want people to take it. Particularly if we want men to take on more caring roles, we need to make sure we have a refocus on remunerated leave, and that includes parental leave. We welcome the fact that there will be a review, but we need to think about this as part of those measures.
I would like to see more around equal pay in the Bill. Measures could be taken that would support women to access fair pay, such as pay transparency and ending salary history questions. The last thing I would like to see more on is making sure that there is proper enforcement of those rights—that the enforcement bodies are properly resourced and have the teeth to ensure that the rights really hold.
Joeli Brearley: It is a big question that you have asked. I support everything that Jemima has just said. We are very supportive of the Bill, but I think there is a lack of clarity on some of the areas that we are particularly interested in. On flexible working, we are really pleased to see that the Government want to make it the default way of working. That is really important, but we need to know exactly how, and what mechanisms will be in place to do that. The current law on flexible working isn’t working. We want to see an advertising duty as well, which I am sure we can explore in a bit more detail later.
We are also very supportive of parental leave being moved to a day one right. It is kind of amazing that that is not in place already. But without it being remunerated, take-up will be very low. We would have liked to see more on parental leave. We have a shockingly low rate of pay for maternity. We have the worst paternity benefit in Europe. This is causing huge problems for families, particularly new families that have just had a baby. They are getting themselves into terrible amounts of debt. Also the way that our parental leave system is structured means that women are responsible for the care of a baby. They tend to take long periods of time out of work, whereas men tend to go back to work very quickly. They fall into the role of breadwinner, and the woman falls into the role of caregiver, and that continues for the rest of their lives—which is why there is such a large gender pay gap.
The redundancy protections are great. Again, we are very pleased to see that, but we need specifics about what it means. We would like to see that pregnant women and new parents can only be made redundant in exceptional circumstances. By that we mean when a business is closing or perhaps when a service has stopped being delivered. It is very difficult, if you are made redundant when you are pregnant or have just had a baby, to get another job. Often you are made redundant and then cannot access statutory maternity pay. These are very particular circumstances. We know that many women are still being made redundant when they are pregnant or when they are new mums; 17% of calls we get to Pregnant Then Screwed are related to redundancy, so it is a big problem.
What we do not have at the moment, but really need, is data that shows us what is happening on the ground. A report was done by the Equality and Human Rights Commission under the coalition Government that found that 54,000 women a year are pushed out of their jobs for getting pregnant or for taking maternity leave, and 77% of new mums experience some form of discrimination. That report was done in 2016, and there was a guarantee at that point that the report would be done again five years later. It is now nine years later and we still do not have any new data to show us exactly what is happening on the ground. Without it we are making decisions in the dark, so we would really push for that report to be done again.
We would have liked to see something in the Bill on non-disclosure agreements. Our research found that 435,293 mothers had been gagged by non-disclosure agreements when experiencing some form of discrimination. It is a serious problem. Again, we do not know what is happening in companies across the country. Women tend to experience this form of discrimination and are then forced to sign these agreements and are given a low amount of compensation. They suffer mental health consequences because of that. We want to see the UK follow what Ireland has recently done, so that non-disclosure agreements cannot be enforced unless the claimant wants them to be. We would also have liked to see something in the Bill on miscarriage leave, because at the moment there is no right to any leave or pay if you miscarry before 24 weeks. We would have liked to see something on fertility treatment. As many of you will know, we have a baby crisis in the UK—we are not having enough babies. We want to encourage people to have fertility treatment, so we need a legal right to time off.
We would like to see something on reasonable adjustments. There are currently reasonable adjustments if someone has a disability, but not if they have a dependant with a disability. Many mothers of disabled children are struggling in the workplace because they need time off for appointments, or whatever it may be. We would like to see a requirement for all employers to publish parental leave policies.
Justin Madders
Q
Jemima Olchawski: There is strong evidence that the majority of sexual harassment experienced in the workplace comes from third parties. This is where someone experiences harassment from a client, customer or patient. Some of those who are most vulnerable would include those working in retail and hospitality. It is essential that anyone working in those environments is as safe as they can be and respected in their workplace. We would consider it essential that employers’ responsibility to take reasonable steps to prevent harassment includes third parties, because as a victim, it is not relevant that the person was not a direct co-employee. What matters is the harm experienced. It is absolutely within the bounds of good practice and reasonable steps for employers to address that.
Joeli Brearley: Nothing from me. It is not my area.
Steve Darling
Q
Jemima Olchawski: It could be strengthened by having clear guidance and expectations around the reasonable steps that will prevent. That should include multiple reporting routes, which might be anonymous if that feels more appropriate, and training for managers. Our research shows that managers want to respond appropriately, but often when those conversations come up, they do not know what the right thing to do is. Consequently, lots of those conversations end up going badly, and young people or employees do not get the support they need.
It is also important that enforcement agencies have the resource to investigate whether policies and procedures are in place, so that we can embed a culture of prevention rather than just respond decently when incidents happen. That is in the interests of employers too, because cultures where there is bullying or harassment are bad for productivity and staff turnover. It is in everyone’s interest to ensure we address this and cut it off at the pass.
Joeli Brearley: The only thing I would add is that when women experience sexual harassment or any form of discrimination and want to access justice, the justice system is currently failing them—it is not working. We know, certainly in cases of pregnancy and maternity discrimination, that fewer than 1% of women who have that experience even raise a tribunal claim. Part of what we need to do is extend that time limit to raise a claim. It is currently three months. It needs to be at least six months, so that women have the opportunity to recover from their experience before they start to go through that onerous, difficult process of raising a tribunal claim.
Alison Hume
Q
Joeli Brearley: I started Pregnant Then Screwed 10 years ago, because of my own experience with pregnancy discrimination. I was pushed out of my job the day after I informed my employer that I was pregnant, and it was the tribunal time limit that prevented me from taking action against my employer. When I started campaigning on these various issues and talking to people within Government about them, I honestly felt like nobody was listening. It really felt like I was banging my head against a brick wall. Nobody really had any interest in what we were talking about. Certainly over the last 10 years, the dial has not moved very much at all. I mean, we have seen changes in flexible working law and changes in redundancy protections, but they are minor tweaks.
This Bill takes a significant step forward, but of course I am always going to say that there is a lot more that we can do. I was particularly excited to see the flexible working part of the Bill, but if we do not get this right—cross the t’s and dot the i’s—then it will make very little difference whatsoever.
Thank you for your comments; they were very kind.
Dr Tidball
Q
Jemima Olchawski: We know that women are currently more likely to miss out on statutory sick pay because they do not earn enough to meet the threshold or have not been in their roles as long; you heard evidence earlier about the impact on people who have to try to work when they are not well enough, and the impact on incomes through people not being able to work. Women are more likely to be juggling work and care, so they are more likely to need the flexibility and protections in this Bill. That is why getting the piece around flexibility is so important, whether it is because you are caring for children, for disabled children or for elderly relatives. We also know that one in 10 women we surveyed in our research who had been experiencing the menopause had left their workplace as a result of their symptoms, and flexible work and support in the workplace is really important to enable them to continue to participate when they are at the peak of their careers and skill levels. They should be allowed to thrive and be in their prime.
We know that the majority of households in poverty have at least one adult in work, but at the moment we do not have a system that properly supports either lone parent families, which are predominantly women, or households where both parents want to work. We also know that 40% of women who are not working would work more hours, or would work paid hours, if they had access to flexible working, so these measures are also really important as a part of overall efforts to address poverty and prevent child poverty.
Joeli Brearley: Adding to what Jemima has said, particularly on flexible working, the current law is that you have a day one right to request flexible working, and that has obviously moved from having had six months in a job. A right to request is still a right to decline, and we strongly feel that it does not go far enough in changing the dial on flexible working.
I know that the RPC opinion on flexible working has said that there is no evidence that we need to change the law on this. There will never be enough official evidence because those who want flexible working tend either to ask for what they think that they can get—or, if they know that it will not be granted, they do not ask for it at all. TUC research found that a third of people who want flexible working do not ask for it, despite needing it, because they think it will be rejected, and a further third ask for what they think that they can get, rather than what they actually need to manage their personal and professional obligations.
To really change the dial on flexible working, you have got to switch this on its head, and an advertising duty would do that. It is a hugely ambitious change; it is not a slight tweak to the current legislation, which is a much easier thing to do. An advertising duty would ensure that employers design jobs as flexible from the outset. It would mean that, in a job advert, employers would have to stipulate the types of flexible working available, and the candidate they chose would have a legal right to take up employment on whatever arrangement was stipulated in that job advert. The pushback on this has been, “Well, not all jobs can be flexible.” That is of course true, so if you do not believe that a job can be done flexibly, you could stipulate that and set out the reasons why.
The duty would particularly impact the women we work with. They would not be in a situation where they are having to move job. At the moment, they need to go to a new job and then ask for the flexibility they need to fulfil their personal and professional obligations. If at that point they find out that that is not possible, they have to leave that job—and both employer and employee lose out. We are currently trying to shoehorn flexibility into a very rigid structure, and we need to really change the culture. We believe that an advertising duty is the way in which you do that.
If we are not going to be that ambitious, and an advertising duty is off the table, we really need to reduce the number of reasons that you can decline a flexible working request—we believe that it can be reduced to three. We need to make it a legal right to be able to request flexible working from the point at which a job is offered rather than the first day of employment. That makes complete sense for everybody. Finally, we need to have the ability to appeal decisions to a third body, perhaps the single enforcement body. We also want employers to have to publish their flexible working policies online so that employees can see them. It would be a game changer and would really shift the way in which our employment market works, and it certainly would be a game changer for women.
The other thing in the Bill that I would really like to talk about is parental leave—the fact that it is not remunerated and that you are moving it to the first day of employment. We know that the take-up will be very low. We did some research with the Centre for Progressive Policy that found that if you increase paternity leave to six weeks and pay it at 90% of salary, you reduce the gender pay gap by 4% and you increase labour force participation, particularly by women. We really need to keep up with our European counterparts and increase paternity leave. Two weeks at £182 a week is not good enough, and we know that one in four dads are not even taking their two weeks because they cannot afford to do so. Families are losing out as a result. It is really bad for kids if dads and second parents are not enabled to spend time with their children. It is really bad for women, and it is a big cause of the gender pay gap, so we would really like to see the parental leave review happen as quickly as possible, and paternity leave increased, ringfenced and paid properly.
Jemima Olchawski: To come back on flexible working, Fawcett has been campaigning for that advertising duty and agrees that it is really important to make these measures meaningful. It is also important to recognise that this is good for employers because it increases the pool of talent that they have access to, rather than being able to get applications only from people who meet a rigid but not relevant set of criteria. It broadens it out to everyone who genuinely can do the job, which benefits everyone and is hugely important for enabling women to succeed at work.
Chris Law
Q
Joeli Brearley: Sure. Non-disclosure agreements are a real problem. We do not know how many exist, or how many women who experience discrimination—I am saying women because I work with women; of course, men sign them as well—sign them, because of course they are non-disclosure agreements, so nobody can talk about them. We run a mentor programme where we pair up women who are taking legal action against an employer with somebody who has been through that process, and in 90% of the cases that we work with, they end up signing a non-disclosure agreement.
Chris Law
Ninety per cent?
Joeli Brearley: Ninety per cent; it is a significant proportion. Often, these are for quite measly sums of money. They are pushed on women when they are feeling very vulnerable. Women are told that, if they sign this non-disclosure agreement, they will get a really good reference and it will all go away—“You get this lump sum of money, off you go.” But what they mean is that you cannot talk about what has happened to anybody. Legally, you can talk about it to your spouse and your lawyer, but that is about it. That really damages the mental health of women who sign them, because they cannot say what has happened to them. They sort of harbour this dirty secret, and that really is very damaging to them.
It also means that we do not know what is happening behind companies’ closed doors. I can tell you now that there are companies that win awards for being brilliant employers for women, but behind closed doors they are pushing women out when they are pregnant and forcing them to sign non-disclosure agreements so they cannot talk about it publicly.
Along with Zelda Perkins, who runs Can’t Buy My Silence, we would like to see that non-disclosure agreements are unenforceable unless the claimant—the person signing it—wants them to be enforced. That is a piece of legislation that Ireland has just pushed through: making NDAs unenforceable unless the claimant would like them enforced, and unless the documents are written in very clear language—often non-disclosure agreements are really complicated to read and nobody can fully understand them—and there is still the opportunity to report what happened to a trade union and to the ombudsman. Again, at the moment nobody knows what is happening because, by their very nature, non-disclosure agreements stop you talking to anybody, so we would like to see a similar change here.
Uma Kumaran
Q
You have both talked about maternity provisions and what they could mean for the country. More broadly, what is the benefit to the economy and to businesses of having stronger maternity provisions as set out in the Bill?
Joeli Brearley: By maternity provisions, do you mean maternity leave and pay?
Uma Kumaran
Yes, maternity rights.
Joeli Brearley: As I mentioned before, we know that 54,000 women a year are pushed out of their jobs from the point that they get pregnant, while pregnant, while taking maternity leave or just after they return. That is one in nine; it is a woman every 10 minutes.
What tends to happen is that it takes those women a very long time to recover. Sometimes it is a slow drip feed of bullying and harassment, because people know that just pushing them out is unlawful and they could go to tribunal. This is severely damaging to women’s careers, and to their first year with their new baby—it really damages their mental health—and it is a big contributor to the gender pay gap. We do not know exactly how much it contributes to the gender pay gap, but it obviously is a big contributor.
What we need to see—and what we have been campaigning for—to change this is, first, ringfenced, properly paid paternity leave, because until an employer sees any employee as somebody who could go off when they have a child, they will always have a bias against women. At the moment, men do not take time off—a maximum of two weeks, often—once they have become a father, so they are not seen as a risk, whereas women are seen as a risk, so that bias starts in the recruitment process. We know that if we ringfence paternity leave and pay it properly, men will take time out, which also reduces the unpaid labour gap; we know that men tend to do less of the unpaid labour, so taking these steps would mean that women could excel more in their careers.
Secondly—I know it is not within this Committee’s scope but I have to mention it—our childcare system is a chaotic mess. It needs to be affordable and it needs to be accessible. Until that happens, women will take a step back from their careers. We also need enhanced redundancy protections, like what is in this Bill, but we need them to be very specific and to be about, “If the business fails—”
The Chair
Order. That brings us to the end of the time allotted for the Committee to ask questions. On behalf of the Committee, I thank you both for your evidence. We now move to the next panel.
Examination of Witness
Alasdair Reisner gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear evidence from Alasdair Reisner, CEO of the Civil Engineering Contractors Association. We have until 5.15 pm for this witness. Could you set out for the record who you are and your background?
Alasdair Reisner: Certainly. First, thank you very much for inviting me to give evidence today. I am Alasdair Reisner, chief executive of the Civil Engineering Contractors Association, but I also come here wearing a couple of other hats. I am a member of the Construction Industry Joint Council, which is the largest collective agreement for the construction industry, representing about 250,000 employees. I am also a member of the Construction Leadership Council, which is the umbrella body for the industry. I lead its culture-of-workplace activities to try to improve the workplaces of construction businesses.
Greg Smith
Q
Alasdair Reisner: One of the benefits of being tail-end Charlie is that I have been able to watch some of the earlier evidence, so I was primed for this question. From an industry perspective, the first reaction is that it is a very big Bill, and that does create challenges. We have about 360,000 employers in our industry, more than half of which employ fewer than four people, so even raising awareness of the existence of the Bill is a particular challenge. In terms of how we take things forward, whatever happens during the rest of this process, a big engagement process is required to raise awareness of the outcome.
That said, generally speaking, based on the feedback that we have had, I think there is a lot of positivity about some elements of the Bill, particularly on tackling sexual harassment and looking at improving equality in the industry. I think our members would say that this is stuff that they do as custom and practice already, so it is almost raising the level of the wider industry and trying to cut out poor behaviour among not bad actors in industry, but those that are less developed.
There are a couple of points where we do have particular concerns. One is the redundancy piece. I suspect that, as MPs, you are all sick and tired of people special pleading and saying that their industry is different, but I am afraid that I am going to say that our industry is different. We deliver on a geographical basis, and when a project comes to an end, understandably, there will be cases where redundancy is the only option. To enforce upon the whole business the requirement for consultation feels like it was not the intent of this policy. It seems that we should spend some time trying to find a way through that works and results in productive outcomes. I have seen personally the impact of people being on multiple rounds of redundancy. It is miserable for the individual, and that is what I think we should seek to avoid.
The other area we have some concerns about—we have heard this a number of times today—is day one unfair dismissal claims. In construction, it takes a lot of time to get people ready to work. Coming down from two years to day one feels like a big step for an industry that, as I articulated, may not even be aware that this is coming towards them. We would want to look at how that might work. I am sure you may have questions on that, so I do not want to spend the time garbling on—I would rather give you the chance to ask questions.
Greg Smith
Q
Alasdair Reisner: It is an interesting question. There is the notification element and the consultation element. I suppose we have to ask what the policy is trying to achieve. If it were trying to avoid people almost hiding redundancies by doing them in small units, I do not think we would have any complaints about ensuring that notification was still required. It is where you are forcing people into consultation who are never going to be made redundant, yet they find themselves under the scope of that. Splitting those two things apart—so you would still have the notification, but you would not necessarily have the consultation for those who are unaffected—is something we are exploring. I do not want to say that that is the silver bullet that will solve things. We have not even discussed that collectively as an industry; we are just trying to consider what options might be on the table.
Justin Madders
Q
Alasdair Reisner: It is a cliché, but we rely on the people we work with, and they must be represented. Having good, positive relationships with the employees’ representatives is crucial. The CIJC has for decades provided us with that vehicle—I should say that it is not the largest overall; it is just the largest in the construction sector. I think back to covid, when we needed a relationship with the workforce that provided us with the independence —I have to say that Unite was brilliant at that time—to engage with the rest of the industry to say, “We’re all working collectively towards a common good.”
From discussing the Bill with members over the past few days, I know that one of the potential concerns is that it might in some way undermine existing collective agreements. I do not think that is written in the Bill; it is more in the discussion that has happened prior to the Bill. That is something we would like to protect. I am not going to pretend it is all sunshine and roses—sometimes it can be quite challenging—but I think we would want to ensure that whatever the outcome of the Bill, there is a strong, positive partnership between the employers’ representatives and the employees’ representatives.
Steve Darling
Q
Alasdair Reisner: As an employer representative body, it is very easy to say, “Here are all the problems associated with the Bill.” I think we should be nervous about that, because there is a democratic mandate for what is going forward. Equally, I think we should be honest and say that we do see that it will create an additional burden for industry, although I am going to be very honest and say that we do not have good research at industry level to know what the nature of that is. However, it seems palpable that there will be impacts, as there are with some of the other policy changes we have seen, and which you would expect with the change between two Governments.
At the risk of looking like I am trying to duck the question, there are both pros and cons with the Bill—it is as simple as that. The particular concerns we have are around redundancy and day one unfair dismissal. Those are the things we want to focus on specifically, as those are the policies that are likely to have the unintended consequences.
Laurence Turner
Q
Alasdair Reisner: That is very kind. I was not expecting that at all. It is something that we are extraordinarily passionate about. We have done a lot of work on mental wellbeing, which I think is also incredibly relevant to this Committee, because we are looking at a culture in the workplace that drives mental health. Unfortunately, as an industry, we have really poor mental wellbeing issues, particularly for those at the very bottom end of the skills levels. That is our problem, and we need to do more on that. Sorry, I cannot remember the specifics of your first question.
Laurence Turner
Do you see opportunities for marrying the levelling up of employment standards with productivity gains in construction?
Alasdair Reisner: In terms of industry productivity, there is a lot to do, but one of the biggest drivers will be people being happy and healthy at work, and being provided with appropriate training that drives their competence to deliver. So yes, I think there is something there. Ultimately, there are big challenges that sit outside the employment space. At the minute, we are not even measuring productivity properly. Knowing whether we are improving starts with having the first clue about what we are supposed to be measuring. I should say that there is good work going on in that space at the moment.
Chris Murray
Q
Alasdair Reisner: There is a characterisation that construction sought migrant labour as a way of undermining the cost of the existing workforce, but—I hold my hands up; I am a lobbyist for the industry—that is just not true. A lot of people do not understand that we are a relatively high-paying industry. We used migrant labour where there was a lack of capacity in the industry, and it was almost a balancing item to meet that capacity; it was not about undermining costs. I am confident that, whatever we do on employment rights, we will still have a challenge around meeting our future skills needs. I do not think migration is the answer; I think there is a long-term piece around us recruiting more effectively domestically.
Chris Murray
Q
Alasdair Reisner: It cannot hurt to have measures that make the world of work in the construction industry more attractive to try to defeat that perception, but there are much bigger factors driving it.
Jon Pearce
Q
Alasdair Reisner: I should first clarify that I am not an expert in redundancy. However, based on the conversations we have had, you have to look at how individual employers would respond to the new environment. I do not think this would ever be the case, but it is almost as though people feel that the only way out of this will be to have a permanent rolling redundancy consultation within their business to try to address the fact that there are people on geographical sites who are coming off and going on all the time. Under a new approach, there is no other easy route that would help to address that issue.
The Chair
On behalf of the Committee, let me say thank you very much for your evidence. You are definitely not a tail-end Charlie.
Alasdair Reisner: Thank you very much.
The Chair
That brings us to the end of today’s session. The Committee will meet again at 11.30 am on Thursday 28 November to continue hearing oral evidence on the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Anna McMorrin.)
Employment Rights Bill (Third sitting)
Thursday 28th November 2024
(1 year, 4 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Employment Rights Act 2025 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 28 November 2024 - (28 Nov 2024)
The Chair
We are now sitting in public and the proceedings are being broadcast. In line with the sittings on Tuesday, for each panel of witnesses I propose to call the shadow Minister to ask the first question, followed by the Minister and the Liberal Democrat spokesman. I will attempt to alternate between Opposition and Government Members. That will not always be possible, because sometimes three people from one side want to speak and nobody from the other, but I will aim to balance it up. We have to stick to the cut-off time specified in the programme order, and I will interrupt questioning if necessary.
Can I remind Members that they must declare any relevant interests when asking questions? Before we start hearing from witnesses, do any Members wish to make a declaration of interest that they have not already declared in connection with the Bill? Members should ensure that interests are declared before speaking or tabling amendments. If there are no questions or declarations, I will move to the first set of witnesses.
Examination of Witnesses
Claire Costello, Helen Dickinson OBE and James Lowman gave evidence.
The Chair
We will hear oral evidence from Claire Costello, chief people officer at the Co-op, Helen Dickinson, chief executive of the British Retail Consortium, and James Lowman, chief executive of the Association of Convenience Stores. We have until 12.10 pm for this panel. Would the witnesses be good enough to introduce themselves for the record—very briefly, as we are pressed for time?
Claire Costello: I am Claire Costello, chief people and inclusion officer for the Co-op. For those who do not know the Co-op, we are a retailer, funeral care provider, insurance provider and legal services provider. We employ 55,000 people. I am very happy to be part of this process.
Helen Dickinson: I am Helen Dickinson, chief executive of the BRC. The BRC is the lead trade body for the retail industry. Our members cover larger businesses like the Co-op and many others, down to smaller businesses. We also have in our membership some trade associations that represent independent retailers.
James Lowman: I am James Lowman, chief executive of the Association of Convenience Stores. Our members are the people who operate local shops in villages, estates and high streets up and down the country. There are about 50,000 of them in the UK.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
Q
Claire Costello: We are very supportive of the opportunity provided by the Bill. As a co-operative, and a very old co-operative at that, the health and wellbeing of our colleagues is incredibly important to us. We are very supportive of the principles of what we are looking to drive for here, but the challenge around the detail needs to be looked at.
For example, what does it mean to have a probationary period that enables a colleague to join you and ensures, first, that you give them the right opportunities to develop and grow and, secondly, that, if they are not suitable, you have the opportunity to enable them to leave the business? I will give you a couple of stats. Of our leavers last year, 75% had been with us for less than two years, and 36% of the people we asked to leave the business had been with us for less than three months. That is a really good example that shows that it just does not work out sometimes.
Could the probationary period be a barrier with unintended consequences? Yes. Are there things you can do around that to minimise it? I would say so, but again, we need to make sure the detail of the Bill does not drive unintended consequences. It must leave enough flexibility for employers within the broader groups represented on the panel and for us. We want to support people from disadvantaged backgrounds and bring ex-offenders into the organisation. We are working very hard to support them across a number of areas, so we do not want that to be an issue. We would work really hard to make sure that it is not an issue at the Co-op, but ultimately, on a broader footprint, it is something to be mindful of.
Greg Smith
Q
Claire Costello: I think it is more about the fact that the Bill will drive more tribunals if people feel that they have a route to do that, so that might make people a bit reticent. There is also the timescale. We have a three-month probationary period, so nine months is fine, but there is a point about day one rights to leave. That does not stop you supporting a new starter into the business and, if it does not work out, being able to manage that exit, but it is about doing it without incurring significant costs at every single level. That does not mean just the formalised cost of going through an employment tribunal, but the time it takes to hear a case within the business. Good organisations make sure it is heard at different levels, and then a grievance is raised and you have an appeal. It is very time consuming to do it in the right way, but that is what we want to do. Again, it sucks up time, resource and cost within an organisation, when what you want is to spend the time enabling people to be successful, and driving productivity and driving the benefit for the business you work in.
Greg Smith
Q
Claire Costello: Not yet, because there is not enough detail for us to do that. We are really keen to see what the more detailed asks look like.
Greg Smith
Q
Claire Costello: Yes, there will be on-costs from the Bill. Do I think it is the right thing overall? Again, we are broadly supportive of where it is heading, but there will be on-costs in there.
Greg Smith
Q
Helen Dickinson: Thank you very much for this opportunity. We are probably going to end up violently agreeing with each other, but let us see how we go.
There is real alignment on the objectives of the Bill: to improve working practices, have the right culture between employees and businesses, and weed unscrupulous employers out of the system by targeting them. It is great to have the opportunity to talk to you. I am sure that, from a Co-op and a wider retail industry point of view, many responsible businesses are already undertaking some of the processes in lots of parts of the Bill—things like the right to flexible working—and I think everybody is supportive of and aligned on proposals like a single enforcement body.
Building on Claire’s comments, the challenge comes in certain areas where the devil is in the detail. Claire mentioned probation periods; what does the guidance and the framework for a fair dismissal process look like? I have a list: guaranteed hours, union recognition and collective consultation. In all those areas, there is some detail that we can delve into to see where the challenges might sit. It is about making sure that the implementation does not end up in the scenario where too much cost is added, or too much process is put in place that disincentivises employing people from a disadvantaged background or in the entry-level jobs that the industry is so good at providing. Part of that is in the Bill, but a lot relating to how some of these things will get implemented will be done through the consultation process that comes after. Shall I dip into guaranteed hours, as an example?
Greg Smith
Please do.
Helen Dickinson: A reference period is conceptually a good idea—the question is whether it is too short. I know that some people who appeared in front of the Committee earlier this week suggested that it should be slightly longer. I think requiring a business to offer the hours of that reference period in every single circumstance does not really take into account the peaks and troughs, the flexibility that retail businesses need or that lots of people who work in retail already have, and how the actual implementation could be framed to give people the opportunity to opt out or to have the right to request, as opposed to the right to have.
That is an example of where the implementation could be very onerous, very expensive and disincentivising, or, if it is implemented in a way that actually works for businesses and employees—because a lot of people value that flexibility—can create the win-win that the framework and the objectives of the Bill are seeking.
James Lowman: I agree with much of what Claire and Helen said, so in the interests of time, I will not repeat that. To give a bit more flavour on convenience stores, we see ourselves as an exemplar of flexible, local, secure working—98% of colleagues have a contract, and zero-hours contracts are used very little. More than a third of our colleagues walk to work. We are the ultimate local, flexible employer. Most requests for flexible working, whether in the formal, legislative framework or not, are agreed to, because if you have good people, you want to keep them in the business and you want to accommodate what are usually other responsibilities, which are often about care for children or older relatives.
Specifically on probationary periods and early rights, 84% of people who work in our sector have been there for more than one year. Most people who have been there for that period of time stay on. Half of people working in our sector have been there for more than five years, so we have a longevity of employment, but there is a spike of people who move on quite quickly because it is not right for them. Seasonality, of course, could cause that. There is a particular challenge when we are talking about encouraging our members, as we do, to look at bringing in people from typically underutilised backgrounds, whether that is care-experienced people, ex-forces or ex-offenders. We produced a document with the Retail Sector Council last year looking at opportunities for those people.
For everyone starting a business, there is always a chance that it just does not work out. It just does not transpire that it is the job for them. Sensible probationary periods—they do not have to be too long—will allow that to play out without undue risk to the employer.
The final point I would make is that in an independent business—we represent some large businesses, but 71% of convenience stores are independently operated—the person running the business is the finance director, the buying director, the marketing director, the operations director and the HR director. No specialist resource is being called on, so additional processes to manage someone leaving the business are particularly burdensome for smaller organisations who do not always have people like Claire and her colleagues to help them through that.
Greg Smith
Q
James Lowman: There are probably three things. First, those issues are becoming a challenge in the recruitment and retention of people. I understand that from the point of view of colleagues, who go back to their family and find that their family is not comfortable with them going to work in an environment where they can be subjected to violence, with inadequate support from the police and others. That is probably a generous assessment from me.
There are particular provisions in the Bill related to employers taking all reasonable steps around preventing harassment. That concerns our members, because, as they see it, they and their colleagues together are the victims of crime, so they then need to have responsibilities for how the 15 million customers a day who use convenience stores might behave. That needs to be very carefully brought out in guidance and regulations, in terms of what those reasonable steps are, because it would be unfair to put further burdens on businesses that are already the victims of crime.
I do not believe that the provisions in the Bill would make it harder to recruit on that basis, other than what we talked about in some cases, particularly where there is a higher-risk appointment and retailers are less comfortable making it due to the difficulties of moving that person on, if it was the right thing to do. Harassment is an angle on that, but the Bill’s provisions would not make markedly worse what is quite a challenging situation with recruitment.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Justin Madders)
Q
Claire Costello: As an employer, we are really pleased to see that it will level up. There are a lot of things in the Bill that we already do. We are delighted to have really good relationships with our trade unions, and we have had access to rights on day one, from a flexibility point of view, for a lot of years. It would be good to see that levelling up across businesses, but I will hand over to my peers here, because they speak on the industry’s behalf, whereas I speak on behalf of an organisation.
Helen Dickinson: I think the answer to the question is, “As long as we do not end up with unintended consequences for responsible businesses.” There are examples that we have already highlighted, and I am sure that we can find some more. The goal surely has to be to ensure that the detail of the measures is firmly targeted at the unscrupulous. That is good for everybody, because it levels the playing field and gets rid of poor practices. I think everybody here would be 110% aligned behind that.
At the moment, the risk is in certain parts of the Bill. There is obviously a very open and sequenced consultation process, so the most critical thing is the adequacy, the collaboration and the ability of unions, employers and Government to work together to ensure that we do not end up with those unintended consequences. I am sorry to say, “It depends,” but the answer is that it depends.
James Lowman: I agree: it does depend. Just to give you a flavour of how flexibility works in our sector, a lot of changes to shift patterns are from colleague to colleague, often through apps or WhatsApp groups. That is the reality of how shifts change. One of the people working shifts is often the owner of the store, so it is very much something that they are doing with those colleagues.
It is really important that the Bill, in wanting to codify and formalise some of those rights, which is good and fine, does not remove some of the flexibility and the informality, which is part of what gives flexibility on both sides. One of the reasons why we have great staff retention in our sector is that people want those local jobs where they have that flexibility; it fits in with their lives. It is really important that in framing regulations and guidance, we deal with things such as how businesses can respond to late changes in availability. There are often circumstances completely beyond our control—for example, there could be a massive delivery disruption or extreme weather changes. These are the realities of running a store.
Helen Dickinson: So does sickness.
James Lowman: And sickness, which we may come on to. Those factors are particularly challenging in a small store. If you have 16, 17 or 18 people working in a large store and you are one person down, that is a problem. If you have two or three people working in a shop and you are one person down, that is catastrophic in the context of that shift. That shift is important to customers, the other colleagues and the business. In enshrining greater flexibility it is important that we actually deliver greater flexibility, rather than inhibiting the flexibility that is already baked into the way we operate day to day.
Justin Madders
Q
Claire Costello: All of the above. We pride ourselves on being as forward thinking as we can be. There is always an affordability in there, but we tend to listen very clearly to our colleagues. We work closely with our unions as well. We have focused on areas that our colleagues have told us are important to them. If I look at the bereavement policy in the Bill, for example, we built that in. We worked with Cruse, a charity that is significant in that sector, and have done something pretty unique in terms of support.
The Bill is a great development for industry. There are things that we have done, which were already quite different, in there. We do not insist that it is within the first 50 days; we ask for them to use it flexibly, because it could be a significant birthday or date. We also do not limit it to direct family members because, in today’s modern family and society, it is not always your parents who are the closest to you. We have made it based on the relationship that you have with the person that has passed, and therefore what bereavement means to you may be different.
You might want to take a week off at the beginning. It may be that you want a couple of days, and then four or five weeks later you need a couple of days, or even a year later you need to take time off because it is an anniversary and you need to support people. Things like that are where we have written policies and worked with our colleagues to do something that works for them. It is to drive retention. It is to drive engagement. It does mean that we have, hopefully, a happy group of people who want to work with us. As a member-based organisation, that is important to us.
Another good example on the bereavement policy is that I noticed that it did not cover pregnancy loss. Again, that is a policy that we have worked really hard on and I think that is an opportunity to put something slightly different into the Bill, because bereavement is bereavement. How do we make sure that it covers all aspects of it in the right way?
Justin Madders
Q
Helen Dickinson: No, the overarching point is exactly as has been said. The most successful retail businesses are ones that have highly engaged workforces that are aligned to the objectives of the business and feel part of the success of a company. People who feel like that are going to work harder and the business is going to be more successful. It is all part of a reinforcing system. If it is done well, from an individual company point of view, the exemplars are the more successful businesses. It comes back to ensuring that the Bill targets those at the bottom of the pile, those that are not engaging in the right way in having forums for employee engagement or having a two-way dialogue on flexible working or whatever it might be. It should be a win-win, but I think the risk is big in terms of making sure that we do not end up with those unintended consequences.
James Lowman: Retail is based on respect for colleagues and customers. That is how businesses work, and I think that the Bill and the principles here are very much in line with that.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
Q
Helen Dickinson: That would help. I am jumping straight in, because I feel quite strongly about this one. I do not want to rerun some of the challenges of the Budget, but the pace of additional costs that have come in for every business—particularly for retail, because of the nature of flexible work, with a lot of part-time contracts and the changing of the threshold—means that every single retailer in the country needs to look very hard at their investment plans and workforce plans, and everything that sits around that.
I think that everybody sort of breathed a sigh of relief with the clarity that the timetable was for 2026, but even now, looking at the scale of the proposals, it would be great to have more visibility over the sequencing of the different consultations, so that the industry can gear up in the right way to be able to respond effectively to them, and to make sure that we have longer than six-week periods to respond, with four consultations all going on at the same time, because that all makes it quite a challenge.
Coming back to the direct point of your question, in terms of implementation, if there are changes that need to be made in companies, I think that a run-in, or an implementation period that is workable and that gives those companies the chance to make any changes to processes, is a necessity for ensuring that the Bill lands in the right way and that we do not again end up with some of those unintended consequences. I think the Budget has unfortunately made the backdrop that much more challenging, just because of the things that people already need to deal with now and over the next six months.
Claire Costello: I will add to the piece around implementation timing: it is really easy to think of this as, “Oh, it’s straightforward; it’s about writing a policy, then, once you are in a business, sharing that with your colleagues, making sure that your line managers know what is expected of them, and landing it.” Much of what we are talking about here will require businesses, certainly larger businesses, to think about how their systems are set up as well. It changes your payroll system; it changes your workforce management system. All that is doable, but it is at the same time as other changes that organisations will be working on in the background as well. That is what we need to factor in.
On top of that, where we then have colleagues who are themselves impacted by the changes, it is about making sure that you have time to make sure that they understand that and what it means to them. It is about that run-in. It is about more than the cost; it is quite significant from the point of view of process, understanding and implementation. That is the ask, really—it is the detail and the time.
Helen Dickinson: I am sure that James will have points from a sort of one-establishment type business, but, for multi-site businesses, you could be talking about 10, 100 or 1,000 stores and distribution centres up and down the country, so we should not underestimate the significance of the need for up-front visibility of the changes.
James Lowman: The other change that has happened with the Budget and those additional significant costs on businesses is about how retail businesses respond to them. In maybe a medium-sized business—among our medium-sized members—they might have had to take out layers of management. That might include, for example, HR functions and things like that, and losing that support. In an individual store, with an independent retailer, that retailer is probably working more shifts behind the counter and in the store themselves, rather than working on the business and managing the business. That will be a consequence.
Decisions are being made to cut back shifts to compensate for those significant additional costs, so the ability and the time available for businesses of all sizes—particularly some of the smaller and medium-sized ones —to implement these changes is less than it was before the Budget, or before April. That is the reality of it.
Again, yes, it is partly about timing—that is very important and I align myself with what Helen and Claire have said about that—but that also makes it even more important that the guidance and regulations are absolutely right, so that those already increasingly and additionally stretched businesses are not spending more time in employment tribunals and having to deal with complex interpretations with their colleagues, or struggling to fill shifts and therefore having to work more hours themselves.
Steve Darling
Q
James Lowman: We need absolute clarity on what “reasonable steps” means. Those reasonable steps should not be onerous, given the reality of 15 million people coming to the store every day, whose behaviour we unfortunately cannot control—believe me, if we could, we would. Having clarity and reasonableness in all reasonable steps is the thing to do, and there is an opportunity to build on that; the ShopKind campaign, for example, has been very successful. That is one way we could channel those steps to promote good behaviour among customers.
Alex McIntyre (Gloucester) (Lab)
Q
You also mention an increase in employment tribunal claims. We would hope that most employers would follow the new legislation and therefore avoid those claims, but we both know that there are a small number of bad-faith actors who will always try to find a claim. There are already claims that individuals can bring from day one, but do you think you will see a big increase in bad-faith claims, or do you think they are already there in the system?
Claire Costello: I will take the point about unions first. The strong relationship we have with the union means that we can work in a very collaboratively challenging way together—do not get me wrong; it is not without having difficult conversations, but that is the point. A healthy relationship is like a healthy marriage. You do not just give up on each other. You have those difficult conversations with each other and face into issues and look for solutions. The key for me is looking for solutions. Having very progressive relationships means that you can talk about the direction of the business and what you need to do, and work together on finding solutions. That is what we have found with our relationships. It is not always easy, but it is absolutely the better way of going forward.
In terms of employment tribunals, I think you are right. The reason we think it would go up is that, as with all things, when something becomes more available, by virtue of that fact there will be more people who want to use it. We do not have the absolute evidence to say it, because it is not there today, but the reality will be that if you can take their employer to court, why would you not? There will be more individuals who would wish to do so. We have said before that it is about having clarity and making sure that we understand what reasonable looks like and what the steps are that would be expected. It is more about the onus of extra work that this will bring to each of the areas. As I said, we follow all of the processes very strictly, and we try to make sure that we have a very fair and open conversation with all of our colleagues. The challenge will always be that you cannot make everybody happy all the time.
Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)
Q
Claire Costello: Gosh, that is a good question. I do not see why it would make a difference to productivity itself, because at the end of the day you are still bringing someone new into the organisation. I think it would be a longer-term impact. If we did start to see more people raising a grievance because they want to leave or because we have said, “Actually, this is not the right role for you.”, it would be the time perspective that would be drawn on. That is more your line managers, store managers and leaders around the organisation that would draw on to that resource. I kind of see it as more of a longer play in terms of productivity.
Mr Bedford
Q
Claire Costello: Absolutely, and I think that was what James was referring to as well, when you think about the smaller stores within the convenience sector. But for us, it absolutely is about the time that it takes for line managers and regional managers. Do not forget that we are not just a retail provider, so it would be within our funeral homes, when we should be out looking after clients at the most difficult times in their lives, and our insurance organisations, as well as legal services. It is across the whole organisation for us.
But yes, it is the line management time that goes into following these processes, doing them well and making sure that everybody is having the right hearings that they should be having. It is a time-consuming process. It is right because, absolutely, we want to make sure that everybody has a fair hearing and that the right decisions are being made for the right reasons. However, it is time-consuming and that is the concern.
Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)
Q
James Lowman: By and large, we set out shifts; we have clear shifts that are worked to. It would be rare that a shift got cancelled at short notice. With convenience stores, fundamentally we are open for those hours; we need to fill those hours. It would have to be something pretty extraordinary that would lead to a cancellation, for example a massive disruption to delivery. We would be bringing in extra colleagues to deal with a delivery, which then gets cancelled, so that work is not there for them to do. However, even that is relatively rare, so we provide consistency of hours.
It is more common that the challenge is dealing with sick leave and then having to fill shifts, and additional shifts coming in. That is when you might get some later changes and later notice, because someone has phoned in sick that morning, so you need to fill the shift that morning; you need to have a person in the store, or—worst case—the store could not open. Again, however, a lot of that is done colleague to colleague, in terms of filling those shifts.
Regarding the impact, there are a whole range of people working in our stores, for some of whom it is a second income in their household. But for many, it is the first income in their household, so it is very important that we provide that local, flexible and secure work to people. In many ways, this Bill is enshrining and codifying things that are already common practice in our sector.
Sarah Gibson (Chippenham) (LD)
Q
James Lowman: We probably do not support the idea of exemptions. We think the rights should apply whoever you work for, and we do not want small businesses to be cast as being less good employers, with fewer protections for their colleagues.
However, the guidance needs to be applicable to and usable by businesses of all sizes. The guidance and regulations cannot be drafted from the perspective of, “What is your HR director going to do? What is the machine of the business going to do?”, when that is not the reality. For the vast majority of businesses in this country, the process will be much more driven by individuals having conversations, in order to encourage not only that flexibility and clarity, but practicality.
With good guidance and regulations, there should not be a need for exemptions. As I say, we do not want small businesses to be viewed in any way as being worse employers; in many ways, they often have advantages that allow them to be better employers.
The Chair
I call Michael Wheeler to ask a very brief question, which should receive a brief answer.
Michael Wheeler (Worsley and Eccles) (Lab)
Q
I will just circle back to guaranteed hours. Although I appreciate that flexibility is of value in the sector, if the hours are there in the business and regularly being worked, would you not agree that that demonstrates there is a need for those hours in the business to be worked, and therefore, in the interests of fairness and financial security for workers, should those hours not be guaranteed for them?
Helen Dickinson: Again, it comes back to how. A lot of people who work flexibly want to vary their hours because they have other commitments, either family commitments or caring commitments. From an employee perspective, they should absolutely have the right to request flexibility, or to be able to have future hours that reflect something that they have over whatever reference period it is, whether it is 12 weeks or longer. If the regulations end up requiring that reference period—and, by definition, requiring employer to offer whatever that period is to the employee, just by process—peaks and troughs around peak trading periods and employees’ other commitments will cause the company to end up in a continual process of changing people’s hourly patterns, all the time and for a lot of people. When a company has multiple locations, and tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of employees, it could be quite difficult.
I think we are absolutely agreed on the principle. The question is how you implement it, and whether there is a way to implement it that gives the employee the right to request, rather than putting the onus on the company to put in a whole load of process that actually, at the end of the day, might not be what the employee wants.
The Chair
Order. I have to bring this session to an end. We have run out of the allotted time, and sadly, there are some Members of the Committee who did not get the opportunity to ask the questions that they wanted to ask. However, I thank the witnesses for the time they have spent with the Committee.
Examination of Witnesses
Joanne Cairns and Liron Velleman gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear oral evidence from Joanne Cairns, head of research and policy at the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers, and Liron Velleman, head of politics at Community. This session can continue until 12.40 pm.
Greg Smith
Q
The Chair
I should have asked you to very briefly—in a sentence—introduce yourselves. Will you do so at the start of your answers? Thank you.
Joanne Cairns: I am Joanne Cairns. I am the head of research and policy at USDAW, which represents over 360,000 members, mainly in the retail sector, but we also have members in distribution, food manufacturing, pharmaceuticals and a number of other sectors.
We do not share the concerns about the impact assessments. We think that the impact assessments demonstrate the impact of the Bill. There are obviously areas that need further clarification, which will be looked at through consultation. In terms of the impact on our members, we believe that it will be extremely positive, particularly for low-paid workers and women workers. The TUC analysis estimates that the reforms in the Bill will benefit the wider economy by over £13 billion a year, which it considers to be a conservative estimate.
Greg Smith
Sorry, £30 million?
Joanne Cairns: No, £13 billion. That was one of the more conservative estimates in the range that it looked at. That would be through reducing workplace stress, improving staff wellbeing, resolving disputes, reducing workplace conflict and increasing labour market participation.
Liron Velleman: My name is Liron Velleman. I work at Community union as the head of politics. We represent about 45,000 members across the economy, from steels, metals and manufacturing to the justice sector, education and early years, and the self-employed. Of course, we would always welcome any more evidence to show why the Bill would impact our members positively. Our members have been crying out for this change for the last 14 years, and even longer than that. It is important that we continue to make sure that the Bill does what it says on the tin, which is to make work pay but also to make our members’ and their families’ lives better.
Greg Smith
Q
Liron Velleman: At Community, we are confident that the Bill would represent a positive step for our existing members and would allow for greater coverage of trade union membership across the sectors we work in. For example, in the third sector or in education and early years—especially in early years, where, in some of the private provision of nurseries and early years settings, there is not currently as much trade union coverage—the Bill would make it easier for people to join a trade union and see the benefits of membership. On whether it would bring full unionisation of the economy, I am not sure it would necessarily go that far, but some of the onus is on trade unions to make sure that we are delivering, in a modern way, the best way for working people in this country to understand the benefits that they could receive by joining one of our unions.
Joanne Cairns: I agree with Liron. We have good relationships with a number of major employers where we are recognised. You heard earlier from the Co-op. We are recognised there and by a number of other major employers. However, across the retail sector, trade union membership is currently at around only 12%, which is a similar level to the rest of the private sector. Very often, the reason people have not joined a union is simply that they have not had the opportunity to find out about what a union does—nobody has ever asked them to join a trade union. We think that the rights that the Bill will bring in around access to workplaces will be particularly important. The Bill will also simplify the statutory framework around recognition, which is currently extremely burdensome and makes it very difficult for trade unions to gain statutory recognition, particularly with larger employers.
Justin Madders
Q
Joanne Cairns: Across the whole economy, precarious employment is a major issue. There is clearly a need for policy intervention in the labour market. The TUC estimates that one in eight people are in precarious employment, and that has risen by 1 million people since 2011. It has risen nearly three times faster than secure employment. That is certainly backed up by what we see with our members. Living standards have fallen quite significantly, and the impact of insecure work on our members is significant.
Of our members, 40% tell us that they have missed meals to pay their bills, 73% cannot afford to take time off work when they are ill, 15% struggle to pay their bills every month, and more than half have told us that financial worries are having an impact on their mental health. The level of statutory sick pay and the three waiting days for it is an issue of major concern for our members, as is having contracts that do not reflect the hours that they normally work. We welcome the Government taking action in those areas.
Steve Darling
Q
Liron Velleman: The Bill should have a positive impact on productivity. Following on from Joanne’s previous answer, when people are in insecure work, they are worried about whether they are going to lose their job tomorrow, whether they will lose some of their benefits or pay, and whether they will have the security of knowing what shifts they will be working. Tightening up lots of parts of employment legislation currently on the statute book should give workers extra confidence, so that they will be able to be happy at work and work more flexibly, representing the current state of the economy rather than keeping to how things were. That should, in totality, result in greater productivity for businesses as well as for individual workers.
Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)
Q
The Bill covers part of the “Make Work Pay” agenda. Are there other measures in the “Make Work Pay” document published earlier this year that should be included in the Bill?
Liron Velleman: The Bill clearly represents a great step forward in improving workers’ rights. For some of our members, it is in some ways a Bill for employees’ rights, rather than an employment rights Bill. Our members in the self-employed sector are looking for rights and protections to reflect the nature of the work that they do. In the “Next Steps to Make Work Pay” document, there are clear suggestions that there will be greater rights and protections for self-employed members, but that is a priority that we would like to see as part of the Bill, to fully grasp the current employment landscape in this country.
There is also a point around the consultation on new surveillance technology in the workplace. Clearly, technology in the workplace is one of the biggest benefits to lots of our members and to businesses, but it is also one of the biggest challenges when we think about the new world of work. Making sure that workers understand and are trained on, and can get to grips with, technology in the workplace, surveillance or otherwise, is vital to ensuring that they have the best rights and protections at work. Those two things would be our strong priorities for the Bill.
Joanne Cairns: For us, one of the key areas is statutory sick pay. The removal of the three waiting days and the lower earnings limit is extremely important and will make a massive difference to a lot of low-paid workers. However, the Government committed to strengthening SSP, and we would like the level of SSP to be looked at. It is well documented that the current level of SSP is below what people can afford to live on. If you earn the national living wage, you earn only around a quarter of your salary when receiving SSP, which has a significant impact on low-paid workers. That said, the removal of the three waiting days is extremely important and will make a big difference.
In respect of the right to guaranteed hours, which we warmly welcome, it is very important that the way it is implemented covers as many workers as possible. The commitment from the Government was that everyone would have the right to a contract that reflects the hours they normally work. We are concerned about the inclusion of the term “low hours” in the “Next Steps” document, which we feel could have the unintended consequences of making the right apply less widely than it should, and potentially undermining its effectiveness.
Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)
Q
Joanne Cairns: We welcome the Government’s commitment to tackling fire and rehire. It is an issue not only when fire and rehire tactics are used, but when they are used by employers in negotiations as a form of threat to try to force unions or individuals to accept terms that they may not be happy with. Around a third of our members have been asked to change their contracted hours to support business need in the last 12 months, and one in five of them said that they felt forced into agreeing to the change, having been threatened with fire and rehire. It is a major issue. You referenced our legal case against Tesco, which demonstrates that this issue affects members in all sorts of workplaces.
Our preference would be for an outright ban on fire and rehire, and we would prefer the provision to be removed. If that provision stays in the Bill, our concern would be about the use of the word “likely”. We would like either for the word “likely” to be removed in reference to financial problems, or, at the very least, for there to be stringent guidance and a high bar set for the definition of “likely”.
Liron Velleman: At Community we had a similar case on fire and rehire back in 2021 with Clarks shoes. Our members at a distribution centre in Street in Somerset were threatened with a huge reduction in their hourly wage and the removal of their sick pay and coffee breaks. After a long campaign from our members in the union, and solidarity from across the UK, we managed to force the company to reverse its decision through ACAS mediation, but it clearly should not have been allowed to happen in that way at all. Our general secretary said at the time that, until fire and rehire is outlawed, no worker is safe from the harms that it can cause.
We hugely welcome the Government’s efforts to end fire and rehire, but we have similar concerns to USDAW about how the language about “likely” financial distress will be used in reality, given that it is rarely good-faith employers that use tactics such as fire and rehire in their workplaces. We do understand that there might be absolutely exceptional circumstances where the business would otherwise close. The question is whether the word “likely” will cast the net too wide and allow bad-faith employers to continue fire and rehire, even if the stated intention is for that not to happen.
Anneliese Midgley (Knowsley) (Lab)
Q
Liron Velleman: We rarely deal with collective redundancy on multiple establishments, other than for a few establishments, but it is important for the Committee to understand that collective redundancy is not always a huge battle between employers and unions. It gets into the news that this employer and that union are fighting to the death over something, but usually collective redundancy is an opportunity for employers and unions to sit around the table and try to minimise the impact on the workforce. Even with employers that unions might have a difficult relationship with, collective redundancy is usually an opportunity to do that.
It is very well known that Tata Steel recently announced collective redundancies at its steelworks in Port Talbot in south Wales. The original stated redundancy figure was around 2,500, but after work between the unions and the employer, that number has been heavily reduced through cross-matching and through finding training opportunities. Unions are not there just to say, “We are going to keep our members’ jobs for the sake of it,” and scream from the rooftops. Collective redundancy is an opportunity to allow mitigations to protect workers. Any improvements to rules around collective redundancy—whether that is reducing the number of employees needed to start a collective redundancy scheme, increasing the timeframe for that to happen, or looking at the establishment rule—are hugely welcome.
Joanne Cairns: On the establishment rule, we are very pleased that the loophole is now being removed. We took a significant legal case on behalf of our members who were employed in Woolworths, where 27,000 employees were made redundant in a single redundancy exercise when the company went into administration. In 200 stores with fewer than 20 employees each, there were 3,000 employees who were not entitled to any protective award even though collective consultation had not taken place. That was purely because they were employed in establishments with fewer than 20 people, even though the decisions were being made far above that level and affected 27,000 employees. It is just common sense that that is now being corrected.
We are aware that the issue of scope has been raised in this Committee. We went back and looked at the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. Clause 23 of the Bill would not alter what section 188 of the 1992 Act says about
“the employees who may be affected by the proposed dismissals or may be affected by measures taken in connection with those dismissals.”
It would not mean that workers are being consulted over redundancies that do not affect them; it would just mean that workers who are affected by the redundancies, or their representatives, would be consulted regardless of the size of the establishment that they are working at. We do not see people being involved in consultation exercises that do not affect them; that will not be a result of the Bill.
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
Q
You are obviously pleased with the legislation, and I know you think it could go further; I just want to ask a little about how you would characterise your engagement with the Department. Was it very welcoming? How many meetings did you have with Ministers and officials? Were draft clauses shared with you? How constructive was it?
Liron Velleman: Community has a productive relationship with the Department for Business and Trade. We have had productive relationships with parts of the Department for a number of years, but unfortunately not on a political level for the last 14 years. It is welcome that this Government have seen a sea change in how they want to do relationships with trade unions.
Nick Timothy
But could you answer specifically my questions about how many meetings you have had with Ministers and officials and whether clauses were shared with you?
Liron Velleman: I believe that meetings between Ministers and whoever they meet with will be on the public record, so I am sure you would be able to find that.
Nick Timothy
But you are not answering my question. I am asking you a question; I would like you to answer it.
Liron Velleman: I am not sure how many meetings we have had with Ministers related to this Bill.
Nick Timothy
Okay. Joanne Cairns?
Joanne Cairns: We have been involved in a number of roundtable meetings with DBT, which have been very helpful in understanding what the Government’s intentions are on a number of aspects of the Bill. I do not know exactly how many meetings we have been involved in, but the engagement of DBT with unions has been good, as it appears to have been with business as well.
Uma Kumaran (Stratford and Bow) (Lab)
Q
Joanne Cairns: Many of our members are juggling paid jobs with caring responsibilities, whether that is childcare or looking after disabled partners and relatives. The majority of our members are women; the burden of care continues to fall disproportionately on women, so we really welcome a number of the measures in the Bill that will help workers with caring responsibilities, including the right to parental leave and paternity leave being from day one of employment. We welcome the shift in the burden to employers to justify why they have refused a request for flexible working, and the new right to bereavement leave, which widens the current provision entitling bereaved parents to statutory parental bereavement leave.
We think that there are some areas in which those rights could be strengthened. We welcome the Government’s commitment to review parental leave more widely outside the Bill; we will be engaging with that review. We think we need to look at the length of paid maternity and paternity leave, the provision of paid carer’s leave and the wider support that is needed to make sure that those rights work effectively for working families.
On flexible working, the shift to employers having to justify their refusal is welcome, but there are still eight business grounds on which employers can refuse a request. It is still very difficult for employees to ask for flexible working; they are often concerned about what the repercussions of making a request might be. We recently surveyed our members with caring responsibilities and found that only just over half were even aware of the right to request flexible working. Of those who were aware, only half had used it. We would like a more robust framework for making requests for flexible working. For example, we could abolish the restriction on the number of applications that can be made in a 12-month period; extend the right to all workers, not just employees; and ensure that there is a right to appeal if a request is refused.
However, I would say that there has been some really important progress through the Bill and, we hope, through the review of parental leave to support working families.
Liron Velleman: I do not want to repeat what Joanne has said, but I have a small point to make. The day one right to request flexible working is so important. So many people start a new job and then work out, “Okay, how am I going to balance this with my caring responsibilities?” If they cannot make that request for the first six months and they really struggle to make sure their kids are picked up from school or to deal with their elderly parents, they might find a not great way of dealing with it. It is then quite difficult to turn around to their employer and make the request six months down the line. It is so much better to be able to say, as a day one right, “This is what I want to give to this new employment that I have just received, but this is the world I exist in and these are the other responsibilities I have—how can we best make that work?” We know that our members will see a huge benefit from that, especially if they move to a new workplace.
The Chair
As there are no further questions, let me thank our two witnesses for attending.
Examination of Witness
Nye Cominetti gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear oral evidence from Nye Cominetti. We have until 1 pm for this panel. Could you briefly introduce yourself, Nye?
Nye Cominetti: Hello, everyone. Thanks for inviting me along today. I am principal economist at the Resolution Foundation, a think-tank based just down the road. Our mission is to improve living standards for families on low to middle incomes. As part of that, we research and write about the labour market, along with various other issues. We have been interested in the employment reforms since they have been under way.
Greg Smith
Q
Nye Cominetti: Sorry, is the question whether the impact assessment is fit for purpose or whether the regulations themselves are fit for purpose?
Greg Smith
Well, the Regulatory Policy Committee has said that eight of the impact assessments for this Bill—the separate columns—are not fit for purpose. Do you think the Bill had its tyres kicked hard enough before it went into Second Reading and Public Bill Committee?
Nye Cominetti: It is very hard to assess the impact of the Bill, as many of the details are yet to be determined. The Government said that they wanted to do this within their first 100 days, and they managed to do so, but that meant that they had to leave many “fill in the blank later” bits in the Bill, so I do not particularly blame the civil servants in the Department for Business and Trade for having struggled to come up with clear numbers on the costings and the potential impact.
For example, on the right to a regular contract, the impact on business will depend on how “low” is defined, in terms of the qualifying threshold that workers will have to reach. It will depend on how businesses have to go about making the offer to workers. It will depend on how regularly those offers have to be made, which relates to the reference period. In the light of all those unknowns, it would be very difficult for the Department to have come up with firm numbers. I think in the end they said £5 billion, but it is hard to know whether that is a good or a bad number.
I would not be so negative as to say that they have failed in any sense; I just think that they were given a very difficult job. As more detail becomes available, it would be great if the civil servants who have already put a lot of thought into the process could come back and say, “Now that we know a bit more about what is actually going to be happening, here is our updated view on what the impact of the regulations might be.”
Greg Smith
Q
Nye Cominetti: No. I can describe in general terms how we might think about the potential impact, but I think any researcher or economist who tried to put a number on it would be misleadingly specific or misleadingly accurate. Not only do we not know what the direction of the impact might be—it could be that there are small positive or negative impacts on the size of GDP—but it is very hard to get a sense of the scale of the impacts. If you want some kind of judgment, the impact on economic growth will probably be very low—very close to zero. My expectation is that it will possibly be negative, but that is an incredibly hard judgment to reach, because you can point to impacts in both directions.
It is very uncertain, but the important point to make is that that does not mean that we should not be going ahead with these reforms. We should not be pursuing only those reforms where we can say, “The impact on GDP will be x,” even if not very confidently. One of the first things that this Bill should do is improve working lives for workers. It may be that we cannot put a monetary value on that, or that there is no associated impact on GDP, but to me that is the main and the first reason why many of these reforms should be undertaken.
Greg Smith
Q
Nye Cominetti: The same number, would be my best guess.
Greg Smith
What do you base that on?
Nye Cominetti: Internationally, we can draw scatter plots of the employment level in a country and the extent of employment regulation, and basically those lines come out flat. You have some countries with very high employment and very high levels of regulation, and some countries with lower employment and high regulation, so there is no clear relationship with the employment levels across countries. That is confirmed by the OECD, which has done lots of detailed work looking into the impact of periods when countries have either rowed back on reforms or expanded them.
What we do see in the employment data is that when you beef up the reforms around dismissals for individual or collective workers, you tend to see lower hiring rates. So the rate at which workers move around the economy will probably slow down if you make it significantly harder for employers to fire workers, and that gives rise to potential implications for productivity growth. Now, I still think those effects will be small. When the Office for Budget Responsibility, in one or two years’ time, starts putting the numbers into its forecasts, I expect them to be very small indeed. My expectation is that the employment level will be very, very narrowly lower if anything.
To give you some sense of scale, the OBR said it thinks that the employer national insurance contributions bill will be about £25 billion, and that that would lower the employment level in this country by 0.2%. The DBT said that it thinks the direct costs of the measures, including sick pay, are in the order of magnitude of £5 billion. If you compare those numbers, that starts to give you a sense of the scale of potential employment effects that we are talking about. I am sorry not to give you a more exciting answer, but my best guess is that the impact on employment levels will be small.
Justin Madders
Q
Nye Cominetti: It is a good question. One of the ways that I like to think about this package of reforms is that it extends to low-paid workers the kind of everyday flexibilities and dignities at work that people in professional jobs such as me and you take for granted. It is not the case that all low-paid workers hate their job or face the risk of losing their job every week, but it is the case that they experience a higher level of insecurity than higher-paid workers do.
You can look at that in various ways. In recessions, low-paid workers are more likely to lose their job, so they face a higher risk of losing their job in downturns. They are also more likely to rely on statutory sick pay if they fall ill, so for many low-paid workers, falling ill comes with an income shock. That is not the case for someone like me: if I fall ill, I go home and pick up an online meeting or two if I can, but if I cannot, I will get paid as normal. That is not the case for many low-paid workers, so that is a real insecurity.
Obviously, there are zero-hours contracts as well. For low-paid workers, I think roughly one in 10 is on a zero-hours contract. For higher-paid workers—the top fifth in the hourly pay distribution—it is a vanishingly small number and very uncommon indeed. I am sure that you have heard plenty of evidence about the kind of impact on security that zero-hours contracts can bring to some—not all—workers.
The most illuminating statistic is probably that 2 million workers say that they are fairly or very anxious about unexpected changes to their hours of work. You might think that that is because that comes with not just an impact on their life—“I do not know which days I’m going to be working next week, and I have to make it work alongside childcare”—but a potential income risk as well. In many respects, the working lives of low-paid workers are less secure than those of higher-paid workers. My hope is that some of these measures will go some way to redressing that balance.
Justin Madders
Q
Nye Cominetti: I would not want to try. It is not quite the same, but the closest that some studies have tried to get is saying to workers, “Would you consider this alternative job, which would improve your terms and conditions in these respects, but offer you lower pay?” That tries to get at the question of how much pay people would be willing to trade off for those other benefits, such as a more stable income or a better relationship with management.
It does not directly answer your question, but there was a study in America of Walmart workers which found that they would accept a 7% pay cut in exchange for being treated with better dignity by their managers, including things such as better advance notice of their shifts and not getting messed around late in the day to come in and pick up extra hours. I definitely cannot quantify it, but more ambitious researchers might be able to.
Steve Darling
Q
Nye Cominetti: Well, I have a few caveats. First, overall employment rates are lower in high-deprivation areas, so we need to remember that all these measures will have an effect on workers, rather than those who are not working. If you want to improve income levels, this is not the place to do it. As I was just saying, however, we know that low-paid workers experience those issues of insecurity at higher rates than high-paid workers.
You also need to remember that there is not a one-for-one overlap between high pay and high income and low pay and low income. Some low-income households will have higher-paid individuals in them, but because of having a large family or having only one earner rather than two, they will still end up in that low-income category. That caveat aside, it is still the case that any measures that improve working lives for low-paid workers will have the biggest impact on lower-income households.
There are questions about what the knock-on effects are going to be. If you were really optimistic, you might say that some of these measures to improve job quality could even have a positive labour supply effect. We know that, in the 2010s, that was a big driver of improved income at the bottom and massively increased employment among low-income households. So an optimistic take on these measures might be that you could trigger some of those kinds of effects, but that is much more uncertain.
Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Q
Nye Cominetti: That is a tricky question. If measures to tackle zero-hours contracts are put in place effectively, I think that they will mainly smooth the income of those individuals rather than necessarily raise their level of pay. There might be a knock-on impact on the level of pay if workers have better outside options and can more readily bargain for pay increases or shop around for jobs, but the first effect that you would hope to achieve through these measures is smoothing pay—taking away the volatility from week to week. There is plenty of evidence that that is the element of those jobs that households struggle with most, not the level of hourly pay.
We know that, through minimum wage action, we have massively improved earnings for the lowest-paid workers, but it is the volatility that is most difficult to deal with, as I think anyone sitting here would readily agree. If someone is thinking, “Next week, my pay might go down by 20% or 50%, or maybe my hours will be zeroed down entirely,” it does not take much for us to imagine the impact of that not just on their wellbeing and psychology, but on their spending decisions. They might think, “I can’t afford to commit to that spending now, given that I’m uncertain about what my pay is going to be next week.”
If these measures are done well and genuinely smooth the incomes of those experiencing the worst volatility, I would expect improvements in individuals’ wellbeing. Potentially—again, more optimistically—you might see knock-on positive effects on the economy more broadly, if people feel more comfortable spending because they know what their pay is going to be in future. But as I have said a few times, that is definitely much more uncertain.
Sarah Gibson
Q
Nye Cominetti: The bit of the Bill that most obviously addresses that is the right to request flexible work, which is being strengthened, as I am sure you know—employers now have to give a justification for saying no. When you look at surveys of workers with disabilities or elderly workers, flexibility is very often mentioned as something that might have helped them to stay in work.
If you will allow me to make a second point, surrounding all these measures and, in fact, our employment framework more generally, are questions of enforcement and worker power—they are sitting at the side, but they are absolutely crucial. There are many existing rights that workers have on paper, but because our enforcement systems are fairly weak, especially compared with other countries where the state does more of the job of enforcing these rights, people do not necessarily experience in reality the entitlements that the law says they should have.
Even in a world where workers gain that strengthened right to flexible work, that means little if they, for example, look at the employment tribunal system delays and think, “Well, that’s an impossibility. There’s no point fighting my employer over this. I’m never going to win that,” or, “I can’t spend the next two years waiting to win that.” So the answer is yes, but only if we also resolve some of the existing problems about people’s ability to enforce their own entitlements.
Laurence Turner
Q
Nye Cominetti: You are right: labour market statistics are not currently in a good place. The Office for National Statistics’ labour force survey is in the doldrums in terms of response rates; so if you wanted to increase the resources going into that, I would welcome that, as a researcher. Realistically, many of these knock-on benefits are incredibly hard to estimate. Personally, I think we have to accept a world where we say, we know that workers will benefit in terms of wellbeing from some of these measures. I do not think you need to put a monetary value on that to say it is worth doing, personally, but I know that is not necessarily the way that Government Departments think about these things.
In terms of the costs—businesses will be saying, “If you do this measure, I will have to reduce hiring by this much”—I think we could be moving from relying on what businesses say. I know that many businesses will be engaging with these processes in good faith, but the history, for example with the minimum wage, is for businesses to say, “If you raise this cost there will be dire consequences: job losses will look like x and y,” and in the end that does not turn out to happen because businesses find ways to adapt. That does not mean that will happen this time—there is no guarantee that you can keep pulling off the same trick of raising labour costs and not triggering an impact on employment—but looking for evidence on what has actually happened in response to similar changes in the past or in other countries, rather than relying on what businesses say, might be a better guide. But that might be controversial.
Chris Law
Q
Nye Cominetti: Thank you for the question. I was hoping to get the chance to talk about sick pay specifically. That is one area where the Government have gone halfway to addressing an area of insecurity. Removing the lower earnings limit is great; the lowest earners, mainly women working few hours, all have access to SSP now, which is excellent.
Removing waiting days is an important change as well. It will no longer be the case that you have to wait four days to receive anything and, as you know, for most people who are off sick for a few days with a cold, that is a one or two-day situation, not a week. Those measures are good, but what they do is extend a very low level of coverage to more workers. As you say, we have not resolved the fundamental problem that if SSP is what you rely on, as is the case for a majority of low-paid workers, you will still face a very serious income shock if that is what your employer ends up paying you when you do that.
Raising the level of SSP comes with a much bigger cost. First, it would be employers that would pay it, and then the Government would face a decision about whether to reimburse, perhaps, smaller employers facing the largest cost, as has happened in the past. It is a more costly measure, which is why the Government have not done it, but I hope that they have it on their list to address it soon because, as you say, it remains the case that for our low-paid workers, falling sick means earning less and facing an income shock. I do not think that is right.
You can either look at high-paid workers who do not experience that shock, or you can look at the vast majority of rich countries who have set in place a statutory minimum much higher than we have in the UK. That is not the case in the US, but almost all European countries—not just the Scandinavian countries that we look to as the far end of the scale in terms of welfare state provision, but the vast majority of countries across Europe—have a sick pay system that is much more generous and offers much more protection to workers than does the system in the UK. So yes, I would agree that that remains a glaring unaddressed problem.
The Chair
I am afraid that brings us to the end of the time allotted for the Committee to ask questions of this witness, and for this sitting. I thank you very much for coming along this afternoon and answering the Committee’s questions.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Anna McMorrin.)
Employment Rights Bill (Fifth sitting)
Tuesday 3rd December 2024
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Employment Rights Act 2025 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 3 December 2024 - (3 Dec 2024)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 14 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
Good morning, everyone. Will everyone please switch their electronic devices off or to silent mode?
We now begin line-by-line consideration of the Bill. The selection list for today’s sittings is available in the room and on the parliamentary website. It shows how the clauses, schedules and selected amendments have been grouped for debate. The purpose of grouping is to limit, in so far as is possible, the repetition of the same points in debate. The amendments appear in the amendment paper in the order in which they relate to the Bill.
A Member who has put their name to the lead amendment in a group is called first; in the case of a stand part debate, the Minister will be called first. Other Members are then free to indicate by bobbing that they wish to speak in the debate. At the end of a debate on a group of amendments, new clauses or new schedules, I shall again call the Member who moved the lead amendment or new clause. Before they sit down, they will need to indicate whether they wish to withdraw the amendment or new clause, or to seek a decision. If any Member wishes to press any other amendments in a group to a vote—including grouped new clauses and new schedules—they will need to let me know. I shall use my discretion to decide whether to allow a separate stand part debate on individual clauses and schedules following the debates on relevant amendments. I hope that explanation is helpful.
I remind Members about the rules on declarations of interests, as set out in the code of conduct. We will not go around the room now, but if you want to speak, you should declare your interest at that time.
Clause 1
Right to guaranteed hours
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
I beg to move amendment 137, in clause 1, page 2, line 6, at end insert—
“27ABA Reference to an employer
(1) For the purposes of Chapters 2 to 4 of this Part, references to an ‘employer’ do not apply to an employer defined as a small and medium sized enterprise under subsection (2).
(2) For the purposes of this section, a ‘small and medium sized enterprise’ means an organisation or person employing 500 or fewer employees.”
This amendment would exclude small and medium sized enterprises from the Bill’s provisions on zero hours contracts.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 138, in clause 7, page 24, line 33, leave out subsections (3) to (5) and insert—
“(3) In paragraph (b) of subsection (1), after ‘shall’, insert ‘, in the case of an employer with fewer than 500 employees,’
(3B) In subsection (1), after paragraph (b), insert—
‘(c) may, in the case of an employer with 500 or more employees, refuse the application only if—
(i) the employer considers that the application should be refused on a ground or grounds listed in subsection (1ZA), and
(ii) it is reasonable for the employer to refuse the application on that ground or those grounds.
(1ZA) The grounds mentioned in subsection (1)(b) are—
(a) the burden of additional costs;
(b) detrimental effect on ability to meet customer demand;
(c) inability to re-organise work among existing staff;
(d) inability to recruit additional staff;
(e) detrimental impact on quality;
(f) detrimental impact on performance;
(g) insufficiency of work during the periods the employee proposes to work;
(h) planned structural changes;
(i) any other grounds specified by the Secretary of State in regulations.’
(4) After subsection (1ZA) insert—
‘(1ZB) If an employer with 500 employees or more refuses an application under section 80F, the notification under subsection (1)(aa) must—
(a) state the ground or grounds for refusing the application, and
(b) explain why the employer considers that it is reasonable to refuse the application on that ground or those grounds.’
(5) After subsection (1D) insert—
(1E) The steps which an employer with 500 employees or more must take in order to comply with subsection (1)(aza) include, among others, any steps specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State.”
This amendment would exclude small and medium sized enterprises—here defined as employers with fewer than 500 employees—from the Bill’s provisions on flexible working requests.
Amendment 139, in clause 16, page 30, line 24, at end insert—
“(1D) For the purposes of subsection (1A), an ‘employer’ means an organisation or person employing 500 or more employees.”
This amendment would exclude employers with fewer than 500 employees from the Bill’s duty for employers to prevent harassment.
Amendment 141, in schedule 2, page 110, leave out paragraph 1 and insert—
“1 In section 108 of the Employment Rights Act, for subsection (1), substitute—
(1) In the case of an employer with 500 or more employees, section 94 does not apply to the dismissal of an employee unless the employee has been continuously employed for a period of not less than two years ending with the effective date of termination.”
This amendment would exclude employers with fewer than 500 employees from the removal of the qualifying period for the right not to be unfairly dismissed.
Amendment 142, in schedule 2, page 112, line 5, at end insert—
“(1A) Regulations under subsection (1) shall apply only to employers with 500 or more employees.”
This amendment would exclude employers with fewer than 500 employees from regulations relating to removing the qualifying period for the right not to be unfairly dismissed.
Amendment 140, in clause 22, page 33, line 44, at end insert—
“(aa) ‘employer’ means a person employing 500 or more employees.”
This amendment would exclude employers with fewer than 500 employees from the Bill’s provisions on dismissal for failing to agree a variation of contract.
Greg Smith
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz, on this bright and breezy December morning. It will be the new year by the time we finish our consideration of the Bill—let us see whether we are all as fresh after Christmas as we are today.
I shall briefly talk through the Opposition’s rationale for each of the grouped amendments. The lead amendment, amendment 137, seeks to exclude small and medium-sized enterprises from the Bill’s provisions on zero-hours contracts. The amendment is part of a set of amendments in my name intended to ameliorate the burden of the Bill for small and medium-sized businesses, defined as those with 500 or fewer employees.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Justin Madders)
Will the shadow Minister give way?
Justin Madders
I refer to my registered interests and my trade union membership.
The shadow Minister might well have anticipated my question. Obviously, we acknowledge that the Bill is being brought through at good pace, which means that sometimes mistakes occur. I cannot help but notice that the amendment on today’s paper is slightly different from the one that appeared in previous weeks, which excluded businesses with 500 or more employees, rather than 500 or fewer. Will he clarify whether he is seeking to cosy up to big business or that was indeed an error?
Greg Smith
I am almost grateful for the Minister’s intervention. He was very perceptive to note the minor clerical error in the amendment that was previously submitted. That has now been corrected. Of course, the Conservative party stands with all business, but particularly with small and medium-sized enterprises, which, I can clarify for the record, we define as those with 500 or fewer employees.
The Regulatory Policy Committee has rated as red the identification of options and the choice of the policy in the Bill on zero-hours contracts and guaranteed hours. That means, in effect, that the Government have not justified the provisions in the Bill, the problem they are trying to solve, why they are needed or why they would work. The provisions on zero-hours contracts will create additional burdens on all businesses. The Opposition are particularly concerned about smaller businesses, which have less resource and resilience to cope with the measures: they do not have large HR or legal departments to help them navigate the additional requirements that will be placed on them. The Institute of Directors told us in its evidence that
“crafting the requirement for accessing guaranteed hours as something that employers need to be constantly calculating for all employees whenever they work beyond their fixed hours, and then making offers to people, some of whom would want to receive those offers and some of whom would not, seems to us the most administratively complex and costly way of delivering on the proposal.”––[Official Report, Employment Rights Public Bill Committee, 26 November 2024; c. 11, Q4.]
I am confident that the Minister will try to refute these points and somehow paint the amendment as creating a two-tier workforce, which it would not. I urge the Government to recognise the bureaucracy burden and risk that the zero-hours contract provisions will create for smaller businesses in particular. Providing for guaranteed offers of hours after 12 weeks would create a lot of additional administration for our small and medium-sized enterprises. I gently ask the Minister how credible he thinks it is that employees will reject offers made and that the process will have to start all over again.
Amendment 138 is similar to amendment 137 in what it seeks to do, but excludes small and medium-sized enterprises—again, defined as those with fewer than 500 employees—from the Bill’s provisions on flexible working requests. The RPC has said that the Government have presented “little evidence” that employers are refusing requests for flexible working unreasonably. When I talk to businesses in my constituency, I do not come across any complaints that flexible working is being refused unreasonably; I find many businesses that have, certainly in the post-covid era, made huge offers to their employees of working from home, mixed hours and working around the school run, or whatever it might be. It does not seem to me to be a particular problem in most businesses that I speak to. I want to give the Minister the opportunity to present some of his evidence for the necessity of these provisions. What led to the decision that these flexible working clauses are needed? If they are not, I urge the Government to accept our amendment to exempt SMEs from them.
Jon Pearce (High Peak) (Lab)
The amendments may create a two-tier workforce, as the shadow Minister suggested. Does he know how many employees in the UK would not have the benefit of these rights if we made the amendments he is suggesting?
Greg Smith
I understand the point the hon. Gentleman is trying to make, but the Opposition’s concern is that the burdens that the Bill’s provisions—including this one—place on many businesses will actually result in fewer jobs in the overall labour market in the United Kingdom. I cannot for one second accept that anybody in this House wants there to be fewer jobs in the economy as a whole. If small businesses are placed under the burdens that are addressed by the amendments, and do not make additional hires or take the risk on individuals for jobs, we will be in a very bad place. If small businesses—the backbone of our economy—are not hiring, not growing and not going on to become medium-sized and large businesses, the people who pay for that are workers and people looking for a job or to progress their careers.
Alex McIntyre (Gloucester) (Lab)
I refer the Committee to my membership of GMB and Community, and to my former membership of the Employment Lawyers Association.
I am somewhat confused by the shadow Minister’s comments. On the one hand, he says that every business in his constituency offers flexible working already and therefore there is no requirement for this legislation; on the other hand, he says it is such a burden to businesses that it will stop them employing people. If everyone is doing it already and we are still employing people, what is the problem?
Greg Smith
I did not say that every business is offering flexible working. I said that, having visited businesses in my constituency, I am yet to find a problem around any business’s offering flexible working, or any employee or constituent with a complaint about an inability to get flexible working—quite the opposite, in fact.
If we consider the cumulative impact of all the measures in the Bill, they will certainly place a burden on business. The Opposition are trying to ensure that we take only those measures that will work—only those that will have a direct positive impact and will not be a burden on the HR department. Well, most small businesses do not have an HR department; often, it is the director or another member of the team who has to take on that additional job and understand the burden of regulation, on top of whatever their main contract has them doing. If we get rid of the measures that are simply not necessary, that will mean less of a burden on businesses, notwithstanding the point, which the hon. Member for Gloucester rightly highlighted, that the majority of businesses that I speak to do not have a problem offering flexible working—perhaps some businesses in other Members’ constituencies do.
The point of going through the Bill line by line in Committee is to metaphorically kick the tyres to ensure that its provisions are not a burden on business and will not have unintended consequences. As I said earlier, I cannot for one second believe that anybody in this House wants to see fewer jobs in the overall economy.
Sarah Gibson (Chippenham) (LD)
I draw the Committee’s attention to my declaration of interests. I have run a small business for the last 20 years. It would probably even be considered a microbusiness, because a lot of professional services are. In the south-west, acquiring and retaining professional staff is extremely difficult for small businesses—certainly, retaining them is. Does the shadow Minister not think that if we create a two-tier system, where someone working for a larger business has better rights than someone working for a small business, it will be even more difficult for small businesses to hire and retain staff?
Greg Smith
The point we have to look at, across the six amendments that we are considering in this group, is the reality of small and medium-sized businesses. I congratulate the hon. Lady on running her own business. I was self-employed for 15 years before I was a Member of this House, so I understand the challenges. Small and medium-sized businesses are the backbone of our economy but, by definition, because they are small or medium sized, they struggle—as she rightly says—not just to employ across the piece, but to obtain the legal advice, HR advice and professional services to help them navigate the panoply of regulations, rules and laws that this place has passed over the generations, as the current Government are seeking to do again through this Bill.
The way I look at politics, the best way to govern is to ensure as light a touch as possible on business and to limit the necessity of sourcing additional HR and professional services and so on that small businesses just cannot afford. If they are forced down the route of sourcing expensive professional services, that will have a knock-on effect on the real wages that they can pay to their staff and on the ultimate cost to the consumer of whatever service or product they are providing—that is a basic law of economics.
Although I would never advocate a two-tier approach in principle, there is a real difference between businesses in our economy that can simply have massive HR and legal services departments, without having to outsource them or bring them in at expensive rates, and businesses that cannot. If we accept that reality, perhaps we can look at the burden of additional regulations that might be necessary to help real people and real businesses to grow the economy, so that small businesses can become medium and then large businesses, and can be successful.
The Opposition tabled amendment 138 to exempt small businesses from the flexible working provisions. As I said, small businesses are being clobbered by the Government. Retail, hospitality and leisure relief has been cut, which has led to increased business rates bills, and employer national insurance contributions are going up, which Bloomberg economists estimate will cost 130,000 jobs. I cannot see the justification for putting those provisions in the Bill. We would be grateful if the Minister could provide a full and frank rationale for them—or, if not, support our amendment.
Amendment 139 would exclude businesses with fewer than 500 employees from the Bill’s duty on employers to prevent third-party—I stress third-party—harassment. Of course, harassment in any form is totally, deeply and completely unacceptable in our country, and I am in no way trying to say otherwise, but the RPC has said that the Government have not provided “sufficient evidence” of the prevalence of third-party harassment or its impact to justify the approach taken in the Bill. I genuinely believe that every hon. Member wants to ensure that nobody in this country is harassed in any way, but, through that lens, we need to understand the evidence for the necessity of this particular provision about third-party harassment.
Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)
I draw the Committee’s attention to my declaration of interests and my membership of the trade unions Unison and the Writers’ Guild of Great Britain.
I am pleased that the Bill will increase protection from sexual harassment, being one of those middle-class women of a certain age—the Government’s commitment to holding workplace offenders to account cannot come soon enough. Last week, we heard that there is strong evidence that the majority of sexual harassment in the workplace, particularly in retail and hospitality, comes from third parties—a client, customer or patient. Surely, the hon. Member would agree that it is essential that employers can take reasonable steps to prevent harassment by third parties, because the net effect on the victim is the same whether that behaviour comes from a direct co-employee or a third party.
Greg Smith
I am grateful to the hon. Lady, who makes an accurate and fair point. I repeat that harassment of any form, sexual or whatever, is deeply and totally unacceptable and wrong, and must be stamped out. The point that the Opposition are probing in amendment 139 is the proportionality of the impact on businesses—particularly small businesses—given the control that they have over third parties, and whether other laws that are already on the statute book should be used to fully ensure that anybody guilty of any form of harassment is brought to justice under the law. We are trying to understand how the particular measure in clause 1 would work, and its proportionality.
Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)
I again draw attention to my declarations in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my membership of the Unite and GMB trade unions.
Does the shadow Minister recognise that the prominent case of the Presidents Club harassment, which was exposed by the Financial Times some years ago, did apply to an employer that employed fewer than 500 people? That was specifically in respect of sexual harassment. The House has accepted the principle that measures should be put in place to prevent third-party sexual harassment; it did so last year, through the private Member’s Bill process—including for the SMEs that the shadow Minister refers to. The most famous case on third-party harassment was the Bernard Manning case in 1996, which covered racial harassment; and recent tribunal judgments, including in 2019, have exposed gaps in the law. So does the shadow Minister recognise that there are important proven cases of third-party harassment that go beyond the current legal framework, that would be remedied by the provisions in the Bill?
Greg Smith
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I will not seek to mislead the Committee by saying that I am across the Presidents Club case, but I am aware of the Manning case. Undoubtedly there are holes in the law, because harassment does take place in workplaces and outside workplaces up and down the land. Conservative Members categorically want that stamped out and want those guilty of those offences to face justice. However, as we go through the Bill line by line, we need to ask ourselves, “Does this proposal work, or are there other laws—criminal laws if necessary—to ensure that the authorities have the absolute ability to bring such prosecutions and ensure that those guilty of these horrible crimes are brought to justice?”
Amendments 141 and 142 are part of the set of amendments around ensuring that SMEs are not given undue burdens. These are about excluding employers with fewer than 500 employees from the removal of the qualifying period for the right not to be unfairly dismissed. RPC, which has had a lot to say about the Bill, has said that the day one unfair dismissal rights are estimated to cost businesses around £43.2 million per year.
Justin Madders
The shadow Minister may be familiar with this line of questioning, because it is basically the same issue as earlier. I may have misinterpreted the way that amendment 141 interplays with the Employment Rights Act 1996, but the amendment refers to
“an employer with 500 or more employees,”
although the explanatory note then says 500 or fewer. Will the shadow Minister clarify what the intention is?
Greg Smith
I am clear that it should be 500 or fewer. I will not pretend to guess how some of the misdrafting may have occurred; it happens to all parties when they are in government and in opposition. I can remember a couple of errors in Bill Committees when I was sat on the Back Benches on the opposite side from the then Opposition. I apologise to the Committee for any errors. For the clarity of the record, we mean 500 or fewer employees when we are defining an SME.
To be asked to give Government the power to make regulations with no idea what the regulations imposed on businesses will be, is clearly not a position we want to be in. The Government admit that the day one unfair dismissal rights could have negative impacts on employment and hiring, which could include incentivising employers to turn to temporary or fixed-term workers. The day one unfair dismissal rights could make it more difficult for those unemployed or economically inactive to access jobs, through overall negative impacts on employment and/or a strengthening of insider power. Alex Hall-Chen from the Institute of Directors warned the Committee that
“under the current system, employers are very likely to take a risk on hiring a borderline candidate who may not have quite the right experience or qualifications, but they will now be much less likely to take that risk because the cost of getting it wrong will be considerably higher.”––[Official Report, Employment Rights Public Bill Committee, 26 November 2024; c. 8, Q2.]
There are important questions about what that means for people on the fringes of the labour market, especially as they are precisely the people the Government say that they need to get back into work to meet their 80% employment rate target.
We should all reflect on this point from the evidence that we heard last week: very many people in our society deserve a second chance in life. They might have made mistakes before, or be on a path to rehabilitation from offending or something else—whatever it might be—and I would hate it if people who found themselves in that position were not able to get a second chance. Employers that are willing to give second or even third chances should have the best empowerment to do so, to get people who find themselves in that position into work and on to the path to a better life.
I fear that the unintended consequence of the legislation will be to shut many people who find themselves in that position out of the ability to get a job, to improve their lives and to get themselves on to a better path. SMEs will feel the burden of the new regulations particularly acutely without large HR and legal teams, as I have said.
Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)
The Bill as drafted seems to skew a competitive advantage in favour of large businesses. Earlier, my hon. Friend mentioned that small and medium-sized businesses are the key to economic growth in our country. These amendments will enable them to compete evenly because, as he says, they do not have large HR functions, or the support mechanisms that large businesses have. The amendments will redress the unfairness in the Bill.
Greg Smith
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that input. He is absolutely right, and his argument hits the nail on the head. The point we are trying to get across through the amendments in my name and that of my hon. Friends in Committee is that small businesses sometimes just do not have the resource to go through the heavy, burdensome regulations that big businesses can navigate. Mega-businesses probably have more employees in their HR or legal department than most small businesses have altogether.
Laurence Turner
I am grateful to the shadow Minister for giving way; he has been generous with his time. On the point about perverse incentives, does he accept that if this group of amendments were in force, it would create a perverse incentive for the creation of umbrella companies and other forms of employment law evasion? If we are to enforce the provisions that we seek to pass in the Bill, instead of introducing a new dimension to employment law through the exemptions that he proposes, the only way to do that is to have a consistent approach across employers.
Greg Smith
I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point about umbrella companies. He almost tempts me to get on to one of my hobby horses, which is IR35, but that would be way out of scope, so I promise not to go there.
My principal point is that there are always unintended consequences. And yes, in some respects, while acknowledging the reality of the contribution that small businesses make to our economy and their ability to meet a heavy regulatory demand, there may have to be other steps around that to prevent the further perverse incentives that the hon. Gentleman mentions. But I come back to my central argument: if we clobber small businesses down, there will be fewer jobs, and small businesses will not be growing, which means that the whole UK economy is not growing. His Government purport to want to see the economy grow. The Budget flew in the face of that, but, if we take as read the desire of all Members to see a growing economy in the United Kingdom, we cannot have that without small business, medium-sized enterprises or, frankly, the self-employed.
Let us not forget that, as we came out of the 2008 crash and through the coalition years, a huge part of economic growth came from the growth of self-employment, which led to those self-employed registering as companies, growing and—many of them—being a huge success story. If the Bill has the unintended consequence of reducing the incentive for entrepreneurs to set up on their own, start a business and employ people, that is a very unhappy place to be.
Michael Wheeler (Worsley and Eccles) (Lab)
I refer the Committee to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my trade union memberships. When the shadow Minister listed the groups upon whom growth depends, he seemed to miss a rather large group—the workers. Does he accept that the purpose of the Bill is to create good employment and valued workforces? As we heard in evidence, good employment and valued workforces lead to increased productivity. Opposition Members are often keen to refer to the cumulative burden. As we are now on their fourth or fifth amendment, all in the same vein—about excluding millions of workers in this country from the benefits of the Bill—does he accept that the cumulative effect is to create a set of wrecking amendments that will remove the benefits of this Bill from millions of people in this country?
Greg Smith
The hon. Gentleman makes his point well, but I fundamentally disagree that these are in any way, shape or form wrecking amendments. Where we have common ground and where we do agree is that, of course, no business is anything without its employees—the people who actually do the work. However, where I think he and I may disagree, and I do not want to put words into his mouth, so I invite him to intervene on me again if I get this wrong, is about the person who has risked their capital—who has either borrowed money or risked money to have to start that business— who runs that business, who is the director of that business, being as much a working person as everybody else within it. Businesses only exist because of human beings—before our AI overlords come in and take over everything, way into the future. Of course, workers are at the hub of that, but the people who run the businesses are as much working people as everybody else.
To come back to the central point, there will be no workers, or fewer workers, if there are not people to actually employ them in the first place. If the Bill’s unintended consequences are that SMEs—and perhaps larger businesses, but to be frank, it is more likely to be SMEs—are disincentivised from taking people on, disincentivised from growing their workforce, I do not think anybody will be happy.
Michael Wheeler
The shadow Minister invited clarification and an intervention. I do not think that anyone is disputing some of what he says, though we will dispute much. In the context of the Bill, he talks much about, as he put it, the mounting burden, but with little evidence—though he seems to quite like evidence when referencing the RPC. Does he accept, though, that the fundamental principle of the Bill is a rebalancing within the economy between workers and their employers, that nothing in it goes beyond that, and that some rebalancing is actually needed within that relationship for growth across the whole economy?
Greg Smith
I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point. Of course, it is no surprise that a Labour Government would seek to bring in such a Bill. We knew it was coming; it was in their manifesto. We will come to the question of whether they really needed to rush this out in 100 days, given the number of Government amendments that we will consider later. It is, by definition, a rebalancing, and I hesitate to say this for perhaps the fourth, fifth or sixth time, but this process is about kicking the tyres.
I welcome our debate in Committee. The point of a Bill Committee is to go through provisions in far more detail than we can on Second Reading in the main Chamber, or even on Report or Third Reading further down the line. Even if Conservative Members would not have gone about making changes in this way, we need to be certain that the Government of the day succeed in their aims. The Labour party has a mandate to govern the country and we want to be a constructive Opposition. Although we might not agree with everything that the Government do—or maybe nothing that they do—it is in the country’s interest that they succeed. Therefore, kicking the tyres on the Bill and ensuring that unintended consequences are ironed out in Committee is a good debate to have and a fundamental purpose behind why we will all will spend our Tuesdays and Thursdays together through to the end of January.
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
On the cumulative effect of the pressures that are building on business, during our evidence sessions last week with various witnesses, the compelling point was made that we should not look at the Bill in isolation. The impact assessment states that the costs are a minimum £5 billion a year for business. Some witnesses thought that that was actually an underestimate, and that the true figure will be higher and will grow when more details emerge as we go through this process. We should also look at the Bill alongside decisions such as the equalisation of the national living wage for young people, the increase in employer’s national insurance contributions and other business taxes that were in the Budget. I thought my hon. Friend might want to say something about the cumulative effects of all those decisions.
Greg Smith
My hon. Friend is right. The cumulative impact of other measures should be considered in the round. I might gently push back by saying that some of those matters are perhaps not fully in scope of the amendments that we are discussing. However, he is absolutely right that the Bill has to be considered in the light of other factors relating to other decisions in Government, be that fiscal events or other legislation. That goes to the nub of this set of amendments. This is about whether some of the measures are proportionate given the Government’s original intent in the Bill, and whether some of the original intent in the Bill, from which these amendments seek to exclude SMEs, will be the metaphorical straw that breaks the camel’s back.
Amendment 140 excludes employers with fewer than 500 employees from the Bill’s provisions on dismissal for failing to agree a variation of contact—this is also part of our set of amendments. We have questions about the wisdom of clause 22, or at least we seek reassurance from the Minister that it will not prevent employers from improving working conditions or working practices. I would like to remove yet another burden on small and medium-sized business unless and until the Government can prove that that measure is needed and proportionate, and that, critically, the benefits will outweigh the costs.
Alex McIntyre
My experience in business goes way back. My parents ran a small business and, although I would not say I was a worker at it, I helped out from the age of nine. I got my first job at a small business when I was 12, and I worked in the hospitality trade throughout my school and university years, all at small and medium-sized enterprises. I spoke last week about the fact that I was on a zero-hours contract for the most part while I was there. I then became an employment lawyer advising businesses, from start-ups to FTSE 100 companies and global conglomerates. So I have some experience in these matters, and I am very grateful to be on the Committee.
Let me go back to my experience on a zero-hours contract. We are talking about amendments that would take out SMEs from many of these provisions, and I want to draw on two of my experiences and say why I think this issue is important. I mentioned the first last week: when I was on a zero-hours contract at the hotel that I worked at in my later teens, everybody in that business was on a zero-hours contract. As a 15-year-old, I was quite happy to be on a zero-hours contract. I had to balance it with playing rugby and my studies, but in the summer I could flex up and work longer hours. However, for many of my colleagues, that was their full-time job; it was the job that paid their rent or mortgage—if they had been lucky enough to buy a house—looked after their kids and provided the heating each winter. But when it came to it, it was open to abuse, and the manager I had would vary hours based not on demand, but on whether she liked the individual or not.
I remember vividly that one week a colleague refused—quite rightly, I would say—to take the manager’s personal shopping up to her fourth-floor flat, because he was really busy behind the bar; he was the only barman on shift. He usually worked between 50 and 60 hours a week; for the next month, he was given five hours a week. He had two children, and rent to pay. I just do not agree with the amendment suggesting that that is fine and that that abuse of someone’s rights could continue indefinitely.
Mr Bedford
The example the hon. Gentleman has just given would be covered anyway by employment law. If an individual is being discriminated against, they could take that to a tribunal under current employment law. The amendment would not in any way dilute the rights that currently exist in that respect.
Alex McIntyre
Well, the individual would be able to raise a grievance, but discrimination requires it to be related to a protected characteristic, and there is no protected characteristic saying that just because someone disagrees with a manager, he would be able to bring a claim under the Equality Act 2010 for discrimination. He might be able to raise a grievance about that, but that requires an employer to have a fair grievance process and to actually follow through. Is that individual, who is already on very low pay and struggling to pay his rent and feed his kids, going to take that grievance through a tribunal system that the previous Government allowed to really suffer? Eighteen to 24 months is the standard waiting time to get any form of justice, so I do not think it is appropriate to say that he would be able just to go to a tribunal. What he really needed was guaranteed hours and small businesses being prevented from abusing people by saying that they can continue to work 60 hours but not offering them a regular-hours contract.
My second point is on sexual harassment or harassment by third parties. When I was 15 years old, I worked at a Christmas party for midwives at that same hotel, and during that party I was sexually assaulted in the workplace. I was groped by the midwives and told that because I was only 15, they would be able to teach me a thing or two. When I approached my manager about it, he said I should enjoy that kind of attention because I was a man. I am really conscious that female colleagues suffered way worse than I did. Just because businesses are smaller, that does not mean that the impact on victims and people working there is any less.
However, the wording of the Bill is “all reasonable steps”, and the “reasonable” test is taken into account when tribunals consider such matters and what reasonable steps need to be taken by businesses. The size of a business is often something that tribunals will take into account when they look at what “all reasonable steps” would mean. In my example, there were reasonable steps that could have been taken, but I was told that I had to get back in there and carry on working with that party. Excluding small businesses would prevent them from having the duty to look after their employees when they are suffering harassment in the workplace.
To come back to the point made by the hon. Member for Mid Leicestershire about competing evenly, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield has already talked about some of the perverse outcomes that the amendment might lead to. Unscrupulous employers who want to get around the legislation in whatever way they can might end up setting up umbrella companies in order to do that if this amendment were passed. A two-tier employment system would be a barrier to growth for companies, because it would say, “If you grow your company and continue to do well, you are going to put additional regulation on to the company.” There would be a perverse incentive for businesses to grow to 499 employees and stop there.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
On the hon. Gentleman’s point about employers wanting to set up separate entities to keep below a limit, he will be aware that in the Budget the Chancellor increased the employment allowance, to protect small businesses from her otherwise devastating increase in national insurance charges, and there is no indication that the Exchequer is incapable of managing that. Equally, with small business rate relief, there is no indication that local councils cannot distinguish between employers that are setting up different business and those that are taking advantage of that. Why does the hon. Gentleman think that employers would be able to exploit what he describes as a loophole—but what we would say is there to protect small businesses—and yet the Government are perfectly happy to have similar allowances for national insurance and through rate relief?
Alex McIntyre
If we are looking at the numbers, I am glad that somebody on the Opposition Benches is finally acknowledging that we have massively increased employment allowance, taking many small businesses out of paying national insurance contributions altogether. It is nice to finally have some recognition of some of the good stuff this Government are doing for small businesses.
To return to the point, though, there is a big difference between having four employees, which would allow somebody to employ people on the national living wage, and having 500 employees. It would be much easier for a large business to exploit the kind of loopholes that are being suggested by reorganising itself into blocks of 499 employees than it would be for a business of a couple of thousand employees to be split into organisations of four employees or fewer, so I think that that is what is much more likely to happen.
I will not name names, but I have been in the trade for a long time, and whenever there is employment legislation, businesses will be considering how best to deal with it, and some are more aggressive than others. In this case, aggressive employers would potentially exploit that loophole, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield suggested. We are creating a level playing field, which is an important part of this Bill. We heard in evidence last week that many employers are already doing so many of the good things in this Bill. This is a levelling of the playing field, to stop people undercutting good employers with what are, quite frankly, shoddy employment practices.
To sum up, I fully support the Bill, and I do not support the amendment. We should not create a two-tier employment system, where instances such as those that I and my colleagues suffered, like others working on zero-hours contracts in small and medium-sized enterprises, are allowed to go unchecked. We should continue to create a level playing field, as the Minister has suggested. It is important that we encourage all small and medium-sized enterprises to be good employers because, as the hon. Member for Chippenham said, staff retention in small and medium-sized enterprise is difficult. Being good employers—offering flexible working and ensuring that people have regular hours, if that is what they are working—can only benefit small and medium-sized enterprises, as they grow and expand their businesses.
Sarah Gibson
As I have stated, I am concerned for small businesses and have spoken to many across my constituency of Chippenham that are extremely concerned about the cumulative effects of these measures on businesses without an HR department and about the huge cost they will impose. However, although I welcome the amendment, I am seriously concerned that if we create a system in which the rights of those who work for small businesses are curtailed, that will affect their ability to take on extra staff.
I feel as though I could have supported the amendment if it had been drafted for seriously small businesses, rather than SMEs of up to 500 employees. I struggle to think of a firm in my constituency with that many employees that does not have an HR department, because they would be struggling as a single employer—I used to struggle as the HR department of my own business with 15 employees. If the number of employees in the amendment could be brought down to around 20, it would be much more acceptable to those kinds of small businesses, but as it is, I would find it difficult to support.
Laurence Turner
I rise to make two brief points that have not been made in this debate. The first, which is narrow, is that we already have a legal definition of SMEs under the Companies Acts 2006, which defines the upper limit as 249 employees. I acknowledge that the previous Government’s position was to extend to new regulations the higher thresholds that those on the shadow Front Bench are seeking to put forward through these amendments. I am happy to be corrected, but I do not believe that any legislation incorporating that position was subsequently carried. There is a serious point here. These may be probing amendments—we will find out shortly—but this process is not the right point to introduce a new legal definition.
Sir Ashley Fox
The hon. Gentleman makes a serious point that 250 employees is the current legal definition. If the Opposition were to show flexibility in accepting that 250 definition, would he and the Labour party accept the amendments for small and medium-sized businesses with up to 250 employees?
Laurence Turner
My personal view is that they should not be accepted, but the hon. Gentleman surely knows that he should not seek an opinion on the party position from a Back-Bench MP.
My second point is on the sectors that would be affected by the amendments. My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester made an incredibly powerful contribution, which we all thank him for having the courage to make, about his experience in the hospitality industry. I want to talk about the social care sector, and it is important to remember that one in three workers on a zero-hours contract in England works in adult social care.
In a former life, I spent many hours going through the corporate structures of social care employers, and their accounts and other filings. It is commonplace for an individual care home to be constituted as an individual employer, even though they ultimately all share a common ownership structure, so what appears to be a small business is often not one. During the pandemic, there was a complex interaction between care workers on zero-hours contracts and a lack of access to statutory sick pay, and there was a direct link between SSP coverage and high rates of infection, and indeed deaths, in those homes among both workers and residents.
The measures in the Bill will make real progress. Going back to points that have been covered already, I fear that this group of amendments will have serious unintended and perverse consequences, and I encourage Members to vote against it.
Justin Madders
I congratulate the shadow Minister on tabling the amendments and on the measured way in which he presented them. However, it will not come as any surprise to him to hear that we will not be able to support any of them.
The intention of amendment 137—or amended amendment 137—is to exclude SMEs from the provisions in clauses 1, 2 and 3. As we understand it, the additional amendments would commit the Government to exempting employers with fewer than 500 employees from measures designed to improve access to flexible working, from their obligations not to permit the harassment of their employees by third parties, from unfair dismissal provisions and from the measure designed to stop unscrupulous fire and rehire practices.
I understand that the general thrust of the shadow Minister’s argument was about the impact on SMEs and the lack of an evidence base for some of the policies. The general response has to be that we will not accept a two-tier system of employment rights in this country. We believe that everyone should have the same rights and protections in the workplace, and that is fundamental to our principles.
I will address some of the specific points. The shadow Minister mentioned the RPC’s criticism of our proposals on zero-hours contracts. There is legion evidence about the impact of those contracts on individuals. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester, who spoke movingly about his own personal experience, including of third-party harassment. His example of the individual who was, effectively, punished when they refused to take a bag of shopping upstairs was telling, and it showed the risks of the power balance in zero-hours relationships. I think that that individual, having already been punished for refusing to take shopping upstairs, would have received similar retribution had he raised a grievance. That goes to show some of the challenges of the power balance for people working on zero-hours contracts.
There is considerable evidence on the impact of the zero-hours contracts. According to the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, 22% of workers on zero-hours contracts do not believe that their contractual arrangements suit their life, and the previous Government’s Taylor review in 2017 found that many workers on zero-hours contracts struggled with that one-sided flexibility and power imbalance, where employers often require employees to be available.
Dr Marie Tidball (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his speech so far. We heard a lot from the Opposition about the cumulative impact on business, and I wonder whether he might say something about the cumulative benefit for workers. We know that 2 million zero-hours workers may benefit from the changes in the Bill, and we also heard evidence last week from a number of small businesses, or those who work with them, that they do not want a two-tier system. They said there are benefits in these provisions that will lead to not only better quality rights for those currently on zero-hours contracts but happier businesses with a more productive workforce.
Justin Madders
On a very fundamental level, if an employee has less money coming than in the previous week, they face a challenge in paying their bills, whether that is their mortgage, their rent or whatever costs they face. That is a very clear challenge to individuals on zero-hours contracts. A great number of studies show that people in insecure work have lower levels of job satisfaction and poorer physical and mental health, and there are also issues linked to lower levels of work productivity. As my hon. Friend mentioned, there is evidence that proper workforce planning is good for businesses, as well as individual workers. I am afraid that any exceptions creating a two-tier labour market would just exacerbate some of the challenges we see in that area. That would create a downward pressure, distort competitiveness at the expense of larger businesses and, as we have heard, create a disincentive for smaller businesses to grow.
Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)
I have heard the Minister reference two-tier rights in employment law several times. I want to raise a fundamental issue in this Bill: zero-hours contracts and the different legal categories of a worker. It is a general principle that labour law should be universal in its application, and our labour rights should apply to everyone who works for others. I just wanted some clarification, as without clarification on the legal status of all those who work, the rights in the Bill are allocated piecemeal.
I will give some examples: some rights are given to employees with contracts of employment; some rights are given to limb (b) workers, such as Deliveroo riders in Independent Workers Union of Great Britain v. Central Arbitration Committee and Deliveroo last year, or gig workers who are denied the status of employees; and some rights are given to other new ad hoc definitions of workers, such as workers on non-contractual zero-hours arrangements. The situation of the false self-employed, including those employed by umbrella companies or personal service companies, as well as anomalous workers such as foster carers, is not otherwise dealt with, and their rights are left opaque. Fundamentally, I am asking whether a new clause is required to ensure that all rights contained within the Bill apply to workers defined as
“any individual who is engaged by another to provide labour and is not, in the provision of that labour, genuinely operating a business on his or her own account”.
Justin Madders
I understand the point that the hon. Member is making. I think it would not need a new clause but a new Bill, because there is a whole range of very complicated issues about worker status. It is something that we are committed to looking at in our “Next Steps” document, and there is a whole range of issues in that sector. The hon. Member referred to foster carers—I should clarify for the record that I am a foster carer. Personally, I would not consider that to be employment, but I know there are others who believe that it is. He also mentioned various arrangements within the gig economy, and the shadow Minister mentioned IR35. We can very quickly get into a very detailed argument about who would be classed as a worker and who would not, and that needs a much more considered and lengthy examination. That is why, as much as we would have liked to, we were not able to get it in the Bill in the time allowed, but I absolutely understand the point the hon. Member is making.
On the amendments before us, the disincentive for an employer to grow would, unfortunately, be an unintended consequence of their provisions. There could even be a scenario where there would be an argument in an employment tribunal about how big an employer actually was. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield talked about some of the complicated structures that we see, and we know that some employers deliberately structure themselves to avoid particular laws. That would go against the policy objectives, which are to create a level playing field across the board, avoid undercutting and ensure that best practice is spread throughout.
We must not create a two-tier system. That is not consistent with what we are trying to achieve. It would harm not just workers, but small businesses, and, as the hon. Member for Chippenham said, would create an incentive for workers at smaller employers to leave. If someone does not get any protection for two years working for one employer, they will go and work for someone who will give them that protection. That applies to lots of the other rights as well.
On the unfair dismissal amendment, there was a brief period in the 1980s where there was a slightly different employer size qualification for unfair dismissal. I think it was 21—some way below the number that the shadow Minister is proposing—but even the Thatcher Government decided that was not a tenable situation and removed that in the end. I gently point out to the shadow Minister that the amendment as drafted would not have the effect that he hopes. I hope he will not push it to a vote.
On the issues about the impact on small employers, that is why we have legislated to include a statutory probationary period to ensure that there is not an undue burden on businesses.
Jon Pearce
I should refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my membership of the GMB.
The shadow Minister talks about employment rights from day one and the extra burden, when the reality is that cases of discrimination and whistleblowing can be brought on day one. Giving some structure to the probationary period will actually assist many employers. In my experience in private practice advising businesses, many of them found themselves subject to claims of discrimination because they failed to go through a proper process. The Bill will assist businesses in giving a greater structure and could potentially lessen the burden on employers with regard to the threat of litigation.
Justin Madders
I think I understand the point my hon. Friend is making: sometimes, an individual who is aggrieved about their treatment will find a legal claim to pursue the employer even if it does not necessarily fit their circumstances. Giving a much clearer structure for employers will hopefully allow closure—I think that is probably the right word—for both sides.
The shadow Minister asked about the evidence on flexible working. I refer him to a Flexible Jobs Index survey in 2023 which found that nine in 10 people wanted to work flexibly, but only six in 10 were able to do so. There is clear evidence, and we heard plenty in the evidence sessions about that.
I will briefly touch on the issue of third-party harassment. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield gave a scholarly run-through of some of the issues, but for the benefit of the Committee, third-party harassment was actually unlawful for the five years between 2008 and 2013, and I am certainly not aware of businesses claiming that that was an undue burden. That was repealed in 2013 because, at the time, it was considered that there were broader protections available regarding third-party harassment. However, that interpretation was challenged in the Nailard judgment in 2018, which found that employees were not in fact protected against third-party harassment. One of the intentions behind the Bill is to close that gap. We think it is absolutely fundamental that, if someone is being harassed at work, it should not matter how big their employer is. Harassment is unacceptable in all its forms, whoever someone works for and however big their employer is, and we intend to close that gap.
Greg Smith
I think that we have had a good—possibly lengthy for a Bill Committee—debate on this group of six amendments. My fundamental concern and argument is around the cumulative impact and the risk of the unintended consequence—I do not think we have got the reassurance we require on that—that these measures could actually dissuade SMEs. I accept that we can debate how to precisely define SMEs, from the Liberal Democrats’ quite low-ball position of around 20, to the 249 mark, or to the 500 mark in our own amendments but, if the net result—the unintended consequence—is fewer jobs overall in the economy, nobody wins.
I certainly want to reassure the Committee, on the point about third-party harassment, that the Opposition absolutely want all forms of harassment stamped out, for sure. I thank the hon. Member for Gloucester for sharing his personal story with the Committee; clearly what happened to him was wholly unacceptable, and I am very sorry that he had to endure it, as many other people do around the country. The question that we are posing is whether this the right law to do it, or are there other laws required to be as firm as humanly possible to stamp down on those unacceptable behaviours? Our point stands—that concern stands—that this measure could, in the words of the hon. Member for Birmingham Northfield, actually create a “perverse incentive” for employers not to give people that chance in life, not to grow their workforce, and not to take that risk or that gamble that, in turn, would grow the economy, which I think we all want them to do.
As we are mindful of the need to probe this measure a little bit further and to get some of those definitions right, we reserve the right to revisit this on Report but, for the time being, we will not be pushing any of those six amendments to a Division. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Greg Smith
I beg to move amendment 149, in clause 1, page 2, line 29, leave out
“a number of hours (‘the minimum number of hours’) not exceeding a specified number of hours”
and insert
“two hours or fewer per week (‘the minimum number of hours’)”.
This amendment defines the number of hours that would constitute a “low hours” contract.
Hopefully we can have a little bit more speed with this debate. In amendment 149, we seek to define a low-hours contract to mean that fewer than two hours’ work is made available during the week. I want to be clear with the Committee that this is a probing amendment, because we are not saying that two hours should constitute a low-hours contract. The Opposition want to know how the Government would define a low-hours contract. The probing amendment will hopefully enable us to understand the Government’s intent fully.
The Government have sadly failed both to consult widely with business and to conduct proper policy development work, and they have thereby introduced a Bill without giving Members across the House a clue as to the actual objective of the definition of a low-hours contract. This is a simple and straightforward probing amendment. I would be grateful to the Minister for some clarity on the Government’s definition of a low-hours contract and on what that definition will be used for.
Michael Wheeler
I appreciate that the shadow Minister has said that it is a probing amendment. I wish it was not quite so ridiculous, in all honesty—it is an utter low ball—but I will speak to it and to the clause it seeks to amend.
Greg Smith
I know the hon. Gentleman is new to the House, but sometimes one has to be a bit ridiculous to prove a point and to get answers. Does he agree?
Michael Wheeler
Well, I agree on my newness, and maybe as I gain more experience, I will encounter more ridiculousness in this place than I already have—in fact, I am sure I will. I wish to speak to the amendment, despite its probing nature. In my view, and I hope the Minister would agree, the clause is designed to promote stability and financial security for those who currently lack it because of the number of hours that are baked into their contracts. To set the bar as low as two hours would run counter to that purpose.
The measure has been widely trailed and debated in the run-up to the election and in this Committee. I highlight a few things that I hope the Minister will speak to with a view to that purpose. I hope that we would all agree that tackling the insecurity that millions of people in our economy face is a worthy aim, and that that is not limited just to those on zero-hours contracts but includes those on low-hours contracts who regularly work more than their set hours.
I spoke of a rebalancing earlier, and that is about fairness and the quality of employment. As part of that, it is only right that, where need is demonstrated, employees are offered—not given; there is still an element of choice—the opportunity to have those hours baked into their contracts, as is set out in the Bill. That would improve their financial security, their work-life balance, the predictability of their hours, and their ability to live their lives, to which their income is incredibly important.
I am looking forward to hearing the Minister roundly reject this amendment, but I also want him to address some other parts of the clause, specifically the inverse of the amendment, the phrase,
“not exceeding a specified number of hours”.
I hope we would want to see this measure apply to as many workers—
Sir Ashley Fox
The hon. Gentleman spoke of the need for employees to have stability and security, but would he not agree that the Bill causes great instability and insecurity for many small business owners precisely because it is so vaguely and badly drafted? The Government have submitted 109 amendments of their own. There are two new schedules and large parts of the Bill that have been left to be amended by future regulations. The Minister spoke earlier about the probation period, but we do not know how long that will be. What is a low-hours contract? It has taken the Opposition to say, “How about two?”—a ridiculous number, we admit—to show that there are enormous parts of the Bill that are not properly drafted. Would it not be better for the Government to just take this Bill away and start again?
Michael Wheeler
I would not agree, which will not surprise the hon. Member. I gently suggest that the number of Government amendments will possibly provide the clarity that he asks for—they will be baked in, and will provide that clarity. This is part of the process of getting the provisions right for all involved. I would suggest that it reflects exactly the opposite of what the hon. Member suggests.
I return to the point about stability and instability. If the basis of the provision is to have hours regularly worked included in contracts, having that contractual term would provide not only stability for the employee, but predictability and stability for the employer. I am sure we can agree that stability all round is beneficial.
However, I come on to possible unintended consequences. The term,
“not exceeding a specified number of hours”,
could do with some clarity, in order to provide that stability and to ensure that the measure applies to the widest number of people within our workforce, to fulfil the intended aim. There is also the phrase “regularity”. Will the Minister consider how to clarify that term to provide the clarity that we would all welcome? Finally, I come on to the term, “excluded worker”. As I have said, we want to see as many people as possible covered by the Bill, so that they feel the benefits of it. The provisions are measured, for both workers and employers. I would welcome the Minister’s commitment to consider those points, as well as his roundly rejecting the ridiculous premise on which the amendment is based.
Justin Madders
I am grateful to the shadow Minister for clarifying that this is a probing amendment, and possibly also that it is a ridiculous amendment, although I am not sure that that is the best way to persuade us to accept it. He will not be surprised to hear that we will not accept it.
An important point has been raised, and my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles has asked a number of questions about what the amendment is trying to achieve. As I understand it, the amendment would mean that only workers on zero-hours contracts or arrangements, and those with two hours or fewer guaranteed per week, would be covered by the regulations. It would also remove the power to make regulations setting the maximum number of hours for those low-hours contracts to be in scope of the provisions.
The low-hours concept will be crucial in determining how many workers end up in scope of the right to guaranteed hours. That is partly intended as an anti-avoidance measure, to prevent employers from avoiding the duty to offer guaranteed hours by moving a worker on to a contract guaranteeing a very small number of hours. I think we can all see that, if the shadow Minister’s amendment were accepted, we would soon be talking in the lexicon about two-hours contracts, rather than zero-hours contract, and that would not deal with the questions of stability and security that we are trying to address.
We will consult on what we mean by low hours. We think it is very important to get this point absolutely right, and we understand that pitching it at a level that works for both the business and the worker will be absolutely critical. We are committed to working in partnership.
We are looking to clarify the provision in regulations. We understand that there are arguments about the detail being in the Bill, but the counter-argument is that putting the details in regulations gives us more flexibility to review the provisions as we move along. It is fair to say that we do not expect the number to end up being two hours. I do not think there has been any evidence put forward for that.
Greg Smith
As I said to the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles, sometimes something a little obscure is needed in order to get noticed and to get an answer.
There is a serious question on what constitutes a low-hours contract. The Minister has just said he will consult, but presumably he will consult on a range—the consultation document will not be a blank piece of paper inviting people to say exactly what they think. What is the range in which the Government believe a low-hours contract should be defined, which will be within that consultation he has promised?
Justin Madders
The shadow Minister tempts me to pre-empt what we will put in the consultation. I have had a number of conversations with my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles over many years, because he has great experience of the retail sector, where there is a great deal of insecurity of work. People who work in that sector can be on guaranteed hours of 16 hours a week but still face insecurity. Equally, a lot of the people that we are trying to help here have no guaranteed hours at all. There is an argument that anyone below full-time hours—again, there is a debate about what that means—could be within scope.
That is why we are holding a consultation, to enable us to understand exactly who will be affected—whether we are trying to catch everyone or target the people who suffer the greatest insecurity of work. That is the purpose of the consultation. I know the shadow Minister will probably want to get some figures out of me today, but I am afraid I will not be able to oblige.
Chris Law
I am sorry to stop the Minister in his tracks, but it is quite an important point. There is in the Bill what I would consider to be a loophole, which enables employers to offer a guaranteed-hours contract where there is work of a short-term nature. There are some issues with that. I would like to know the justifications for it, and whether it is going to consultation. Does it mean that people engaged on such terms will be engaged on a zero-hours basis, or will they be employed on a guaranteed-hours basis? It is not clear in the Bill. If the former, why is it not possible for such workers to have a guaranteed-hours contract if they otherwise meet the proposed statutory criteria? What safeguards will there be to ensure that the power is not abused, in order to avoid a guaranteed-hours contract? I am sure that, in the spirit of the Bill, we want to ensure that that is tightened. There is nothing in the Bill for that, either.
What is the difference between a short-term contract and a fixed-term contract? Will there be a legal status for someone engaged on a short-term contract? Are they an employee, a limb (b) worker, or neither? Lastly, will non-renewal of a short-term contract be a dismissal for the purposes of unfair dismissal in the case of workers who are employees? That is a lot of questions, but I want to know whether there will be further consultation that may result in amendments to the Bill.
Justin Madders
The hon. Gentleman asked so many questions that I did not have a chance to make a note of them. A lot of the issues he raised will be dealt with by amendments that we will debate today or later in the Bill’s passage, but I take his points. We are trying to legislate in a way that prevents unintended consequences and loopholes. I would say to the shadow Minister, “Watch this space,” and encourage him to take part in the consultation, but we cannot accept his amendment.
Greg Smith
It is no surprise that the Government are unwilling to accept the amendment; it is a probing amendment, so we would probably have been quite upset if they had. The fundamental point I still want to get at, while making clear the probing nature of the amendment and that we will withdraw it, is that while I am half reassured by the consultation, it is critical that there is clarity and definition for businesses out there that want to understand what is coming down the line in this piece of legislation. Everyone knows the parliamentary arithmetic at the moment; this will become law at some point during this Session.
While it is never an ideal scenario to legislate first and consult second—it is far better to do it the other way round—we need greater clarity, as soon as is humanly possible, on how the Government intend to define low-hours contracts as they go to consultation. I cannot accept that there will not be some floor and ceiling within the range that the Government seek to consult on, but I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Greg Smith
I beg to move amendment 152, in clause 1, page 3, line 2, after “not” insert
“on a fixed-term contract or”.
This amendment will exempt a worker on fixed-term contracts from being categorised as a “qualifying worker”.
This too will hopefully be a relatively straightforward debate. The amendment seeks to exempt workers on fixed-term contracts from being categorised as qualifying workers. This is a probing amendment in my name, on behalf of the official Opposition. We would like to understand why it is proportionate, particularly for small and medium-sized enterprises, for the provisions on guaranteed hours to apply to workers on fixed-term contracts, given that we still do not know the length of the reference period. Is it proportionate for a business to have to make an offer of guaranteed hours to a worker whose contract will in any event come to an end just after the reference period? In last week’s evidence sessions, some witnesses talked about workers who are perhaps on a very specific construction project with a definite end point—when the railway station is built, there is nothing left to build on that project—so it is not possible to escape the fixed-term nature of some contracts. Without knowing the length of the Government’s proposed reference period, it is impossible to make a judgment on the effect of extending guaranteed hours to workers on those fixed-term contracts. I should be grateful if the Minister would provide clarity on that, so that this probing amendment can be put to bed, or further questions can be asked down the road.
Justin Madders
The shadow Minister will not be surprised to hear that we will resist the amendment. First, it is important to note that the Bill does not ban the use of fixed-term contracts, or seek to force employers to make workers on fixed-term contracts permanent. That is not our intention. We recognise that in some cases, a fixed-term contract will be the most appropriate one for both worker and employer. For example, under the Bill’s provisions, it would be reasonable to enter into a limited-term contract where the contract is entered into for the worker to perform a specific task, and the contract will end once that task is completed. Many fixed-term contracts also already have clearly stated guaranteed hours within them.
However, where a fixed-term contract is used, we think it is important that within that fixed-term period, workers have the same right to guaranteed hours as those on permanent contracts. For eligible workers, if the fixed-term contract does not guarantee more hours than what are considered to be low hours as set out in the regulations—which we will come to in due course—and is longer than the anticipated reference period of 12 weeks, which we will continue to work on, then employers will be required to offer a guaranteed-hours contract for the remainder of the contract, reflecting the hours worked regularly over the reference period. The amendment would create a serious loophole in the legislation, allowing employers to use fixed-term contracts to evade the purposes of the legislation entirely. There would be no mechanism to prevent the use of a fixed-term contract for 12 weeks or longer, so eligible workers would not have certainty of their hours. We would open up a serious loophole, which I am afraid unscrupulous employers would exploit. I therefore ask the hon. Member to withdraw the amendment.
Greg Smith
I accept the points made by the Minister, but I still think there is a relative concern. We in no way, shape or form want to create loopholes—certainly not for any unscrupulous employer, and I want that to be very clear and on the record—but we do totally accept that there are some very legitimate fixed-term contracts out there, such as certain construction projects.
Greg Smith
I hope, from the nodding coming from the Government Front Bench, that Ministers agree with this. We will withdraw the amendment, but this point needs considerably more debate as the Bill progresses to ensure that while no loopholes for the unscrupulous are created, and that protections are there for employers around fixed-term contracts.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Greg Smith
I beg to move amendment 151, in clause 1, page 3, line 2, after “worker” leave out
“(but see section 27BV for power to make provision about agency workers)”.
This amendment is consequential on the amendment that removes the ability of the Secretary of State to make regulations to make provision for agency workers to have similar provision to the right to guaranteed hours.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 150, in clause 4, page 23, line 24, leave out “2,”.
This amendment removes the ability of the Secretary of State to make regulations to make provision for agency workers to have similar provision to the right to guaranteed hours.
Greg Smith
There are just a couple more Opposition amendments to go before we get to some Government ones. Amendments 150 and 151 propose to exclude agency workers from the provisions on the right to guaranteed hours. The provisions in the Bill relating to agency workers are another example of the Government’s not having done proper policy work before introducing the Bill. I fully understand their desire to get it out within 100 days, but sometimes, if a Government have a mandate for five years, 100 days can seem quite quick.
The Bill specifies that the right to guaranteed hours with reasonable notice of the cancellation of a shift does not apply to agency workers, but it includes a Henry VIII power to extend those provisions to agency workers at a later date. I therefore ask the Minister the following questions. Why is it not straightforwardly on the face of the Bill that those provisions apply to agency workers? Why the Henry VIII power? What is the policy decision? In the Government’s mind, are agency workers included in the principle, as well as the letter, of this legislation? We have concerns about these provisions, which could be extended to agency workers. How would the employment relationship then work? Who would dictate the hours? If it is the end user rather than the agency, surely they become the employer? It all becomes rather confusing.
Is this measure an attempt to ban agency working by the back door? I think everyone would accept that agency workers are sometimes some of the biggest heroes in our economy, as they fill gaps when full-time workers on contracts are unable to get to work that day, for whatever reason—be it sickness or anything else—particularly in key professions such as nursing, healthcare and teaching.
Until the Government can explain their intention, the Opposition do not believe it is responsible for the House to give them the powers to entirely change at a later date the policy position set out on the face of the Bill. We need clarity right now, so that this Committee, and the whole House later in the Bill’s progress, can come to a proper, informed decision.
Justin Madders
I am grateful to the shadow Minister for tabling these amendments. He will again be unsurprised to learn that we will not be accepting them.
The Bill fulfils our pledge to end exploitative zero-hours contracts. We are introducing a right to guaranteed hours to eligible workers on zero and low-hours contracts, to give them the greater security and stability that all workers deserve. Although workers may choose agency work because they value flexibility, they can also experience the one-sided flexibility and insecurity that we have talked about already. If we do not include a power to include agency workers, there is a risk that employers wishing to evade the Bill will simply shift their workforce on to agency work to avoid giving them rights.
Sir Ashley Fox
What is more important in relation to this amendment is that the Government are granting themselves a Henry VIII power to amend their own Bill. The Minister really should say whether agency workers are intended be within its scope. He must not just say, “We will make this up at a later date.” We need clarity on that point. In previous Parliaments, the Labour party rightly criticised Conservative Governments for introducing Henry VIII clauses, but it is doing precisely the same thing because it has not actually made a decision. Will the Minister please answer this question: does he intend agency workers to be covered or not?
Justin Madders
I am grateful for the hon. Member’s question. It is our intention to include agency workers, which is why we have been consulting. The consultation finished yesterday on how best to apply the Bill to agency workers, because we understand it is a different relationship. There are a range of considerations, which is why the power has been taken in this way. I am sure that the hon. Member would criticise me if we had set out the scope of the Bill without having taken that consultation first. We are concerned about ensuring that there is a level playing field and not creating another loophole. We will now engage with the responses that we have had to the consultation.
Laurence Turner
The Minister spoke about the insecurity that can hang over agency workers, and said that their employment situation does not always represent genuine flexibility. As someone who has been an agency worker, I can certainly identify with what he says. On the point around regulations, does he agree that this is a long-standing precedent in employment law, dating all the way back to the Employment Agencies Act 1973, under which the current agency workers regulations are made? In terms of powers, this is nothing new.
Justin Madders
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. Much employment law, particularly in relation to agency workers, is dealt with by regulations; that is appropriate because of the detail required. It is not a break with the past, albeit I accept the criticisms that we may be seen to be taking part for ourselves; I think it is entirely consistent with the way this has operated previously. It is something that we shall now consider in terms of the responses to the consultation. For those reasons, I think the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire should withdraw his amendment.
Greg Smith
I accept many of the Minister’s points about the consultation, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater has made clear, there is a Henry VIII power here. When legislation as wide as this is proposed, it is a big problem to have such a lack of clarity about where it will lead for agency workers, who are such a critical part of our economy and our workforce across many sectors. Given the Henry VIII element, we seek a Division.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Greg Smith
I beg to move amendment 143, in clause 1, page 3, line 17, leave out “with the specified day” and insert
“18 months after the day on which the period began”.
This amendment defines each initial reference period as being 18 months long.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 144, in clause 1, page 3, line 19, leave out “with the specified days” and insert
“18 months after the day on which the period began”.
This amendment defines each subsequent reference period as being 18 months long.
Greg Smith
This is the last group of Opposition amendments for a little while. Amendments 143 and 144 would specify the length of the reference period as 18 months. The RPC, which was widely referenced in the first set of amendments, has said that the Government have not justified why they are pursuing—
Michael Wheeler
It is a quick intervention: I am just wondering whether the amendment’s reference to 18 months is another example of the ridiculousness that we were talking about.
Greg Smith
It is certainly probing. Like earlier amendments, it is intended to spark debate so that we can understand where the Government sit on the issue, what is coming down the line and what businesses can expect in the real world once the Bill receives Royal Assent at some point next year.
The last Conservative Government removed exclusivity clauses in zero-hours contracts, tackling those contracts that were potentially exploitative. The clause that the amendment seeks to amend is based on the flawed assumption that employers will exploit their employees and that all the power in the relationship lies with the employer. There is no doubt that some do, but the Opposition do not hold the presumption that all will. Those that do should be challenged, but the vast majority do not seek to exploit their employees.
The London School of Economics has found that zero-hours contract jobs have 25% more applicants than permanent positions in the same role. That flexibility is clearly sought after by employees. The author of the study said:
“Policymakers should be cautious with how heavily the use of zero-hours contracts is regulated.”
The RPC has asked the Government to clarify the likelihood that the Bill’s provisions on zero-hours contracts will increase unemployment and worklessness, and how far that risk is mitigated by zero-hours contracts remaining potentially available. I would be grateful if the Minister clarified the extent to which they will remain available. What is his view on the impact that the policy will have on workers who might like to work fewer than the guaranteed number of hours a day? Some people may desire that.
We believe the legislation should include the exact length of the reference period. I accept Government Members’ point about the 18-month figure, but as I said to the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles, it is about triggering a debate, kicking the tyres and getting to a reasonable but considered position on what the reference period should be. The Opposition’s point is that we should know what it is. It is not just politicians in this House and the other place who need to know, but the real businesses, entrepreneurs and drivers of our economy who employ real people. They need to understand what the legislation is going to specify and what the rules are by which they are going to have to play the game.
Laurence Turner
The Workers (Predictable Terms and Conditions) Act 2023 sets the reference period at 12 weeks. The hon. Gentleman says that 18 months is probably an artificially high number. Does he think that the 12-week reference period, which the previous Government supported just 12 months ago, is in about the right place?
Greg Smith
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that the previous Government set the reference period at 12 weeks. What we do not have clarity on is whether the Bill will change that. Will the new Government shorten it or lengthen it? It is about clarity. This is a rushed Bill, published in 100 days. We do not have the answers or the hard data that we need for debate and that individual Members need so that they can go to businesses in their constituency and take a view before they vote on Report or on Third Reading.
We heard from several witnesses that the length of the reference period needs to account for seasonal work. UKHospitality has put 26 weeks forward as a sensible length. That is not necessarily the Opposition’s position, but we would be foolish to ignore the evidence that the hospitality sector presented to us last week.
The amendment is intended to test what the Minister is planning and—ever the most critical question in politics—why. How will we ensure that the length will not be overly burdensome and that it will take account of the different needs of so many sectors?
Sarah Gibson
Like previous amendments, the amendment highlights a serious concern among quite a lot of local businesses to which I have spoken, especially SMEs, which is that a considerable amount of detail has not been included in the Bill and is being left to secondary legislation. Although consultation is highly welcome, it needs to happen as fast as possible, because the interim period between seeing the Bill and getting the detail is causing a huge amount of stress and uncertainty for businesses working in ever more complicated conditions.
Sir Ashley Fox
I want to talk about the reference period in relation to the hospitality and tourism industry, which is particularly important to my constituency of Bridgwater and to many other constituencies in the south-west of England. Clearly a lot of seasonal workers are employed, and although I would prefer there to be no reference period, the Government have a mandate to introduce one. Any reference period of less than 26 weeks will cause great difficulty for businesses that may start engaging people just before Easter and are looking for employment to end in September or October, according to their business need. The fact that that detail is left to secondary legislation causes concern to those businesses.
Alex McIntyre
Does the hon. Member not agree that most businesses in hospitality know their seasons very well? They come every year and they tend to operate on a relatively regular basis—that is how seasons work. As has been highlighted, businesses could use fixed-term contracts to ensure that they have appropriate staffing for the season. Those contracts would end at the appropriate time, negating the need for a longer reference period.
Sir Ashley Fox
I am grateful to the hon. Member for making that point, but in Burnham-on-Sea in my constituency there are many very small businesses, with perhaps two or three employees, that take on an extra person or two during the summer season. This summer has been particularly bad because there has been an awful lot of rain. Business needs change. The danger is that if there were a short reference period and we were fortunate enough to have a very hot and sunny April, May and June but a very wet July, August and September, businesses would be employing more staff because they had to, rather than because it was justified by the business conditions.
This is just not necessary. It is Government regulation for the sake of it, and it will make life more difficult for small business owners. Every time Government Members have risen to speak, they have declared that they are a member of one union or another, but very few have actually run a small business. I did run a small business. I was self-employed before I came to this place. It is challenging, because you are on your own: you take the decision whether to employ someone or not. Dare I say it, there are too few Government Members who have set up small businesses and who have actually employed people and experienced that challenge. That is part of why they do not understand how difficult this regulation would make life for some very small businesses.
Justin Madders
The amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire seeks to amend clause 1 to specify in the Bill that the initial and subsequent reference periods for the right to guaranteed hours will be 18 months long. I do not think he is prepared to concede that it is a ridiculous amendment, but shall we say that it was ambitious? Can we agree on that?
Greg Smith
Of course it is on the absurd end of the spectrum, but as I said to the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles, that is to highlight the issue. Sometimes, when we have a total lack of clarity and of the information that real businesses need, as the hon. Member for Chippenham highlighted, we throw in a stone to try to get a proper answer. That is what the Opposition seek, and I will be incredibly grateful if the Minister now tells us what he wants the reference period to be.
Justin Madders
I am grateful to the shadow Minister for intervening, but there is not a total lack of clarity. We have been clear all along, including when we were in opposition, that the reference period should be 12 weeks. However, we want to continue dialogue with businesses to ensure that we get the right answer to the question of how long the reference period should be for guaranteed hours. As we heard, it is an established period that has been used in the previous Government’s legislation, in the workers’ predictable terms and conditions provisions and under the Agency Workers Regulations 2010. It is an established principle in law that 12 weeks is about right for a reference period. Nevertheless, we will continue to consult and engage with businesses, trade unions and all employers’ organisations about whether it is right.
At the moment, our considered view is that 12 weeks is the right period; we certainly do not believe that 18 months is. [Interruption.] I think the shadow Minister is nodding. We do not think that 18 months is a realistic proposition. I understand the point about seasonal work, but 18 months would take us through half a dozen seasons. He will probably accept that that would not necessarily work.
As for why this measure is needed, the shadow Minister said that the Opposition do not presume that all employers set out to exploit their workforce. I make it clear that the Government do not presume that either; we believe that good businesses are good for their workers and good for the wider economy. We heard plenty of witnesses give evidence last week about the good industrial relations that they practise and the benefits for their workers. The point of the Bill, however, is that we know that not everyone is a good employer. We need to weed out bad practice, because we believe that all workers deserve the same protections in the economy.
The shadow Minister asked whether zero-hours contracts will still be available for those who might not want to work guaranteed hours. He will be aware that the legislation does not compel an individual to accept an offer of guaranteed hours; it has been set up in that way for the individual. There are examples of people—possibly including my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester in his earlier years—whom zero-hours contracts suit better. If that is what he genuinely wants to continue working on, he is entitled to do so.
The hon. Member for Chippenham asked about the speed at which we are operating. I think she wants us to go faster, so she might need a word with the shadow Minister, who wants us to go a little slower. We are clear that we will take our time before we introduce a lot of the provisions, because we want to get the detail right and we want to engage with businesses. An awful lot of the press coverage is understandably raising anxiety levels, but a lot of it is based on speculation rather than on the law, because the law has not yet been set: the Bill has not been passed, and the regulations and the codes of practice that will follow have not been produced. It is important that we take our time, because we want to work with businesses as we produce information going forward.
The hon. Member for Bridgwater made a point about seasonal work that we heard on various occasions during our evidence sessions, but I think my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester has answered it: if an employer knows that they will be busy for particular parts of the year, a fixed-term contract is the answer.
On the question of business experience, I can claim to have set up my own business when I was 17—I am not saying that it was a FTSE 100-listed effort or anything—and before I was elected I worked in the private sector for 20 years.
We do not think that the shadow Minister’s amendment would deliver the policy outcome that we seek. I suspect he recognises that, too, so I invite him to withdraw it.
Greg Smith
Of course we will withdraw the amendment, but the critical question is why the Minister has referred to 12 weeks, but it is not in the legislation. As he considers tabling amendments of his own in Committee or on Report, I urge him to lock that in, so that certainty for business is on the face of the Bill, rather than things being left open.
Justin Madders
If we put 12 weeks on the face of the Bill, would the Opposition support it?
Greg Smith
Our own legislation last year cited 12 weeks. There is clearly a lot in the Bill that we oppose because we just do not think it works in the interests of British business or workers, but 12 weeks would at least give us some certainty that would be consistent with the previous Government. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Anna McMorrin.)
Employment Rights Bill (Sixth sitting)
Tuesday 3rd December 2024
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Employment Rights Act 2025 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 3 December 2024 - (3 Dec 2024)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 16 / Noes: 4 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Justin Madders)
I beg to move amendment 6, in clause 1, page 7, line 7, leave out
“(or has most recently been working)”.
This amendment is consequential on amendment 10.
Justin Madders
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Stringer. I apologise in advance to the Committee because amendment 10 is rather technical, as several amendments are this afternoon. The amendment is required to clarify wording and intent. It clarifies which worker’s contract or arrangement needs to be considered, in cases where a worker has worked under multiple contracts or arrangements during a relevant period, when determining whether there has been a relevant termination of a contract or arrangement such that the duty to make a guaranteed hours offer does not apply, or a guaranteed hours offer that has been made is to be treated as withdrawn.
Amendment 10 effectively means that once there is a relevant termination in such cases, the provision is not treated as meaning that the duty ceases to apply where the worker goes on to be offered further limited-term contracts from the employer. It is essentially a clarification and an anti-avoidance measure. Given that there are rather a lot of those today, I will not detain the Committee any longer.
Amendment 6 agreed to.
Amendments made: 7, in clause 1, page 7, line 10, leave out
“(or has most recently been working)”.
This amendment is consequential on amendment 10.
Amendment 8, in clause 1, page 7, line 16, leave out
“(or has most recently been working)”.
This amendment is consequential on amendment 10.
Amendment 9, in clause 1, page 7, line 19, leave out
“(or has most recently been working)”.
This amendment is consequential on amendment 10.
Amendment 10, in clause 1, page 7, line 20, at end insert—
“(2A) Where a qualifying worker works for an employer under more than one worker’s contract, or in accordance with the terms of more than one arrangement, during—
(a) the relevant reference period,
(b) the offer period, or
(c) the response period,
the references in subsections (1) and (2) to the worker’s contract or (as the case may be) the arrangement are to the worker’s contract under which, or (as the case may be) the arrangement in accordance with the terms of which, the qualifying worker last worked for the employer before the end of the period in question.”—(Justin Madders.)
This amendment clarifies which worker’s contract or arrangement needs to be considered, in multiple contract/arrangement cases, when determining whether there has been a relevant termination of a contract or arrangement such that the duty to make a guaranteed hours offer does not apply or a guaranteed hours offer that has been made is to be treated as withdrawn.
Justin Madders
I beg to move amendment 11, in clause 1, page 8, line 7, at end insert—
“(5A) Where, by virtue of subsection (2), a guaranteed hours offer made by an employer to a qualifying worker is treated as having been withdrawn, the employer must, by no later than the end of the response period, give a notice to the qualifying worker stating this to be the case.
(5B) Where, by virtue of regulations under subsection (5)—
(a) an employer who would otherwise have been subject to the duty imposed by section 27BA(1) in relation to a qualifying worker and a particular reference period is not required to make a guaranteed hours offer to the qualifying worker, or
(b) a guaranteed hours offer made by an employer to a qualifying worker is treated as having been withdrawn,
the employer must give a notice to the qualifying worker that states which provision of the regulations has produced the effect referred to in paragraph (a) or (b) (as the case may be).
(5C) A notice under subsection (5B) must be given by an employer to a qualifying worker—
(a) where it is required to be given by virtue of paragraph (a) of that subsection, by no later than the end of the offer period;
(b) where it is required to be given by virtue of paragraph (b) of that subsection, by no later than the end of the response period.
(5D) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about—
(a) the form and manner in which a notice under subsection (5A) or (5B) must be given;
(b) when a notice under subsection (5A) or (5B) is to be treated as having been given.”
This amendment requires an employer to give a notice to a qualifying worker where the employer’s duty to make a guaranteed hours offer to the worker does not apply, or an offer already made is treated as having been withdrawn, as a result of proposed section 27BD(2), or regulations made under proposed section 27BD(5), of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments 13 to 15, 19, 20, 23, 44 and 45.
Justin Madders
Amendment 11 will introduce a duty on employers to inform workers when an exemption applies and the employer is exempt from their obligation to offer a worker a guaranteed hours contract. Any exemptions to the duty to offer guaranteed hours will be defined in regulations.
Amendment 11 will also introduce a duty on employers to inform workers where an offer of guaranteed hours already given is to be treated as withdrawn because a relevant termination has taken place. That will ensure that workers are aware of when they are not receiving a guaranteed hours offer because an exemption applies. It will allow workers to check that the exemption is applicable to them, and then enable them to enforce their right to guaranteed hours where an exemption is not applicable.
Associated consequential amendments 14, 19 and 44 will ensure that workers will be able to take a complaint to an employment tribunal if the worker is not provided with a notice of exemption or a notice of the withdrawal of an offer already made. That will also be the case where a notice has been provided but should not have been, or where a notice has been provided but cites the wrong exemption.
Amendment 13 will introduce a new duty on employers that will ensure that workers who would likely qualify for a guaranteed hours offer are aware of certain information about the right to guaranteed hours. That will help to ensure that workers are informed about the new right and can therefore take decisions about their working hours during their reference period based on the information they receive about their possible right to a guaranteed hours offer.
Further consequential amendments 15, 23 and 45 have been made to ensure that a worker may enforce their right to be informed about the right to a guaranteed hours offer by taking a complaint to an employment tribunal. A consequential amendment 20 has been made to define the period within which a complaint of this nature may be taken to a tribunal. I think we might get to that later in relation to the general application of extended time limits.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. As a precursor to my comments on these specific amendments, I note that the sheer volume of Government amendments that we are considering really goes to show that the Bill might have met a political objective in being published in 100 days, but that it was not ready to be published in those 100 days. At worst, that is a discourtesy to the House and, at best, it shows that the legislation simply has not been drafted properly. These changes simply would not have been necessary had due diligence been done on the Bill before it was published.
I would like to focus on amendment 13 from this group of amendments. That amendment requires employers to give their employees access to certain information to be specified in regulations—we are back to our old friend of regulations to come. Let me ask the Minister the following: what information will amendment 13 require employers to make available? Why? And what further burden will be imposed later down the line by regulations, thanks to the power taken in the clauses? Employees will be able to take their employer to a tribunal for not providing this information, as provided for in amendment 15, so I suggest to the Committee and the Minister that it is vital that we can understand the requirements that the clause will place on employers.
Justin Madders
I am grateful for the shadow Minister’s questions. No doubt during the passage of the Bill we will come back on several occasions to that point about the number of amendments. I just place on record my gratitude to the civil service and the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel for their work in getting the Bill published to the parliamentary deadline that was politically set. Of course, lots of Bills have amendments as they progress. As is consistent with our wish to engage thoughtfully, we may still have further amendments.
As for the shadow Minister’s questions, it is entirely usual to put that sort of detailed information in regulation, and we would not normally specify it in a Bill. We are trying to ensure that workers who are captured by the zero-hours legislation are aware that they are captured by it and are entitled to certain rights, such as the offer of a guaranteed hours contract. This is about making sure that some of the most vulnerable people in society, who are often exploited by zero-hours contracts, are at least given the information to ensure that their rights are enforced. We will work with businesses and employers, and representatives and trade unions on the precise detail of the information to be provided, but this is about making sure that all parties are aware of their legal obligations. I hope that the shadow Minister understands that this is an important part of the legislation.
Amendment 11 agreed to.
Justin Madders
I beg to move amendment 12, in clause 1, page 8, leave out lines 8 and 9 and insert—
“(6) For the purposes of subsection (3)(c) (and subsection (4)(b), which applies subsection (3)(c))—
(a) subsection (8) of section 27BB (when it is reasonable for a worker’s contract to be entered into as a limited-term contract) applies as it applies for the purposes of that section;
(b) it is to be presumed, unless the contrary is shown, that it was not reasonable for the worker’s contract to have been entered into as a limited-term contract if the work done by the qualifying worker under the worker’s contract was of the same or a similar nature as the work done under another worker’s contract under which the qualifying worker worked for the employer—
(i) where the period in question is the relevant reference period, during that period;
(ii) where the period in question is the offer period, during that period or the relevant reference period;
(iii) where the period in question is the response period, during that period, the relevant reference period or the offer period.”
This amendment adds a rebuttable presumption to the existing provision made by proposed section 27BD(6) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The presumption will apply when determining whether there has been a relevant termination for the purposes of that section such that the duty to make a guaranteed hours offer does not apply or a guaranteed hours offer that has been made is to be treated as withdrawn.
The amendment will close a potential loophole that could mean that workers might not be entitled to a guaranteed hours offer if they are employed on a series of limited-term contracts to undertake the same or similar work. It will do that by adding a rebuttal presumption, that it will not be considered reasonable to have entered into a limited-term contract where a worker undertook work that was the same or similar in more than one contract during the relevant period. That means that the relevant termination provisions would not apply and the employer would not be excepted from its duty to offer guaranteed hours. An employer would have to offer guaranteed hours to the worker, even if that worker’s last contract was terminated at the end of the relevant period, unless it was reasonable for the employer to have entered into a limited-term contract with the worker and the presumption is rebutted, which could then lead to a relevant termination.
Under proposed new section 27BB(8) of the Employment Rights Act 1996—as referred to in the amendment—it is “reasonable” for an employer to enter into a limited-term contract with a worker if the worker is needed only to perform a specific task and the contract will end when it is performed; if the worker is needed only until some event occurs and the contract will then end; or if the worker is needed only for some other temporary need to be specified in regulations.
To be clear, whether it is “reasonable” for the employer to enter into a limited-term contract during the relevant periods affects only whether the right to guaranteed hours applies. If such a contract is not “reasonable”, it is still a lawful contract and may, of course, be an acceptable means of conducting business. As such, the presumption introduced by the amendment would apply only to determine whether there was a relevant termination of a limited-term contract, where a worker is engaged on a series of limited-term contracts doing the same or similar work. The presumption will not prevent an employer from engaging a worker on a series of fixed-term contracts, but it will act as an anti-avoidance measure to ensure that an employer cannot get around its duty to offer guaranteed hours by engaging the worker on a series of limited-term contracts even though they are actually doing the same work.
Greg Smith
Amendment 12 states that it is to be presumed by tribunals
“that it was not reasonable for the worker’s contract to have been entered into as a limited-term contract”
if the work done
“was of the same or a similar nature”
as the work undertaken by other employees, with the following conditions:
“(i) where the period in question is the relevant reference period, during that period;
(ii) where the period in question is the offer period, during that period or the relevant reference period;
(iii) where the period in question is the response period, during that period, the relevant reference period or the offer period.”
I have stressed the wording of the amendment because I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify what protection the clause is designed to give employees. The vast majority of businesses reading that could easily be forgiven for getting slightly confused. Why is that wording necessary, particularly on this measure, to create the protections that I think I understand the Government want to achieve? The amendment might result in confusion from most businesses.
Alex McIntyre (Gloucester) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I am grateful to the Minister for introducing this amendment. It makes a lot of sense to make sure that we avoid the opportunity for unscrupulous employers to try to get around the legislation by entering into a series of short-term/fixed-term contracts so that they do not have to make anybody an offer.
We spoke at length this morning about making sure that responsible employers are encouraged, but ensuring that the loopholes are closed is equally important. Although Government Members are seeking to comment on the number of amendments, this is an example where the amendments are excellent and very well thought through. It makes an awful lot of sense to take into account the responses from experts and the consultation responses that the Department is receiving to make sure that the legislation works not only for businesses, but for employers. The amendment is very sensible, and I encourage everyone to vote in favour of it.
Sarah Gibson (Chippenham) (LD)
As I am sure the Minister knows, the Liberal Democrats as a group are convinced that a lot of elements of this Bill go a long way towards strengthening workers’ rights. There is no doubt about that. However, when I see these amendments and listen to the comments of Opposition colleagues, I am constantly concerned about what I am beginning to see as the plight of small and medium-sized businesses that are not being taken into consideration. This amendment alone is hugely complicated to understand. I have visions of contractors and small businesses in the construction industry in my constituency, who quite often are the employer, coming home after a long day’s work to do the admin side of their business and trying to unravel this. I highlight the construction industry because fixed-term contracts for employees are not only common, but incredibly useful. Building projects—like this one, with the works we are doing here—do actually come to a finite conclusion, and a fixed-term contract is therefore appropriate. I express my continuing concerns about this matter and some of the other amendments in connection with small businesses.
Michael Wheeler (Worsley and Eccles) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I will speak to these Government amendments collectively, because although they are incredibly technical, we must not lose sight of their purpose, which is to promote good employment. If there are loopholes and readily available routes by which employers can avoid the measures laid out in this Bill, we will see good employers undercut and workers not feeling the benefits. I welcome this as part of the Government doing their job to strengthen the legislation by introducing well thought out amendments to close loopholes and ensure that it is as strong as it can be. I commend this and the other amendments as being not simply technical—although they are—but part of what really gives the Bill teeth in achieving its purposes.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I would like the Minister to deal with these points when he concludes, because I am concerned about the effect of an amendment that is as complicated as Government amendment 12 is on the small businesses that make up the bulk of business in my constituency. They will not have the benefit of an employment lawyer, such as the hon. Member for Gloucester, and they will not have an HR department. I ask the Minister to glance at the wording of the amendment and imagine that you do not spend your day job in a solicitor’s office, or a trade union office, or perhaps in the Palace of Westminster. You are wondering whether to employ someone and then you read that
“it is to be presumed, unless the contrary is shown, that it was not reasonable for the worker’s contract to have been entered into as a limited-term contract if the work done by the qualifying worker under the worker’s contract was of the same or a similar nature as the work done under another worker’s contract under which the qualifying worker worked for the employer—
(i) where the period in question is the relevant reference period, during that period;
(ii) where the period in question is the offer period, during that period or the relevant reference period;
(iii) where the period in question is the response period, during that period, the relevant reference period or the offer period.”
There are all sorts of technical legal terms used. The point is that you want this to apply to all small businesses, no matter how small—whether they have one, or two, or three employees. This point applies generally to the Bill. When the assessment of the Bill put the costs at £5 billion, the majority of which would fall on small businesses, I think it had exactly this sort of legal gobbledegook in mind. Very small businesses are going to have to deal with this, and they will probably not be able to understand it.
Alex McIntyre
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for touting out my services as a legal adviser, but I have committed to not taking any second jobs, and certainly none that involves legal services in the Cayman Islands. What I will say is that all of us here, as individuals, are governed by laws in our day-to-day lives. I doubt that many Members will be familiar with, on a detailed basis, the provisions of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, for example, but there are guidance documents and the Money Saving Expert is fantastic. If you ever have an issue with one of your financial products, there is always a guide that can be provided. I am sure that alongside the Bill there will be updated guidance—from ACAS, for example. Does the hon. Member for Bridgwater agree that although small businesses may not be able to take legal advice, there will be guidance documents? They are not expected to read the whole Bill line by line. There will be guidance, on websites such as that of ACAS, that is readily available to all employers, in which they will be able to get an explanation of some of these provisions.
The Chair
Order. There are just two points I wish to make, as lightly as I can. First, if hon. Members refer to “you”, they are referring to me. We use the normal debating protocols that apply in the Chamber. Secondly, if hon. Members wish to do so and catch my eye, they can speak more than once in a debate, so interventions should be kept as precise and short as possible.
Sir Ashley Fox
I am grateful for your guidance, Mr Stringer. To answer the intervention from the hon. Member for Gloucester, I am sure that small businesses will receive guidance from Money Saving Expert, ACAS and Citizens Advice, but the problem is that if they get it wrong, they will be sued and it will cost them money. That will be a real fear in their minds. Then a small businessman, faced with this sort of gobbledegook, asks himself, “Are you going to take the risk of employing that extra person, faced as you are with the fact that they get their rights from day one?” It all adds up to the cumulative effect of small businesses being less likely to employ people. It adds to the cost and the burden. It is a great shame that the Government are bringing in such vast amounts of detailed amendments and expecting small business owners to make sense of them.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I would like to amplify the issues raised from the Opposition side of the room. There are serious concerns, and we need to ensure that the regulations are as simple as possible and easy for employers to understand. I fear that this is a charter for HR consultants and lawyers, rather than driving the agenda that I am sure most people in the room genuinely wish to see being driven forward. I ask the Minister whether, before we reach the end of this Bill stage, further simplification could be brought forward.
Jon Pearce (High Peak) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. The Agency Workers Regulations 2010 came into force in October 2011, under the leadership of David Cameron and the coalition, and there is similar wording in the agency worker regs. Regulation 9(4)(a) states that
“the most likely explanation for the structure of the assignment, or assignments, mentioned in paragraph (3) is that H, or the temporary work agency supplying the agency worker to H, or, where applicable, H and one or more hirers connected to H, intended to prevent the agency worker from being entitled to, or from continuing to be entitled to, the rights conferred by regulation 5”.
The legislation that we are considering is not out of the ordinary in its complexity. This is just necessary—
Sir Ashley Fox
Would the hon. Gentleman accept that this legislation will be imposed on businesses with perhaps one employee? There will be no exemption for any minimum size.
Jon Pearce
Yes, I would, and it is entirely right that it should be. We have to have a level playing field within the UK; otherwise, we see all the perverse incentives that hon. Members, including the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire, are keen to avoid. We cannot have a two-tier workforce.
Returning to my original point, law is often complex in the way it is written, but that does not mean it will be complex in its application. It will only be complex where there are attempts to avoid it. It is absolutely right that the law is tight on this so that we do not have huge amounts of avoidance within the business sector from unscrupulous employers. Most employers, as we know, do not exploit zero-hours contracts, for example, so it is entirely right that we make sure that those who wish to exploit them cannot.
Sarah Gibson
The hon. Member for High Peak quotes an equally incomprehensible piece of legislation. It occurs to me that some time ago, the banking industry was accused of a similar problem when it spoke to its clients and was obliged to improve its conversation and make sure that it was intelligible. Surely this is an opportunity for us to be able to do the same. If we are going to apply legislation to sole practitioners, effectively, who are taking on one or two employees, is it so much to ask that we do not have one single sentence that lasts an entire paragraph?
Sarah Gibson
I will not for a second, but will afterwards, if that is okay. I have spent the last 20 years deciphering the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, and recently had the pleasure of teaching two postgraduate students the Fire Safety Act 2021. Neither of those two pieces of legislation are easily understandable, and it does not help the industry that I know so well, which is employers who come straight out of school and into industry. They do a fantastic job, but they do not need added complication. I believe that the hon. Member for Bridgwater makes a good point in saying that it is not beyond us to make legislation slightly easier to read. Sorry, I was going to give way.
Justin Madders
We have had a good debate on this amendment. It is fair to say that my reaction when I first saw the amendment was similar—that it is quite wordy. However, that is the way our legislation is crafted in this country, and it is not unusual. We will make sure that when we drill down into the practical applicability of the Bill, we produce regulations. There will be guidance on gov.uk. ACAS will get involved.
The amendment is intended to deal with a particular situation. I do not believe most employers will behave in that way, but we know that some might, and that some will deliberately avoid their obligations to give a right to a guaranteed-hours contract. It may be, in the words of the hon. Member for Bridgwater, “gobbledegook”, but I can assure him that ACAS documents and Government guidance on employment rights are not gobbledegook; they are easily accessible. We are committed to making sure that when the Bill is passed, the legislation is easily accessible, because it will not work otherwise. That is clearly part of our aim.
It is pretty clear what section 27BB(8) actually means in terms of when it will be reasonable not to offer guaranteed hours, but I appreciate that that is very easy for us sat in this room to say, having indulged in the niceties of the legislation. It is not what will end up on businesses’ doorsteps. We will not give them a copy of the Bill through the post and say, “Knock yourselves out.” They will get proper support and guidance because that is how we want our employment relations to work. We want them to be practical; we want them to be effective; we want people to be able to understand what their rights and obligations are. On that note, I commend the amendment to the Committee.
Amendment 12 agreed to.
Amendments made: 13, in clause 1, page 10, line 11, at end insert—
“Information
27BEA Information about rights conferred by Chapter 2
(1) An employer who employs a worker who it is reasonable to consider might become a qualifying worker of the employer in relation to a reference period (whether the initial reference period, or a subsequent reference period, as defined in section 27BA) must take reasonable steps, within the initial information period, to ensure that the worker is aware of specified information relating to the rights conferred on workers by this Chapter.
(2) An employer who is subject to the duty in subsection (1) in relation to a worker must take reasonable steps to ensure that, after the end of the initial information period, the worker continues to have access to the specified information referred to in that subsection at all times when—
(a) the worker is employed by the employer, and
(b) it is reasonable to consider that the worker might become (or might again become) a qualifying worker of the employer in relation to a reference period.
(3) “The initial information period”, in relation to a worker and the worker’s employer, means the period of two weeks beginning with—
(a) where the worker is employed by the employer on the day on which section 27BA(1) comes into force (“the commencement day”), the commencement day, or
(b) where the worker is not so employed, the first day after the commencement day on which the worker is employed by the employer.
(4) But where, on the day referred to in subsection (3)(a) or (b), it was not reasonable to consider that the worker might become a qualifying worker of the employer in relation to any reference period, subsection (3) is to be read as if it provided for the “initial information period” to mean the period of two weeks beginning with the day on which it becomes reasonable so to consider.
Enforcement”.
This amendment imposes a duty on employers to ensure workers who have the potential to qualify for a guaranteed hours offer are aware of, and continue to have access to, certain information (to be specified in regulations).
Amendment 14, in clause 1, page 11, line 11, at end insert—
“(4A) A worker may present a complaint to an employment tribunal that the worker’s employer—
(a) has failed to give to the worker a notice under section 27BD(5A) or (5B);
(b) has given to the worker a notice under section 27BD(5A) or (5B)(b) in circumstances in which the employer should not have done so;
(c) has given to the worker a notice in purported compliance with section 27BD(5B) that does not refer to any provision of the regulations or refers to the wrong provision.”
This amendment is consequential on amendment 11.
Amendment 15, in clause 1, page 11, line 11, at end insert—
“(4B) A worker may present a complaint to an employment tribunal that the worker’s employer has failed to comply with—
(a) the duty imposed by section 27BEA(1);
(b) the duty imposed by section 27BEA(2).”—(Justin Madders.)
This amendment is consequential on amendment 13.
Justin Madders
I beg to move amendment 16, in clause 1, page 11, line 18, leave out “three” and insert “six”.
This amendment would increase the time limit for bringing proceedings under the new section 27BF(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 from three months to six months.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendments 17, 18, 21, 22, 28, 29, 33 to 36 and 83.
Government new clause 10—Increase in time limits for making claims.
Government new schedule 2—Increase in time limits for making claims.
Government amendments 108 and 109.
Justin Madders
This group of amendments is not quite as daunting as it sounds, because they all deal with the same point, which is the extension of time limits for making claims.
New schedule 2 amends time limits for making claims in employment tribunals from three months to six months. In recent years, as we know, demand has increased sharply. Increasing the time limit from three to six months will help to reduce pressure on the employment tribunal system, allowing parties to try to resolve their differences before resorting to formal litigation. The amendments apply to time limits for the majority of employment tribunal claims, including claims under the Employment Rights Act 1996, the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 and the Equality Act 2010. If Members are interested, the full list of claims is set out in the new schedule.
Government amendments 16 to 18, 22, 28, 29, 33 to 36 and 83 ensure that the change is reflected for cases relating to rights that will be introduced by the Bill. Amendments 16 to 18 and 22 will increase the time limit for taking a claim to an employment tribunal that relates to the right to guaranteed hours from three months to six months. Amendments 28 and 29 will increase the time limit for taking a claim that relates to the right to reasonable notice of shifts from three months to six months. Amendments 33 to 36 will increase the time limit for taking a claim that relates to the right to payment for a cancelled, moved or curtailed shift from three months to six months. Amendment 83 will increase the time limit for taking a claim that relates to whether a worker, or a former worker, believes they have been subject to a detriment by an employer on grounds of industrial action.
Finally, Government amendment 21 is a small technical amendment, which will correct an incorrect section reference. The words “this section” currently refer to section 27BG, which relates to time limits for bringing a complaint, but they should—as I am sure everyone noticed—refer to section 27BF, the correct section under which a complaint may be brought to an employment tribunal.
On a more general note, Members may be aware that a number of years ago, the Law Commission recommended that the time limit for bringing employment tribunal claims should be increased from three months to six months. This set of amendments simply seeks to implement that recommendation.
Greg Smith
Quite a list of amendments and edits to the 100-day-old Bill.
I will start where the Minister left off. The amendments extend the time for employees to bring a case to the employment tribunal from three to six months if they believe their employer has breached the duties imposed by the Bill. That includes the provisions around zero-hours contracts and the right to reasonable notice. In that light, a reasonable question would be: why were the provisions not included in the Bill on introduction? What changed? Was that an oversight, or something never originally intended to be included in the Bill? What is the rationale? Furthermore, what is the rationale for increasing the period from three to six months? That is not a modest change—not a matter of a couple of days, a fortnight or something that most people might deem reasonable; that is a substantial shift. It is only right and proper that the Minister, when he responds, gives a full explanation for such a huge change from the original provisions in the Bill.
Data from His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service shows the backlog in employment tribunals, with outstanding cases increasing 18% on last year. To add in additional burdens will add to the overall burden on the service, so as part of the consideration of the Bill and of the amendments it is crucial to understand what the Government will do not just to clear that backlog, but to create the capacity in the service to deal with the increase in demand that the Bill will undoubtedly bring about. I shall be grateful if the Minister will comment on his discussions with the Ministry of Justice to deliver on that.
Businesses, especially small and medium-sized enterprises, rely on the tribunals service being able to process claims quickly so, if the Government are to bring about such a huge and significant change to demand on the service, they should put in place the relevant steps. Have the Government undertaken any assessment of the impact that such an extension will have on employment tribunals, or the likely number of claims? It would help to know what, under the amendments, the Government’s assumptions are—will the level of increase that the Opposition fear come about?
Is there a model—I fully accept that such models are rarely 100% accurate, but they give the country and the service planners an important ballpark figure to be working around, going into the future—and, off the back of that, what is the impact on businesses, particularly small and medium-sized enterprises? If there is no such modelling—if there is no ballpark figure that the Government are working to—why not?
My final question on this group of amendments is: why does the Minister believe that it is proportionate or sensible to double the window in which an employee can bring a claim? Surely the three-month window is sufficient. As I said, the Opposition would like to understand why that doubling is so necessary.
Alex McIntyre
Apologies, Mr Stringer, if I inadvertently used “you” in my previous intervention. That was a mistake; I apologise.
I am grateful to the Minister for tabling these amendments. This is an important set of suggestions to extend time limits for bringing lots of tribunal claims. In my previous professional experience, the change will benefit businesses up and down the country, because one of the biggest issues for anyone involved in advising employers on employment law is the rush to bring employment tribunal proceedings, owing to the three-month time limit. It often stops negotiations from progressing fully, preventing an out-of-court agreement being reached at an early stage. In a commercial setting, most businesses are given six years to bring claims under contract against other businesses. It is only really in employment law that we have such a narrow window for people to bring their claims.
I am interested in the shadow Minister’s comments on employment tribunals—they are broken, but the responsibility for breaking the employment tribunals sits firmly on Opposition Members. We had years of under-investment in our courts and tribunals, and we have really long backlogs. The issue there for employers is that, given the actions of the previous Government, they are spending far too much money on people like me, as such proceedings take a significant amount of time.
Greg Smith
I understand why, in our combative political system, the hon. Gentleman wants to bring up the previous Government’s record. I gently suggest that the covid pandemic had a big impact on all court backlogs, be it tribunals or otherwise, and I ask him to reflect on the fact that the Bill will add to the pressure on the tribunal service. How much does he think it will add? Given that the Labour party is in government and in charge, rather than just pointing the finger at the previous Government, can he tell us what will materially happen to increase capacity in the tribunal service?
Alex McIntyre
The Committee received a submission from Lewis Silkin, a leading legal expert in the field of employment law. It says that some of the Government’s proposals will lead to a reduction in claims, and certainly in complex claims such as those that many employees with less than two years’ service may make under the Equality Act 2010 because they do not qualify for unfair dismissal rights.
The tribunal deals with unfair dismissal claims very quickly. Such claims tend to receive one, two or three days of consideration by a tribunal, at the most, whereas Equality Act claims are often listed for longer than a week. Giving people unfair dismissal rights from day one will reduce the number of people who have to bring Equality Act or whistleblowing claims to try to fit their circumstances, and that will mean a reduction in the number of tribunal sitting days.
I will not step on the Minister’s toes when it comes to the Department’s modelling for tribunals, but it is important to remember that as a result of the measure, more people will be able to negotiate and negotiations will be more sensible. Let us think about the anatomy of an employment tribunal claim. Day one starts when something happens to an individual. In the case of being sacked or being discriminated against, that thing is quite traumatic, so in the first week or so, employees are not generally thinking about their legal options. That is one week gone already. Then people have to look at getting legal advice, contact their trade union and look at the options available, all of which take time. By the time they are in a position to think, “Perhaps I will negotiate with the employer,” they are already two months down the line.
If an employee rushes through an employment tribunal claim, the practical implications are that the claim is really complex, the employee does not quite understand their legal claims and an awful lot of tribunal time and business time is spent on trying to clarify things. If we give employees longer, we will find that more claims are sensibly put. Employees will have obtained legal advice or sought support from their trade unions, and they will have had time to negotiate with employers about potential out-of-court settlements.
This is important and, most significantly, it is about access to justice: many people who are timed out of bringing a claim did not even realise that they had one in the first place. Not everyone has immediate access to the knowledge that they have rights at work and that employment tribunals exist, so it is important that we try to level the playing field to ensure that employees have time to bring claims in the best possible way. Not everyone is a lawyer. Individual employees, like many small businesses, do not have the benefit of being able to call up their local employment lawyer to get advice on potential claims. Preparing a claim takes time, and the measure means that employees will be able to make more sensible claims.
It is a very positive change, and I am glad that it is being made. The Law Commission recommended several years ago that the time limit should be extended from three to six months, so this is not an arbitrary time that has been plucked out of nowhere; it is based on Law Commission suggestions, as I understand it. I encourage all hon. Members to vote in favour of the measure.
Steve Darling
The hon. Member for Gloucester has ably made the legal case for why this measure is a worthwhile way to support our communities. I am aware, from my 30 years of supporting people in Torbay, that quite often those who are less legally literate face real challenges in getting themselves organised within the three-month period. The measure will support those who would otherwise fall by the wayside. It is a real opportunity for employers to make sure that tribunal applications are appropriate and to support those in greater need in our communities. I truly welcome it, and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham does as well.
Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)
I follow my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester and the hon. Member for Torbay, who both made very able speeches.
The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire, asked about the justification for extending the current time limit from three to six months. One argument is set out in the Law Commission’s 2020 report, which argues that some of the current problems that employment tribunals experience are linked to late applications and the onerous requirement for applications, particularly in equalities cases, to demonstrate that there was a clear justification or inability regarding not submitting a claim in time. Those edge cases are adding to the current backlog and creating the incentive, which has been discussed already in this Committee, for people to bring cases under the Equality Act 2010, which is putting severe pressure on the limited number of specialist employment tribunal judges who deal with equalities matters.
Another argument is that there is an inconsistency in the law, because the time limit for equal pay cases is six months. The effect of these measures would be to equalise the time limit for other unfair dismissal and discrimination claims with that of equal pay.
In the previous Government’s 2021 response to the Law Commission’s report, they said—I hope this is taken in the constructive spirit with which it is intended—that the recommendations were welcome, but that it was not the right time to make such changes. I am therefore keen to hear the shadow Minister’s position on this extension, because the last Government’s position seemed a little like St Augustine’s prayer—“Let us equalise access to justice, but not yet!” I very much welcome the fact that these measures have been brought forward and that we now have a chance to equalise that time limit.
Last week, we heard from one of the witnesses, Joeli Brearley, that:
“I was pushed out of my job the day after I informed my employer that I was pregnant, and it was the tribunal time limit that prevented me from taking action against my employer.”––[Official Report, Employment Rights Public Bill Committee, 26 November 2024; c. 84, Q79.]
There are many such cases where, because of someone’s particular circumstances, they are not able to bring a case, or the burden of bringing a case within three months is too onerous. The requirement in equalities cases for a claimant to prove that an extension was just and equitable, or that it had not been reasonably practicable to bring a case in time, is adding to that burden on the tribunal system.
The Law Commission’s report was published in 2020, so the then Government had four years to model the impact of the changes that they were considering. If Conservative Members know of any impact analyses undertaken under the previous Government, I would very much like to hear about them.
Dr Marie Tidball (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham Northfield and for Gloucester for their ably made speeches outlining the very good and pragmatic reasons for the measure. They made points about ensuring that there is a good preliminary process to prevent litigation and laid out all the evidence with regard to the Law Commission.
The shadow Minister asked the Minister about principle, which my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham Northfield and for Gloucester also touched on. It is clear that, after 14 years of Conservative Members not considering principle when it comes to access to justice, we are making these changes particularly for disabled employees and women who often have very complex lives. Disability is not static—it is dynamic, and health conditions fluctuate—so three months is a very short time period for people to put a case together if they have complex and fluctuating health conditions. It is right that the measure brings that time period up to the level of other equalities cases.
It is also fair to say that many working people have a huge amount to juggle in their day-to-day lives. For me, it is a point of great principle that this Government want to make it easier for them to access their rights and to access justice by giving them more time, being cognisant, as we are, of the many challenges that they might face just to keep a roof over their heads and to keep their family in a stable and supported situation.
The need to strengthen access to justice in such circumstances is important. We heard a great deal in the evidence presented to us about the many barriers for various groups and about the effect of the measure on women. It will give women an opportunity to have a longer period of time at the most challenging and complex moments of their life, such as during pregnancy and post birth, which seems to be eminently sensible and principled.
Uma Kumaran (Stratford and Bow) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to once again serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I refer the Committee to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and I am a member of the GMB. My hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge spoke powerfully—
Uma Kumaran
Thank you, Mr Stringer. I am glad Members got some steps in and I hope they have come back reinvigorated.
Members across the Committee have spoken eloquently today about why they support the bold measures in the Bill, which is the best upgrade to worker’s rights that we have seen in a generation. I pay particular tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester for sharing his personal story. That is why we are here; it is about the people behind those stories. The Bill is about making a difference to people’s lives.
We started this month by marking World AIDS Day. The National AIDS Trust supports the amendments to increase the time limit for claims from three months to six, to bring the Bill in line with the Law Commission’s 2020 recommendation. With a diagnosis such as HIV/AIDS, three months is nothing. When a person is diagnosed, they have to go to their doctor, assess the impact the diagnosis will have on their life, and in some cases discuss how to break it to their family, friends and employers. Adding a ticking time limit of three months for their job and their livelihood can be so distressing. That is why I remind Members to remember the people behind the stories—the people we seek to serve and to help.
This is not just about the people; it also impacts business, as we have heard from Opposition Members. We have seen inclusive employers standing with the National AIDS Trust, not just in the UK but around the world, to support the asks that were brought forward to mark World AIDS Day. That is why I urge Members to support the amendments to increase the time limit from three months to six.
Sir Ashley Fox
There is one point that I would like the Minister to clarify. Some of his colleagues have said that, by extending the limit from three months to six, we will avoid a large number of claims, as there will be more time to negotiate and they will be concluded in good time. Other colleagues have said that this is an access to justice point, since lots of claims are being missed out because the time limit is too short. Can the Minister clarify, for the benefit of small businesses, whether they will face more or fewer claims? It seems to me that the Government have not decided whether this is a reform to reduce the number of claims that small businesses will face, or whether it will significantly increase the number of claims. Whatever the justice of each individual claim, small business owners will have to deal with its legal consequences and devote time to it. I think they would appreciate knowing whether there will be more or fewer claims.
Uma Kumaran
Statistically, less than 1% of women who have been subject to pregnancy or maternity discrimination pursue a claim in an employment tribunal. While making the case for business, it is important to realise that we are talking about a very small percentage of people. As we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge, these things can make a huge difference to people’s lives, and we are talking about very specific amendments that will make a real difference to the lives of working people.
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
I want to add a couple of thoughts, not so much about the principle of the amendments, but about what they say about the process. I note what the hon. Member for Birmingham Northfield said about the history and about the Law Commission having made its proposals in 2020. That rather adds to our confusion about why the amendments are being introduced in Committee and why they were not part of the Bill on Second Reading. I would be grateful if the Minister could tell us a little about the preparation of the Bill and what his officials said at the time of Second Reading about how many more amendments would be necessary in Committee and about its readiness. Will he also tell us more about the precise impact of the amendments, and what they mean for the Bill’s impact assessment?
Justin Madders
We have had a pretty wide-ranging debate. Generally, there has been support for the amendments. I welcome the Liberal Democrats’ support and hope they carry on in the same spirit for the rest of the Bill—we will see about that.
On the principle of what we are trying to achieve, let me take the Committee back to a time before the advent of the employment lawyer, when we had a thing called industrial tribunals. Industrial tribunals were about having a speedy and informal way to resolve industrial disputes where there was an individual issue. As time has passed, employment law has grown and industrial tribunals have become employment tribunals, and the original time limits have not been able to keep pace with the range of developments.
A number of examples have been given for why some people will not be able to enforce their rights, because of the strict time limits. Equally, there is evidence that enabling a longer period between a claim being discovered and a tribunal deadline being set means that there is more opportunity for parties to try to resolve their differences. On maternity leave in particular, I recall many occasions when a woman has returned to work and tried to crack on with things but been discriminated against all the time, yet because of the understandable pressures and her eagerness to try to get on, she has not acted as quickly as she should have done.
I will give a recent practical example of a constituent who came into my surgery. He had been involved in a road traffic accident while he was working, and he had been dismissed for that. He was not a member of a trade union and had taken no legal advice on his situation. Clearly, I am not in a position to give him legal advice, because I am not insured to do so, but I pointed out to him that he might want to think about talking to someone about his rights with respect to unfair dismissal. The point I am trying to make is that I was having that conversation two months after he was dismissed, which does not give him—or, indeed, the employer—much time to try to resolve things. It would be preferable for that individual to have the opportunity to have a dialogue with his employer, possibly get a process done correctly, and be reinstated. Because the time limits are so pressured, though, if he did go away and take legal advice, he will probably have been told that the only realistic avenue for him was to put a claim in as soon as possible.
There will be real benefits to the amendments, not just for making sure that people are able to enforce their rights, but in giving people more opportunity and time to resolve their differences before proceeding to litigation. For that reason, the impact assessment has not really been able to pin down a particular figure for the impact of these measures. It is probably fair to say that there are a number of other measures in the Bill that may impact tribunal claims, not least the introduction of the fair work agency. The possibility for that agency to enforce holiday pay claims and wages claims, for example, could take a significant burden off the tribunal.
Let me return to the original point of the amendments. They are about removing anomalies and giving people more time to resolve their differences. It has been an anomaly in the law for many years that equal pay claims and redundancy pay claims can be brought up to six months after the termination of employment, but most other claims cannot. Indeed, there are some claims that, depending on where they are progressed, can take even longer, such as certain types of employment-related claims that go through county court. This is about ensuring consistency.
Justin Madders
He is shaking his head—that is good. I certainly do not envisage that to be the case, but we recognise there is a backlog in the employment tribunals. Like many public services, they are under pressure, and there is a plan to recruit more judges in the new year.
Jon Pearce
I want to pick up a point that the shadow Minister made about the effect of the pandemic on the backlog of employment tribunal claims. When the last Labour Government left office, the time between a claim being brought and the first hearing was about 30 weeks. By 2019—pre-pandemic—it had increased to 38 weeks. We are now at about 55 weeks. We have seen a huge increase in that time, but it was already rising significantly pre-pandemic.
Justin Madders
There are a whole range of Government performance indicators where trends were already going in the wrong direction before covid hit, and that is just another of them. We recognise that there is more to be done to deal with the backlog, which is why we intend to recruit more judges in the new year. We hope that the Bill will not increase demand on the tribunal service, and that the extra time we are giving and the other powers we are giving the fair work agency will encourage people to resolve their disputes without going to litigation. We understand that it is a tremendous expense to go to employment tribunal, and of course, by that point, the employment relationship is already fractured beyond repair. This is the right thing to do, it is consistent with the Law Commission’s recommendations, and we think it will improve access to justice.
Amendment 16 agreed to.
Amendments made: 17, in clause 1, page 11, line 22, leave out “three” and insert “six”.
This amendment would increase the time limit for bringing proceedings under the new section 27BF(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 from three months to six months.
Amendment 18, in clause 1, page 11, line 26, leave out “three” and insert “six”.
This amendment would increase the time limit for bringing proceedings under the new section 27BF(3) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 from three months to six months.
Amendment 19, in clause 1, page 11, line 28, at end insert—
“(3A) An employment tribunal must not consider a complaint under section 27BF(4A)(a) relating to a notice unless it is presented before the end of the period of six months beginning with the day after the day on or before which the notice should have been given (see section 27BD(5A) and (5C)).
(3B) An employment tribunal must not consider a complaint under section 27BF(4A)(b) or (c) relating to a notice unless it is presented before the end of the period of six months beginning with the day after the day on which the notice is given.”
This amendment is consequential on amendment 14.
Amendment 20, in clause 1, page 11, line 28, at end insert—
“(3C) An employment tribunal must not consider a complaint under section 27BF(4B)(a)unless it is presented before the end of the period of six months beginning with the day after the last day of the initial information period (see section 27BEA(3) and (4)).
(3D) An employment tribunal must not consider a complaint under section 27BF(4B)(b) unless it is presented before the end of the period of six months beginning with the day on which the worker first becomes aware of the failure to which the complaint relates.”
This amendment is consequential on amendment 15.
Amendment 21, in clause 1, page 11, line 30, leave out “this section” and insert “section 27BF”.
This amendment corrects an incorrect section reference.
Amendment 22, in clause 1, page 11, line 31, leave out “three” and insert “six”.
This amendment is consequential on amendments 16, 17 and 18.
Amendment 23, in clause 1, page 11, line 36, leave out “(3)” and insert “(3D)”.—(Justin Madders.)
This amendment is consequential on amendment 20.
Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
Justin Madders
Here we are, three and a bit hours in, and we are on the stand part debate for clause 1. I hope we can make swifter progress, but I am sure Members will appreciate that we have debated a number of amendments to this clause, from both sides of the Committee.
I will talk a little about clause 1, because it is central to our aim to improve working relations in this country. It introduces a new right to guaranteed hours, which, alongside some of the other measures in the Bill, will address the issue of one-sided flexibility by ensuring that those who are in scope of the Bill receive a baseline of security and predictability that has been sadly lacking to date.
Our ability to care for loved ones, provide essentials, look after our health and deal with life and its challenges all relies on an element of predictability in our circumstances and finances. We know that a stable base makes us more resilient and more able to deal with challenges that come our way. Raising children, supporting family and our communities, making mortgage and rent payments, effective budgeting, and regular exercise are all good for the individual and for our society, and none combines easily with the unpredictability that some people face in their working lives.
The proposed provisions on guaranteed hours and on notice regarding shifts, which we will come to in due course, will go some way to helping the many workers who work regularly—often for the same employer, and some of them for years—but who do not have the security of knowing there will be a pay packet next week or next month. These proposals, which are the result of engagement with employers and social partners, will introduce fair and proportionate duties. Many of these have already been adopted by our most forward-looking employers. The duties are rightly ambitious but also, if we continue to work collaboratively, workable and achievable.
I will now explain the effects of each new section inserted into the Employment Rights Act 1996 by clause 1—this is effectively a series of new clauses inserted into our favourite, the 1996 Act. The first is new section 27BA, which outlines a new duty that will be placed on employers to offer qualifying workers guaranteed hours based on those hours worked during the reference period. While I hear and am considering the calls for the reference period to be put on the face of the Bill, at the moment the intention is for it to be specified in regulations. It is expected to be 12 weeks. The reason why consideration is being given to putting the initial and subsequent reference periods in regulations rather than in the Bill is that that will allow changes to be made to those periods. This is a novel right and we want to consider the emerging evidence on how it works in practice and, indeed, how it is evaded. However, I hear the calls about the need for certainty, and I will continue to engage with all relevant parties on whether this is something that we should put on the face of the Bill.
New section 27BA outlines the qualifying criteria for this new right, which will be targeted at workers who are on zero-hours contracts or zero-hours arrangements, or have some guaranteed hours—up to a maximum number that will be defined in regulations—but work in excess of those hours, and whose hours over the reference period meet the conditions for regularity or number. Agency workers are not in the scope of the new section, but separate provisions may be made for them using the power in new section 27BV. We recently closed a consultation on applying the rights to guaranteed hours, notice of shifts and payment for cancelled shifts to agency workers. We will now analyse the responses to that consultation and consider whether to seek to amend the Bill later during its passage.
The conditions for regularity and number of hours worked that must be satisfied during the initial reference period, as well as conditions for subsequent reference periods, will be set out in regulations following consultation. That will enable us to ensure that the measure is appropriately targeted at those workers who work regularly and in excess of their contracted hours. Although our intention is to minimise exemptions, regulations may be made to exclude categories of workers from the provisions, providing us with the flexibility to adjust the scope of this new right over time to respond to emerging practices. I have to say that at this stage I am not able to conceive of any particular exemptions that would apply, but I think it is important that we keep that power in the Bill.
New section 27BB sets out the requirements that a guaranteed hours offer must meet. It allows a guaranteed hours offer to take the form of either a variation of terms and conditions or a new contract, depending on the circumstances. A guaranteed hours offer may take the form of an offer to vary terms and conditions only if the worker worked under a single worker’s contract from the beginning of the relevant reference period until the day after an offer is made or later. That would allow all other terms of the contract, other than hours and length of employment, to be kept the same.
Where a worker has been engaged on more than one worker’s contract between the beginning of the reference period and the making of a guaranteed hours offer, that offer should take the form of an offer to enter into a new worker’s contract. Where a new contract is proposed, it must propose terms and conditions that, taken as a whole, are no less favourable than the terms and conditions relating to matters other than working hours and length of employment that the qualifying worker had when working for the employer during the relevant reference period.
New section 27BB also allows regulations to set out details on how it is to be determined whether the hours offered in the guaranteed hours offer reflect those worked during a reference period. It also makes provisions around the use of limited-term contracts by employers offering guaranteed hours. “Limited-term contracts” means fixed-term contracts and those that are to end by virtue of a limiting event. That ensures that employers can continue to use limited-term contracts where it is reasonable to do so.
The new section provides that, where the guaranteed hours offer takes the form of an offer to vary terms and conditions, the contract should usually become permanent. That should be done by removing the provision stipulating the termination of the contract by virtue of a limiting event, unless it can be said on the day after the offer is made that it would be reasonable for that contract to be entered into for a limited term.
The use of a limited-term contract will be regarded as reasonable where the worker is needed only to perform a specific task and the contract ends after it is completed, or likewise for a particular event, or in other circumstances where the employer considers there is a temporary need, as set out in the regulations. For example, if would be reasonable for a contract to be of a limited term where a worker is providing cover for a colleague on parental leave.
New section 27BC sets out requirements for a guaranteed hours offer where that offer takes the form of an offer to enter into a new worker’s contract and a worker has had more than one set of terms and conditions during the reference period. Its provisions will protect workers from being moved on to the worst of all the terms and conditions that they worked under during the reference period. Where an employer makes an offer of guaranteed hours with less favourable terms than the best the worker worked under the during the reference period, new section 27BC introduces a duty on employers to give the worker a notice explaining how the proposed terms and conditions constitute a
“proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.”
This will help to protect workers against being given less favourable terms and conditions in contravention of the aims of the Bill.
New section 27BD provides for exceptions to the duty to offer guaranteed hours, including circumstances in which an offer already made should be treated as having been withdrawn. Exceptions will apply if the worker’s contract or arrangement is terminated during the reference period or offer period and it is a “relevant termination”. Similarly, where an offer of guaranteed hours has been made and there is a relevant termination of that worker’s contract during the response period, the offer will be treated as having been withdrawn.
A relevant termination takes place where the worker decides to terminate the worker’s contract through no fault of the employer; the employer had a qualifying reason for terminating the contract and acted reasonably in treating that reason as sufficient to terminate the contract; or a worker’s limited-term contract ends by virtue of a limiting event and it was reasonable for that contract to have been entered into for a limited term. A qualifying reason is a reason that, when an employer is dismissing an employer, can be a fair reason for dismissal under section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
New section 27BD also allows regulations to be made to specify circumstances in which the duty to offer guaranteed offers does not apply, and it is that section that sets out offer and response periods. The response period, during which a worker must respond to an offer, will begin on the day after an offer is made and its duration will be set out in regulations.
We have made amendments to new section 27BD that will require employers to inform a worker when circumstances exist that exempt them from their duty to offer guaranteed hours, and similarly where a guaranteed hours offer is treated as having been withdrawn as a result of an exemption applying. That will ensure that workers are aware of which exemption applies, and that their employer has not merely failed to offer guaranteed hours. Any exemptions will of course be defined in regulations. Similarly, a further amendment requires that a notice is given where a guaranteed hours offer is treated as having been withdrawn as a result of a relevant termination. We have made further amendments to the new section, designed to close a potential loophole.
As previously drafted, the provisions could have meant that in situations where an employer employs a worker on a series of short-term contracts and the last contract of the period terminates with a limiting event, that could have been treated as a relevant termination. As a result, an employer might not have been required to offer the worker guaranteed hours. The amendment has added a rebuttable presumption, which presumes that it is unreasonable for an employer to engage a worker on a series of limited-term contracts to undertake the same work, and that would therefore not be a relevant termination excepting the employer from their duty to offer guaranteed hours. If the employer fails to rebut that presumption, no exception will apply and the employer will still be required to offer guaranteed hours.
New section 27BE sets out how the worker accepts or rejects an offer, and when the new contract or varied terms and conditions are deemed to take effect. It provides that a worker who does not respond to an offer will be treated as having rejected it, because we would not wish workers to be moved on to guaranteed hours if they had not specifically agreed to them. It provides for regulations to set the form and manner in which the worker must respond to the employer’s offer, and when the response is taken as having been given.
Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)
On new section 27BE, there is a lack of formality relating to the worker’s right to refuse an offer of a regular-hours contract. Indeed, the risk is that workers could be coerced into rejecting an offer if it is clear that the employer would prefer the existing arrangements to continue. There are similar arrangements in respect of the working time regulations on workers’ right to opt out of the 48-hour working week; by contrast with the Bill’s provisions on zero-hours contracts, the working time regulations do not apply to all workers, and those who opt-out may revoke their decision to do so, although there are arguably no adequate safeguards there either.
The Secretary of State will have the power to make regulations about the form and manner of the notice under proposed new section 27BE, and reference is made to a response time that is undefined, but the question is whether it would be appropriate for Parliament to give the Minister stronger guidance by requiring that the response period should be at least one week; that the worker has a right to seek advice from an independent trade union before making a decision; that the worker has a right to be accompanied by a trade union official under section 10 of the Employment Relations Act 1999 in any meeting to discuss an offer; and that the worker may revoke a rejection of an offer at any time on giving one week’s notice to the employer. Does the Minister agree that those safeguards need to be incorporated into the Bill so that an employee is not coerced by their employer into rejecting a contract that is not in their best interest?
Justin Madders
A lot of the questions the hon. Member asked will be dealt with by the regulations and by the anti-detriment provisions of the Bill. If he would like to see specific provisions in the Bill, he should have tabled amendments, but I believe we will address a lot of the detail he raised in due course. We are clear that this has to be a freely agreed contract between both parties. The employer should make the offer and the employee should be able to agree, of their own free will, on whether they wish to accept it. We will look closely at the coercion issue, because that has been raised with us.
Government amendment 13 introduces new section 27BEA of the 1996 Act. It will introduce a duty on employers to take reasonable steps to make a potentially qualifying worker aware of their right to guaranteed hours should they meet the required conditions—that is, to draw workers’ attention to the new right and to the fact that they may be eligible for it.
New section 27BF provides for workers to bring an employment tribunal claim to enforce their right to guaranteed hours. A worker may make a complaint if no guaranteed hours offer is made to a qualifying worker; if an offer is made but does not comply with the requirements relating to a guaranteed hours offer, such as offering work for a number of hours that reflects the hours worked during the reference period, or the offer does not comply with the regulations relating to such requirements; if the offer includes a prohibited variation to a worker’s terms and conditions; and if the offer does not comply with the requirements on the use of limited-term contracts, the prohibition on varying other terms, or the applicable requirements where the employer offers less favourable terms.
To ensure that all rights are supported by appropriate protections, the Government amendments have added further grounds. Thus, a worker may make a complaint to an employment tribunal if the employer fails to provide a notice stating that they are exempt from the duty to make a guaranteed hours offer and which exemption applies, or fails to provide a notice stating that a guaranteed hours offer is treated as having been withdrawn further to an exemption applying or to a relevant termination; if the employer gives a notice to the worker stating that they are exempt from the duty to offer guaranteed hours when they should not have done so; if the employer gives the worker a notice relating to an exemption that does not refer to any exemption as set out in the regulations, or that relates to the wrong exemption; and if the employer fails to comply with the duties to provide workers with information about the right to guaranteed hours.
New section 27BG outlines the time limit during which a worker may take their complaint to tribunal. Government amendments have been tabled to allow workers to take cases within six months, as opposed to three months, which is to align the Bill’s provisions with the changes we have talked about already. We have also tabled amendments that are consequential on the new rights included in the Bill, and also on the new grounds to make a complaint to the employment tribunal. Those relate to the additional requirements to serve a notice under new section 27BD, and to the claims related to the information rights.
Finally, new section 27BH provides for the remedies to a well-founded complaint. It provides that tribunals must make a declaration if there has been a breach and may award compensation to be paid from the employer to the worker. In common with other existing employment rights, the compensation must not exceed a permitted maximum, which will be set out in regulations as a multiple of a number of weeks’ pay. I commend clause 1 to the Committee.
Greg Smith
I am grateful to the Minister for that comprehensive outline of clause 1 but, as I reflect on our debate over today’s two sittings on the amendments to clause 1—the Government amendments that now form part of clause 1 and the Opposition’s substantive amendments, which were not accepted, and our probing amendments, which did not produce the answers we were looking for—I remain concerned that, putting aside some of the noble intentions beneath the Bill, there is still the lack of clarity we have spoken about regarding so many areas of clause 1.
The Minister himself admitted earlier that some things are still to be consulted on and that others are yet to be brought forward through secondary legislation. I am afraid that just does not cut it for businesses up and down the country that are still struggling with the aftermath of covid, the invasion of Ukraine and so many other factors. They need certainty. They need to know, if the rules of the game are changing, exactly what they are changing to—not some ballpark or some in-principle movement towards, but precisely the rules that they are being asked to play by.
Businesses will, of course, comply with any legislation passed by this House and this Parliament, but this provision is an unreasonable ask of them, whether in respect of what would constitute a low-hours contract, fixed-term contracts for qualifying workers or agency workers, or the exact definition of the reference period. It is simply an unacceptable proposition to those who run businesses, particularly, as multiple parties have said today, small businesses, be they microbusinesses or medium-sized enterprises—I fully accept that we can debate the exact number of employees that constitutes a small or medium-sized enterprise.
I recognise many of the good points the Minister made in his speech, and there are many things that we in the Opposition can get behind—at least in principle, if not in the precise lettering of the detail—but the lack of clarity, the Henry VIII powers in some parts and the “still to consult” parts in others make it very difficult for the Opposition to support clause 1 as it currently stands.
As I said earlier, we want to be a constructive Opposition. We might not agree with the Government’s standpoint on many things, but it is important for the United Kingdom that they succeed in their endeavours and that they do not provide an environment in which there will be fewer jobs, not more, with businesses being more reticent to take on new members of staff. That goes particularly to the points around how people who are deserving of a second chance in life, no matter what has happened to them before, may not get that opportunity because it is too big a risk for small businesses that are struggling to get around all the new regulations, rules and laws.
I particularly highlight again the point about small businesses just not having the capacity to deal with new regulation. As has been said, they do not have HR departments or in-house legal services, and they cannot necessarily afford to hire them in if they are to continue producing their products or selling their services to the great British public, or wider than that. I urge the Minister to go back to the Department, focus on where the detail is lacking and put an offer to the House and the wider country. Our business community need not necessarily agree with it, but they should be comfortable that they can understand it and put in place the measures for their employees and businesses. To ensure their growth and success, they desperately require certainty.
Laurence Turner
I will not keep the Committee long. A lot has rightly been said about the need for certainty for business, but we should remember that the other side of the coin is the need for workers to have certainty. I was contacted recently by a constituent who works a zero-hours contract in the hospitality sector. He is unable to get a mortgage because the bank will not grant that facility to him due to the nature of his contract. At the level of the individual, this means economic activity and family planning being put on hold.
In parts of the economy, there are employment situations—we do not, of course, tar all employers with the same brush, but if there were no bad employers there would be no need for trade unions—in which people are turning up to work, sometimes in digital form, to find shifts being mediated through applications, not even through people. It is the 21st-century equivalent of a foreman standing at the factory gate and allocating shifts on an arbitrary basis. We have heard today about the potential, which is too often realised, for favouritism and abuse of that facility.
We have had good debate about a number of details regarding the changes in the Bill. The changes in clause 1 will be welcomed by people who work in the retail sector, including in my constituency, and in other sectors that have high rates of zero-hours contract working, including the care sector. I very much welcome the clause.
Sarah Gibson
Despite some of my concerns, I would like to lend my support to the clause, because the guarantees for workers are important. I caveat that by saying that the guidance for SMEs must be clear and must come out soon, so that there is less concern in the business community about taking on staff. Currently, I see an unintended consequence in SMEs, certainly in the near future, not taking on staff because of the fear of additional costs.
While I am on my feet, I would like to make a correction for the record in respect of this morning’s debate. In the debate on amendment 137, although the shadow Minister made a comment about this in his closing speech, it was not my intention to suggest that the Liberal Democrats wish to alter the current definition of SMEs from being 249 employees. I want to make sure that is clear.
Justin Madders
To pick up on the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield, this is about who we are trying to help. This clause is primarily about low-income workers who do not currently have the security and certainty of regular hours. They are more likely to be young, female or from an ethnic minority background. We have heard about the real impact that can have and about the power imbalance when an employer holds all the cards. To use my hon. Friend’s imagery, it is effectively like pointing to people at the factory gate and deciding whether they get work that day or not. We must move on from the indignity of that arrangement.
I welcome the support from the Liberal Democrats. It is worth saying that there was general, albeit caveated, support from the witnesses we heard from in last week’s evidence sessions.
I will tackle head-on the shadow Minister’s criticism about the lack of clarity and the need for certainty. Of course we want to give business certainty. I am sure that after the last few years of Conservative Government, we are all crying out for certainty, and there will be certainty. We are at an early stage of the legislative process for this Bill. It will be taken through Committee and through the Lords, and then there will be further consultation, secondary regulations and codes of practices, after which the laws will be implemented. As the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Chippenham, said, there is anxiety out there for businesses, but we are a long way off introducing this legislation, because there is so much more to do, and it is important that we do it. We want to get it right, we want to get clarity and certainty, and we want to ensure that this is an effective piece of legislation.
Greg Smith
I beg to move amendment 145, in clause 2, page 13, line 25, leave out
“a specified amount of time”
and insert “48 hours”.
This amendment defines reasonable notice of a requestor requirement to work a shift as 48 hours.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 146, in clause 2, page 14, line 17, leave out
“a specified amount of time”
and insert “48 hours”.
This amendment defines reasonable notice for the cancellation of a shift as 48 hours.
Amendment 147, in clause 2, page 14, line 22, leave out
“a specified amount of time”
and insert “48 hours”.
This amendment defines reasonable notice for the cancellation of a shift as 48 hours.
Amendment 148, in clause 2, page 14, line 28, leave out
“a specified amount of time”
and insert “48 hours”.
This amendment defines reasonable notice for the cancellation of a shift as 48 hours.
Greg Smith
The amendments are intended to probe the Government’s thinking, as once again it is not clear to us in the Opposition whether they have done the necessary policy work to justify the approach taken in the Bill. The impact assessment clearly shows the administrative cost that the Bill will have in shift and workforce planning, with estimated costs of some staggering £320 million to business. I would like to ask the Minister what evidence there is for the late cancellation or alteration of shifts being a problem of such magnitude that it requires legislation. The Bill does not set out what would be a reasonable notice period for cancelling a shift, and the Government must be clear what they actually intend to do in that respect.
This is a serious point. The burdens that this provision would place on small business would undoubtedly be considerable. Some small businesses cannot always, in every circumstance, guarantee shifts; that is perfectly reasonable. For example, a small furniture-making business with two employees has issues with the supply chain. It cannot provide work until the materials have actually arrived, but the employer in those circumstances could have no idea how long it will take for those materials to materialise—perhaps they are specialist materials or something that has to come from abroad and is delayed in shipping channels. Attacks by Houthis on shipping have caused supply chain problems, for example. In those circumstances, those businesses find themselves in a very sticky place and it would be unreasonable to try to argue that they should absolutely guarantee those shifts to their workers.
Alex McIntyre
I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point about uncertainty in certain industries meaning that businesses may not be able to guarantee shifts.
I want to ask two questions. First, cannot certain industries take out insurance policies to account for some of those unforeseen circumstances, particularly when it comes to shipping? Secondly, what about the uncertainty for employees for whom losing a day’s work would mean a deduction of 20% on a five-day working week? If someone told the hon. Gentleman that his salary would be reduced by 20% next week, would he not find that difficult?
Greg Smith
I am grateful for the intervention. On the hon. Gentleman’s first point, yes, of course there are insurance policies that many businesses will take out. But the example I just gave is one I can see affecting many businesses in my own constituency; there is a strong furniture making heritage around Prince’s Risborough in Buckinghamshire. There are very small businesses that do an incredible job and make some fantastic furniture, but they are microbusinesses with only a couple of employees and they operate on tight margins. They would not necessarily be able to bake the additional cost of a very expensive insurance policy into their bottom line without significant pressure on their overall business.
I accept that I am not talking about every or possibly the majority of businesses; my point in the amendments is that some circumstances might need a more sympathetic ear. In such cases, it could be argued reasonably and sympathetically that businesses in such a sticky spot would be unable to meet the requirements that the Bill sets out. Supply chain problems are just one example.
I take on board the second point made by the hon. Member for Gloucester, although, as I said in one of the earlier debates, I was self-employed for 15 years before entering this place in 2019. Some clients varied every month their requirements of the services that I provided back then. It was frustrating: nobody wants to be in that position, but it is sometimes a business reality, particularly if the ultimate client is struggling for whatever reason—their supply chain or the fact that they are just not doing very well so they need to throttle service provision up and down. I know that my example is not the same as that of a direct employee, but sometimes business needs a sympathetic ear.
To come back to my earlier point, nobody wants people not to be in a secure employment environment. Sometimes, however, things happen in businesses. Businesses in the automotive sector have shed quite a lot of jobs in recent weeks—look at Stellantis and Ford. Sometimes these things happen. With greater flexibility, perhaps more jobs overall can be saved in the short, medium and long terms, rather than having in every circumstance rigid rules that do not allow businesses that flexibility. I suggest that most people would want jobs to be saved rather than lost through that level of rigidity.
I will continue with my questions to the Minister about these probing amendments. In the furniture company example that I gave, what notice would an employer have to give? What do the Government expect an employer in such circumstances to do? From the hefty number of amendments that the Government have tabled, it looks as though small businesses are going to have to pay those employees for hours not actually worked; and even this will be through no fault whatever of the actual business in question.
Given that the Regulatory Policy Committee has flagged the risk that employers, often in fluctuating demand sectors such as hospitality and retail, may respond by scheduling fewer shifts to avoid penalties for cancellations and the consequential lost output to the economy, I would be grateful for the Minister’s appraisal of whether the provisions on short notice cancellations will support or inhibit the Government’s aim of actually achieving economic growth.
Justin Madders
I am grateful for the shadow Minister’s amendment. If it is a probing amendment, he has asked a lot of reasonable questions. There are, of course, things that we will be hoping to address today and during the passage of the Bill—and, indeed, the subsequent regulations.
The first thing to say is that we do not believe that it is right at this stage to put the time into the Bill; we want to give ourselves flexibility to respond to how the issue works in practice and to changing circumstances by doing that in secondary legislation. However, the hon. Gentleman has asked a perfectly reasonable question: who are we trying to help? What is our purpose?
Our purpose is to try to help those people who simply do not have that security in their lives at the moment. Research from the Living Wage Foundation suggests that 25% of insecure workers have had their shifts cancelled unexpectedly, with 88% receiving less than full shift compensation. Many workers receive their shift schedules without reasonable notice, and that prevents them from being able to effectively plan their work, social lives and other responsibilities.
Living Wage Foundation data found that in quarter 2 of 2023, 78% of workers received less than two weeks’ advance notice of shifts, with 5% of workers receiving less than one week. That can disadvantage workers’ ability to effectively plan their future income, particularly when that relates to budgeting for regular outgoings when shifts are cancelled, moved or curtailed at short notice. The impact on workers can include an increased reliance on debt and an inability to forecast income or find substitute work, childcare expenses and, on some occasions, travel expenses. Such implications represent the sort of one-sided flexibility that we are trying to deal with.
Evidence suggests that the income insecurity premium could be worth as much as £160 million per year, but the issue is really going to be about that benefit targeting businesses in the right way. We believe that good management practice can deal with an awful lot of this without the need to resort to legislation.
Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)
Last week, we heard from companies that say they are good employers and offer security of shifts to their workers. Would the Minister agree that companies that offer their workers the right to payment for cancelled, moved or curtailed shifts are in fact good employers and therefore have nothing to fear from the Bill?
Justin Madders
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. That is indeed the overall message from every provision in the Bill: that good employers are doing lots of these things already. Those things represent the kind of practice that we want to encourage and even to legislate for, because there is plenty of evidence that good workforce planning and valuing employees increases business efficiency and improves productivity; those are, of course, secondary to the individual benefits to the workers. However, the policy is specifically targeted to benefit low income workers in particular—people who are more likely to be younger, female or from ethnic minority backgrounds.
There is also a wellbeing background. Extensive research has reported that the impact of on-call contracts, with short or no-notice cancellation of shifts adding to insecurity, leads to considerable increases in anxiety. There have been quite a lot of representations to the Low Pay Commission about that, with concerns about workers on flexible or variable contracts not being able to suitably assert their rights due to fears of repercussions, being zeroed down or having no additional dialogue with the employer.
Nick Timothy
I am sorry to test everyone’s patience. We have heard at different points during the proceedings that “Good employers do this already.” Undoubtedly, that is true, and where employers want to be able to offer certainty, they will. The full quote the Minister just read was “by and large”, because employers cannot do that in all circumstances, even those that set themselves up to be that thoughtful. Does the Minister recognise that where businesses do not do the things in the Bill, it is not necessarily because they are bad employers? Obviously, some employers may be bad. If he recognises that, does he therefore recognise that through standardisation and an increase in things such as compliance costs, the Bill is, in a cumulative sense, adding costs to businesses that are not bad employers?
Justin Madders
As the hon. Member will know, the total cost to businesses from the Bill, as set out in the impact assessment, is about 0.4% of total employer costs. We absolutely acknowledge that there are many good employers out there who do this already, and we hope that there are many employers who do not who will feel that it is a positive once the legislation comes in. We want to take them on that journey and inform them why this is a positive thing and a benefit for their workforce. Importantly, they will see that the playing field is levelled and hopefully be able to compete more ably with others who might in the past have undercut them. But part of that will be making sure that they have access to good advice, good support and a guiding hand to make sure that the clear policy outcomes we want to see from the Bill are actually delivered. On that note, Mr Stringer, I ask the shadow Minister to withdraw his amendment.
Greg Smith
I remain very concerned about some of the real-world applications. I accept that it will have a negative impact in a minority of cases. The purpose of our amendment, as I said, was to probe the Government, so I am happy to confirm that we will withdraw it.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Justin Madders
I beg to move amendment 24, in clause 2, page 13, line 42, leave out
“from what time on which day”
and insert
“when the shift is to start and end”.
This amendment requires notice of a shift to include when the shift is to end (as well as how many hours are to be worked and from when).
Justin Madders
I am afraid we are back into some of the more technical minor amendments, on which I will not detain the Committee too long.
Amendment 24 will ensure that employers have to give reasonable notice of not only when a shift starts and how many hours it will be worked, but also when it will end. The Government’s intention is to avoid a scenario whereby a worker is notified of the start time and total duration of a shift, but does not receive reasonable notice of whether those hours will be in a single block, or whether there may be a large break.
The current drafting would allow an employer to specify that a worker is required to work, for example, for three hours from 9 am on Friday, without specifying whether the shift will be from 9 to 12, or from 9 to 10 and then again from 12 to 2. In either scenario, the notice would meet the requirements to be a notice of the shift. The amendment closes this potential loophole. Some of my own children have gone into work and then been told to go and have a two-hour lunch break—unpaid. We clearly want to avoid that through this amendment.
I turn briefly to Government amendments 25 to 27, which will ensure that workers are entitled to reasonable notice where an employer cuts working hours from the middle of a shift as well as from the start or end. The current drafting would arguably allow employers to reduce the number of working hours in the middle of a shift without giving reasonable notice. The amendments close that loophole, ensuring that workers have to be given reasonable notice if an employer decides to change the hours of a shift by reducing the hours in the middle.
Greg Smith
I will be brief in my response to these Government amendments, which make the requirement for the right to reasonable notice of cancellation or changing of shifts more onerous. I spoke to these principles during our debate on the previous set of amendments in my name, but I ask the Minister gently now, why were these provisions not included in the Bill on introduction? Was it an oversight? Will there be a repeat of the line, “It was the intention but we just didn’t do it”, or is it something else? I would be grateful for clarification.
As I argued during the debate on the previous set of amendments—this point is relevant to this set too—why are these amendments so necessary? Does the Minister really think it a proportionate burden to place on businesses, particularly in those cases where there will be fair and reasonable grounds for a business not needing to provide notice of a change in shift to an employee? What assessment have the Government made of the cost to businesses, given that they will now essentially have to pay for work not done, without recourse to force majeure provisions or whatever it might be—where it is genuinely not their fault that they cannot provide the work to their workers for whatever reasons? Force majeure is a well-established principle in all sorts of sectors across the world.
I urge the Minister to consider carefully how he can ensure that out-of-control eventualities are looked after in the Bill; otherwise I fear it will create a scenario where particularly the smallest businesses—those one, two or three-employee businesses—are placed in a very difficult financial position. I cannot believe that the Government believe that is the just and right thing to do, and that they could not come up with some other safeguards to protect those microbusinesses—those small enterprises—that might find themselves in a sticky spot.
Anneliese Midgley (Knowsley) (Lab)
I refer Members to my declaration of interests. I am also a member of Unite and the GMB. It was said in an evidence session last week that in hospitality—a sector that we are very focused on improving in the Bill—
“employers bring in too many workers for shifts and say: ‘Sorry, we do not need you any more. Go home.’ They then cancel a shift without any compensation for the workers for their travel time”. ––[Official Report, Employment Rights Public Bill Committee, 26 November 2024; c. 76-77, Q71.]
As many of my hon. Friends have said, while we are considering the burden on business, we must also consider the burden on workers. We are trying to level the playing field and make a more equal way, where workers are considered.
Greg Smith
I do understand the hon. Lady’s point. Nobody wants to see people turned away as they turn up for work, with their employer saying, “Sorry, no work today.” That is not a position that we want anybody else to find themselves in, but I am trying to make another point.
Let us take the hospitality sector as an example, which has had a pretty rough time since covid. It is one of the sectors—be it pubs, restaurants or attractions—that is struggling the most to recover from the pandemic. There are certainly times when I turn up to a pub in my constituency, perhaps on a Tuesday night, and it is completely empty and has no bookings. That is not necessarily the pub’s fault, but it will be a problem if there is an absolute requirement for the pub still to pay its full staff rota because it was full the previous Tuesday night and needed all those staff. I think this is one of those real-world examples where there has to be a little bit of flexibility; businesses have to be able to say, “Sorry, we’ve got no bookings tonight.” Worse than that, there might be the nightmare scenario that the beer delivery has not arrived and there is not actually any beer to sell.
Michael Wheeler
Does the shadow Minister accept that it is not the fault of the worker either? In fact, the employer has more control over the situation, on balance. On his example of planning out work, especially bookings, employers would know that there were no bookings further in advance than on the day—there are comparable examples across other industries—so giving notice of that on the day is completely and utterly unacceptable. The cost, in terms of proportion of income, is disproportionately borne by the worker, not the business, and these measures we are discussing are a proportionate way to rectify the situation.
Greg Smith
Fundamentally, I agree that it is not the worker’s fault either—I am absolutely at one with that. I made it very clear that I do not want to see anyone turn up for work only to be turned away and told, “Sorry, no work today.” That is not a great place for anyone to be. I absolutely understand and accept the hardship that that will place on someone who will perhaps not get that day’s wages, but I think there should be greater flexibility in circumstances where it is not the business’s fault either; those situations may be few and far between, but they will happen in hospitality, and they may happen in some manufacturing sectors where supply chain problems have occurred, as we discussed earlier.
If we force businesses into a place where they have to shell out significant amounts of money for no gain—as we discussed earlier, the workers are the ones who produce the services, goods, products or whatever it might be that enables the business to have the money in order to pay people in the first place—and we push them into a place where their low margin is eroded even further by paying for things that are completely outside their control, then those businesses may well go bust.
We are talking about the hospitality sector—and we are seeing pubs close virtually every week. That is a very sad state of affairs, particularly in rural communities, where the pub is often the beating heart of a village, or certainly the social hub. It is not just a place for a pint; pubs do a lot of social good as well. We are seeing pubs close far too frequently for all sorts of reasons, often because of the low margins and other factors that have come in—I will resist the temptation to go too hard on the Budget. There is a cumulative impact, and this measure could well be the straw that brings the whole house down. I want the Minister and Government Members to reflect on where we could bake in other forms of safeguard and flexibility, so that the Government do not put a number of businesses on to that sticky wicket.
Anneliese Midgley
Can I clarify whether the shadow Minister believes that workers should shoulder all the burden, and that businesses should bear no responsibility?
Greg Smith
No, I do not accept that. It is not helpful to see this as either/or. As I explained, there is a symbiotic relationship between businesses and their workers—their employees. Neither succeeds without the other. It is therefore not the case that I, in any way, shape or form, want to put all the burden on one or the other; what I am arguing for, and what I hope Members in all parts of the Committee can reflect on and appreciate, is some of those real-life, lived-experience and real-world examples, where things just do not go very well and people find themselves—
Greg Smith
I am very happy to do so once I finish this train of thought—we are getting far more debate in Committee than we do in the main Chamber.
We have to find the balance, where we do not just point the finger at the business owner or the worker, but see them as a symbiotic being—because neither side can survive or thrive without the other.
Jon Pearce
I am grateful to the shadow Minister for giving way so often. I want to address a principle: the Working Time Regulations 1998 established that if an employee, or indeed an employer, wishes to take holiday, the statutory notice period will be twice as much as the holiday taken. That is the same principle in the Bill, in that it is perfectly reasonable for a worker who does not have guaranteed hours to be given notice when work is not available. That statutory principle has been in place since the last century, so this is not outwith what every worker should expect. It is perfectly reasonable that if a worker has been told that work is available, they should be given reasonable notice if it is not. The shadow Minister’s Government kept to that principle, and it is perfectly applicable to employees and workers in this situation as well.
Greg Smith
The hon. Gentleman is right about the principle of notice for holiday—that is quite clearcut. Holiday is pretty much always planned, although there are circumstances in which someone might need to take leave at very short notice—perhaps they have one of those dreaded phone calls that a relative is seriously ill, so they have to leave to be with them, or there might be some other pressing emergency. I think most employers will be flexible and compassionate about such emergency circumstances, ensuring that an employee can be with a relative who has been in an accident or is critically ill, for example.
Generally speaking, though, holiday is planned—just as, generally speaking, the availability of work is planned—but as with emergency situations when someone might need rapid time off, other emergency or out-of-control situations might affect a business. It would then put an intolerable pressure on that business suddenly to have to pay someone an amount of money that might be more than they would even have earned in that day—selling beer or cake in the hospitality sector, or producing a cabinet in furniture making, or whatever it might be.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman appreciates where I am coming from. We are not talking about the vast majority of cases or the bulk of the economy here; we are talking about the unexpected emergency scenarios that are out of anyone’s real ability to predict, which happen in the real world. I am therefore very concerned that the rigid provisions being proposed by the Government will put a number of businesses in a difficult place.
Several hon. Members rose—
Alex McIntyre
I want to drill down on an important point of principle that we should be considering. I do not want this to become a tale of woe from my previous career in hospitality, but I remember being docked three hours’ pay by my boss because there were no customers for those three hours, and there is a similar point of principle here. I understand that there will be times when a restaurant is empty, but someone turning up to work will expect to get paid for that shift. Then there is the cost to the employee of going to work. People might have to secure childcare—I have recently had to look at the cost of childcare and the astronomical prices that are being charged—or pay to travel into work, and they might have paid in advance and be unable to get a refund. Why does the shadow Minister believe that the burden on the employee is less important than the burden on the business?
Greg Smith
I can assure the hon. Gentleman that, with three children, I am acutely aware of the cost of childcare. The point I am making, to go back to the one I made earlier to his hon. Friends, is that this is not “all or nothing”. It is about recognising, to refer back to the answer I gave the hon. Member for High Peak, that at certain times, albeit not the majority of cases—in fact, far from the majority of cases—circumstances will arise that are beyond the business’s and the employee’s control, and they will push that business to the very edge. It is not a happy place or a good place to be, but there are some realities here that I think need much more careful reflection.
Chris Law
I have been both an employer and an employee in a number of situations, including in retail and hospitality, which we have been hearing about. The hon. Member talks about emergencies, and I understand that emergencies can happen—I have been an employer when we had an emergency situation. What usually happens in those circumstances is that people find other things to do. There is always stuff to do in a business—stuff that might otherwise get put to one side—so there will be an opportunity for employees to work with employers in emergency circumstances.
What I do not understand is this. At what point, in the hon. Member’s mind, do employers notify employees? When do they say, “Look, there’s a situation—it’s an emergency. There is no chance at this time that I can help you come in. Would you consider not taking hours in this instance?” The hon. Member has talked about lived experience; I have spent many years in hospitality—I trained as a chef, and I know exactly what it is like working in restaurants and hotels. Lots of things happen, including empty restaurants, but there is also an onus on the employer to make sure that the restaurant has enough people in of an evening. If they are not there, it is not the employee’s fault; it is the responsibility of the business. If the business is on its knees, then frankly that is in no way the fault of employee—unless, of course, they are not turning up for work or something. In truth, is it not the case that a business in that position is just not viable?
Greg Smith
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. He is right that there may well be something else that can be done—perhaps a stocktake, or making a start on refurbishing the place, or whatever it might be—but that will not be the case in every circumstance. I can only repeat the point that I am not making this argument in respect of the majority of cases, or those that might affect a business that is already in distress; I am making it in respect of those few occasions that might take a business to that point or much closer to it. I cannot imagine that anybody on this Committee, or indeed any Member of this House, would want to see that unintended consequence.
Laurence Turner
I am grateful to the shadow Minister; I suspect he is setting some kind of record with the number of interventions he is taking. Earlier, he said that there may be alternative measures and protections to mitigate the problem that the Minister is seeking to address, whereby someone has been called to a shift but has arrived, incurring some cost, to be told that there is no work available. What alternative measures does the hon. Member have in mind?
Greg Smith
There are a number of options that could be looked at. The time set out in the regulations could be much more flexible. There could be safeguards for force majeure circumstances, which is common in a lot of contracts. There is no reason why that could not be in legislation. Or if the Government want to go down this path, albeit it is not something that Conservatives would propose, perhaps a more elegant way of going about it would be some sort of legislation on compulsory insurance against such eventualities that ensured that both sides were able to benefit—that the employee still got paid at least something, if not their full expected wage for the day, but the business was not directly out of pocket either. That would have to be tested in the insurance industry to see where premiums would come out, because they may well be unviable, but I gently suggest to the Government that it is a tyre worth kicking.
I conclude with a point I have made many times: this has to be about flexibility in real-world circumstances.
Sarah Gibson
The Minister made an extremely good point about the security that is required. It should not be an arbitrary 48 hours that is given. Specifying the time for each sector, presumably under guidance, would perhaps be the most appropriate thing.
I have talked many times to people in my constituency who work in the care sector and are employed to visit people in their own homes. They are given a start time for a shift and are quite often told that they will work a certain number of hours, but it is not clear until they turn up to the shift how much of a gap there will be between the times at which they are getting paid. That can leave them with shifts that last a considerable time but contain a gap of several hours, during which they might be miles from home and it might not be worthwhile going home for lunch, so they incur costs on their own time.
I welcome the attention to the lack of clarity about shift working specifically for home visits in the care industry. This is something that we need to look at. Perhaps there needs to be guidance on the time for each sector, because each sector has its own issues. That is certainly true when one looks at hospitality.
Anneliese Midgley
I am sorry for referring to the shadow Minister as “you” earlier, Mr Stringer; I was not suggesting that you needed to clarify whether you thought workers should shoulder all of the burden.
I want to remind hon. Members of some evidence that we were given last week in support of the right to reasonable notice of a shift. Matthew Percival from the CBI said that
“there are areas where the Bill can be a helpful step in the right direction. To give a few examples, we have previously supported the idea that it is wrong that you should turn up for work expecting an eight-hour shift, be sent home after two hours and only be paid for two hours. There should be a right for compensation there.”
Jane Gratton from the British Chambers of Commerce said:
“As Matthew said on the compensation of shifts, we certainly support that, and we would be very happy about the fair work agency to create a level playing field and measures around workplace equity.”––[Official Report, Employment Rights Public Bill Committee, 26 November 2024; c. 13, Q6.]
Allen Simpson from UKHospitality said:
“Again, reasonable notice is an important principle and there should be protections.”––[Official Report, Employment Rights Public Bill Committee, 26 November 2024; c. 43, Q39.]
Justin Madders
The way the shadow Minister was intervened on made it feel like this was an Opposition amendment, but it is actually a Government amendment to deal with the issue of split shifts and the anti-avoidance measures. This is about rebalancing the level of risk faced by a worker and an employer. At the moment, the balance is shifted too far one way. We estimate in the impact assessment that the cost to businesses of this policy could be up to £320 million a year. Clearly, a lot of that will end up being transferred directly into workers’ pockets. We hope that, through better workforce planning, that figure will go down and we will see improvements to the lives of those who will benefit from the Bill.
I will make one further point. The shadow Minister referred several times to force majeure situations. There is provision in a later clause, which we will not get to today, for us to set out in regulations when there might be exceptions to this provision. There are lots of potential arguments about whether the provision should apply, and we intend to consult further before the final regulations are published and debated.
Justin Madders
I will not detain the Committee too long, because it feels like we have had the clause stand part debate already. I will briefly go through the provisions of clause 2, which creates the right to reasonable notice of shifts. As I set out when we discussed clause 1, we must tackle one-sided flexibility. Guaranteed hours is an important part of that, but we must also ensure that workers have reasonable notice of their shifts, so that they are enable to effectively plan their work and personal lives.
If someone’s shift is moved but their pay is less than the cost of the babysitter, that is obviously a negative. If someone is offered a last-minute shift but it is 60 minutes away by bus and they have no car, they should not be penalised or have a black mark put against them if they are not able to take it up. We can do better than this. We want to establish a more balanced partnership between workers and employers, and we hope to do that with clause 2. It will still allow employers to make changes to shifts, but it will also provide incentives for employers to meet the standard of the best employers, encouraging better planning and engagement with their workers. These provisions to introduce a right to reasonable notice of shifts and to changes in them are a small but important step towards making the lives of many shift workers and their families feel a little more secure.
Clause 2 creates several new sections in the Employment Rights Act 1996. New section 27BI outlines the duty that will be placed on employers to give reasonable notice of shifts. That duty will apply to workers on zero-hours contracts and arrangements, as well as workers on other contracts that will be specified in regulations but are likely to be low-hours contracts. New section 27BJ specifies that employers must also give reasonable notice of any moves or changes of shifts. New section 27BK notes that, as for other sections, agency workers are not covered by this measure—new section 27BV provides a delegated power to make corresponding or similar provision in relation to agency workers. In addition, section 27BK specifies that workers are not entitled to reasonable notice of shifts that they themselves suggested they work. For example, they would not be entitled to reasonable notice of overtime that they themselves had suggested. That right does, however, apply where the employer agrees to a suggested shift and then later changes or cancels the shift. Finally, the section contains a power to make regulations about how the notice should be given and when it is treated as being given.
New section 27BL explains that, where an employer is required to make a payment to a worker because the employer has cancelled, moved or curtailed a shift at short notice, the worker cannot get compensation for lack of reasonable notice for the same cancellation, movement or curtailment. New section 27BM enables workers to complain to employment tribunals that their employer has failed to comply with the duties to give reasonable notice. New section 27BN provides that tribunals must make a declaration where they find for a complainant and may award compensation they consider appropriate to compensate the worker for financial loss suffered as a result of the failure to give reasonable notice. This compensation will be capped in regulations and, in line with common law on recoverable damages, compensation will also take account of the duty on the claimant to mitigate their losses.
Greg Smith
I will not detain the Committee for much longer because, as the Minister said, it felt as though we had the debate on the whole clause during the debates on the amendments. I reiterate my concern about some of the provisions in the clause. Although I accept that the Minister said that, further on in the Bill, there is provision for force majeure measures to be introduced, there is a gaping hole for those emergency, unexpected, out-of-control circumstances, and this clause fails to fill it. However, we will almost certainly return to that on Report, so we will not press the clause to a Division.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Anna McMorrin.)
Employment Rights Bill (Seventh sitting)
Thursday 5th December 2024
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Employment Rights Act 2025 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 5 December 2024 - (5 Dec 2024)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 12 / Noes: 3 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Chair
Will everyone please ensure that all electronic devices are turned off or switched to silent? We will now continue line-by-line consideration of the Bill. The grouping and selection list for today’s sitting is available in the room and on the parliamentary website. We now move on to clause 3. I remind all Members of the rules about declaration of interests, as set out in the code of conduct.
Clause 3
Right to payment for cancelled, moved and curtailed shifts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Justin Madders)
I beg to move amendment 30, in clause 3, page 18, leave out lines 7 to 19 and insert—
“(b) in relation to the movement of a shift, or the movement and curtailment (at the same time) of a shift, notice given less than a specified amount of time before the earlier of—
(i) when the shift would have started (if the shift had not been moved, or moved and curtailed), and
(ii) when the shift is due to start (having been moved, or moved and curtailed);
(c) in relation to the curtailment of a shift where there is a change to when the shift is to start (but there is no movement of the shift), notice given less than a specified amount of time before the earlier of—
(i) when the shift would have started (if there had not been the change), and
(ii) when the shift is due to start (the change having been made);
(d) in relation to the curtailment of a shift where there is no change to when the shift is to start, notice given—”.
This amendment has the effect of clarifying what “short notice” means for the purposes of proposed Chapter 4 of Part 2A of the Employment Rights Act 1996 in cases where a shift is both moved and curtailed and makes associated drafting changes to the definition of “short notice”.
It is a pleasure, Mr Mundell, to see you in the Chair this morning. I start by referring to my entry in the register of interests and my membership of the GMB and Unite trade unions.
Government amendment 30, alongside Government amendments 31 and 32, will ensure that employers are clear about their responsibilities where a shift is both moved and curtailed at the same time. Under the Bill as introduced, it may not have been clear to employers or workers when the short notice period in these cases would run until. Under current drafting, the calculation of the short notice period for a moved and curtailed shift could be done based on the rules for either a moved shift or a curtailed shift. This could produce two different outcomes.
For example, if a shift were due to be worked from 2 o’clock until 6 o’clock, and it is moved and curtailed so that it must be worked from 4 o’clock to 7 o’clock, it is not clear whether the notice ends at 2 o’clock or 4 o’clock. The amendment clarifies that in cases where a shift is both moved and curtailed at the same time, the short notice will be the same as if the shift had been moved only. It will therefore run until the earlier of when the shift would have started before the change or when the shift is now due to start.
In terms of what payment a worker will be entitled to when their shift is both moved and curtailed at the same time, we are committed to consulting on what that amount should be and will, of course, specify that in the regulations. The maximum amount, however, cannot be higher than what the worker would have received from working hours that were changed, as is the case for shifts that are cancelled, just moved, or just curtailed.
We believe that compensation in these circumstances is only fair, given that the movement of a shift at short notice disadvantages a worker. It impacts their ability to plan their lives and can cause financial disadvantage such as excessive childcare costs. Our measures will ensure that workers do not bear all the financial risk of shift allocation and cancellation, and will compel employers to give reasonable notice. Through good leadership and planning, an employer is in a position to reduce the instances of short-notice shift changes, which the worker is unable to influence.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation of Government amendment 30, but I gently suggest to him that starting by saying that he wished to be clear, and then going on to say that the Government will be consulting on it, possibly does not give businesses the clarity that they are seeking from this clause of the Bill. I would be grateful, when the Minister sums up the debate on Government amendment 30, if he could actually clarify what he believes, in plain English, to be reasonable notice, and, while not necessarily when future regulations will be laid, the window in which they will be consulted on.
I posed a similar question about an amendment in our sitting on Tuesday. I cannot imagine that the Government will want to simply put out a blank piece of paper consultation—there will be a floor and a ceiling that is consulted on. It would be helpful for all Members, but more importantly real businesses out there in the country, to understand that as soon as possible, so that they can most fully share their thoughts formally when the consultation launches. Can the Minister give the Committee any clue about what employers will need to comply with, or was Allen Simpson, CEO of UKHospitality, right when he said that he understood that
“the Government are intending to leave it to case law and employment tribunal systems to figure out what ‘reasonable notice’ means”?––[Official Report, Employment Rights Public Bill Committee, 26 November 2024; c. 43, Q39.]
We will shortly come on to debate Government amendment 31, which is relevant to this discussion.
Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)
Will the hon. Member give way?
Greg Smith
I will just finish this point. As the hon. Gentleman knows, I am not shy of taking interventions.
Government amendment 31 will cap the compensation an employee can receive if the employer does not give reasonable notice of cancellation or curtailment of a shift to the remuneration they would have gained if they had worked those hours.
Laurence Turner
I draw attention to my declaration in the register of members’ interests and my membership of the Unite and GMB trade unions.
We will of course see the consultation on the definition of reasonable notice in due course. Does the hon. Member accept that the meaning of reasonableness will be dependent on the circumstances of each case? What is reasonable in the case of, say, an early years setting might be quite different to that for an offshore oil rig.
Greg Smith
The hon. Gentleman makes a perfectly sensible point. We will come on to that issue shortly. The central point that I ask the Government to reflect on, before any consultation—post-legislation or during the passage of legislation—goes live, is that it is reasonable that those who are expected to put in meaningful and thoughtful contributions to that consultation on how the measures will affect them, will be applied in the real world and will need to be complied with, have as much notice as possible, so that they can put their thinking caps on and, if necessary, bring in professional advice where that is practicable or affordable.
In that way, when the Minister ultimately has the opportunity to read through every single consultation response with, I am sure, great attention to detail, before coming to a recommendation and drafting the necessary statutory instrument to bring about the exact regulations, the detail will be there. This should not be a rush job, but something to which the people out there in our country who actually run businesses, risk their capital and fundamentally create jobs and employ people are able to give as much thought as possible, so that the Government can come to a proper conclusion.
While I am glad that remuneration will be capped, I am still worried that the provisions in the Bill are not necessarily as proportionate as they could be for businesses. Sometimes an employer will have to cancel or curtail shifts through no fault of their own. We went through that issue at length on Tuesday, on a different point. I will not repeat the arguments now, other than to remind the Committee of force majeure. Events outside any employer’s control can happen; that is a reality of life.
It seems unfair in those instances that employers should have to bear the costs of not being able to complete the work on time, as well as having to remunerate employees for hours not worked. I stress, as I said on Tuesday, that that will be a minority of cases. It will be the exception, not the norm, but it is vital, when looking at this amendment and clause that there is an acceptance that those rare cases can and unfortunately will happen in the real world.
Alex McIntyre (Gloucester) (Lab)
I refer the Committee to my membership of the GMB and Community unions. We had a lot of back and forth on this point on Tuesday. I want to clarify what the shadow Minister said on Tuesday. In the extreme circumstances where employers are not able to continue with their work, the shadow Minister made the point that it was not fair on the employer to bear the cost. He also said that it was not necessarily fair for the employee to bear the cost, and that the cost should be shared. If the cost is not being borne by the employer, who does the shadow Minister expect to share that cost, other than it being placed solely on the employee?
Greg Smith
I do not want to repeat the whole debate that we had the other day as we might not hit the clause that the hon. Gentleman’s colleagues are trying to get to today. I fully accept his point that the situation is not fair on the employee, but equally it is not fair on the employer, given that those circumstances, events or eventualities are quite literally outside anybody’s control.
I urge the hon. Gentleman and his Front-Bench colleagues to reflect on how to put in place a better and more proportionate system to share the burden. I accept that nobody wants or plans for those eventualities. I refuse to believe that any employer ever wants to have to turn somebody away at the door as they turn up for work. They actually want to make those products, provide those services, ensure people have a good night out or whatever it might be. That is the core of their business. That is how they make money. That is how they grow and create more jobs in the first place. I refuse to believe that any business wants to turn someone away and say, “Sorry, that shift isn’t available,” or, “Only half that shift is available today.”
Uma Kumaran (Stratford and Bow) (Lab)
I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my membership of the GMB trade union.
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. The Association of Convenience Stores tells us:
“90% of colleagues in the convenience sector report that they have never had a shift cancelled with less than 48 hours’ notice, reflecting a strong track record of responsible scheduling. Furthermore, 86% of retailers state that they always offer alternative hours to employees if a shift is cancelled or reduced, demonstrating the sector’s commitment to fair treatment and employee support.”
It says that it
“can be confident that this will support existing provision by employers across the sector”,
and it welcomes amendment 30, which it says
“provides clarity in relation to short notice for when the shift is both moved and curtailed.”
It tell us that there is a counter-argument that the proposals may present challenges to convenience retailers and other small businesses, but that it has spoken to businesses and that
“these businesses tell us that they are already doing what the Bill makes provisions for.”
We are mindful of the impact on businesses, but there are a lot of businesses out there that are already doing what is proposed, and we have received representations from them welcoming the measures.
Greg Smith
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that intervention, because she underlines the fundamental point that I am making: most businesses do not want to turn people away. Convenience stores are a great example of that, and are actually some of the most flexible employers out there. My constituency, which is spread across 336 square miles of rural Buckinghamshire, has a lot of small convenience stores, and they are exemplary employers. I cannot think of a problem I have ever encountered with any of them.
I come back to my central argument, which is that sometimes things happen. Nobody has planned for it, nobody wants it, and nobody is in any way happy in that situation, but sometimes these things happen. I fully accept the hon. Lady’s point that the vast majority of employers in this country are good employers. We should celebrate them, and not try to see them through the lens of some sort of Victorian novel. That is not what employers are in this country. They are responsible and want to look out for their workforce.
We had a debate the other day about the symbiotic relationship between the worker and the business owner, which are two sides of the same coin: no successful business could have one without the other. I am not saying that there are not rogue traders out there who seek to exploit their workforce—there are, and there must be proportionate, proper and robust measures in place to combat poor behaviour—but that does not undermine the central point that there must be flexibility that accounts for the realities of the real world.
Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)
I am hearing this argument repeated again and again, but I am struggling. I need an example. Employers insure themselves against floods, fire and everything else. We talked on Tuesday about an empty restaurant giving notice if it was empty. So I am trying to find out what is the exceptional circumstance that the hon. Member is concerned about that he can see in real-life circumstances where the employee would have to lose out rather than the business.
Greg Smith
I can think of businesses in recent times in my own constituency that are particularly affected by shipping delays, some as a result of the covid pandemic, which I accept was an exceptional period in our history, where we saw shipping delays of parts that businesses were waiting for to put their products together. Buckinghamshire has a proud manufacturing base as well as other business sectors. Businesses simply did not have the bits, the parts, to be able to put their products together. I accept that some of those businesses are quite well established brands that will carry insurance and reserves or contingency funds for such eventualities, but some of them do not.
On Tuesday we talked about furniture manufacturers. Again, we are all creatures of our own experience. In my own constituency there are some very big furniture manufacturers such as Ercol and Hypnos and they face some great challenges. But I am also in regular contact with one, two or three-employee cabinet makers and kitchen fitters and other skilled trades businesses who would not be able to cope if they did not have the delivery to fulfil a particular order that has been placed. They are hard-working but very small businesses that might be working on one project at a time. They have to take one order on; if they cannot fulfil that, there is not the resilience to automatically just move on to the next.
Chris Law
I will just probe a little further. All those points are valid, but they are the responsibility of the business, not the employee—most notably because they have no shares in the business and will not benefit from any profit. Why should they have only the rough end where they end up without income? A company might have five shareholders in a small company. A cabinet-making firm is a good example—I have one in my constituency in Dundee where they all have a stake in it and can equally share the risks and the rewards. The problem with what the hon. Member is suggesting is that the employees are burdened with the risks without any of the rewards. I cannot see where there is a benefit at all. That in many respects insulates the employer and puts all the burden on the employee.
Greg Smith
I do accept the point that the hon. Gentleman is making. It is helpful to have this debate to tease out the core issues. The point I would put back to him is that those small microbusinesses faced with that eventuality almost certainly will not have the reserves or contingencies in place to be able to weather such a storm. A catastrophic event that delays perhaps their biggest order of the year by six months, a year or longer—some of the shipping delays in recent years have been undoubtedly severe—means they might go bust. If they go bust, there are no jobs at all. Although I am in no way, shape or form advocating a position where an unfairness is felt by employees, there can in the real world sometimes be an eventuality where it is undesirable—I will concede unfair—but a reality.
Greg Smith
I will finish this point and then give way —the hon. Lady knows that I am up for the debate.
There could be a pretty stark choice: go bust and no jobs, or some short-term undesirable pain that requires flexibility in order to get the business back on track to secure jobs. The last thing I want to see in this economy is businesses being forced to the wall and ending up shedding jobs, and overall employment numbers in this country going down. I want to see the economy growing. I want to see the number of jobs being created growing every single day. That is how we get ourselves to greater prosperity for everybody. I really worry that if flexibilities are taken away, it could go the other way.
Alison Hume
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my membership of Unison and of the Writers’ Guild of Great Britain.
The hon. Member talks about shipping companies and furniture companies, and I would like to talk about my constituency of Scarborough and Whitby. As of last year, 4,500 people there—11% of the workforce—were employed in retail, and 8,000—20% of the workforce—in hospitality. Those sectors employ a lot of women, and those women—I was one myself—rely on childcare, which is extremely expensive. Does he accept that when shifts are cut short or curtailed at short notice, those women still have to pay for their childcare and are therefore taking on board an expense? It is not force majeure for them; it is a day-to-day struggle to pay the childcare bills.
Greg Smith
I can assure the hon. Lady that I am intimately aware of the cost of childcare. It is something that challenges families—men and women, mums and dads, carers, grandparents and all sorts of people—on a daily basis. It is a very expensive reality of life. I do not want to get off topic, but the previous Government did a lot to increase the free childcare offer, and I fully acknowledge that the current Government are carrying through with that. We need more measures like that to ensure that people have the childcare arrangements in place to enable them to go to work.
I fully accept the hon. Lady’s argument: there is a cost to going to work. There is a cost of travel, as we all know as Members of Parliament travelling in from and getting around our constituencies. There are the costs of getting to work, of childcare or, perhaps, if someone is caring for a relative or someone else, of ensuring that alternative provision is there while they are at work. I fully accept that point and in no way wish to advocate for people to be left in that place. I do not want that for anybody in this country. But as I said to the hon. Member for Dundee Central, there are sometimes circumstances—very few, exceptional circumstances—where it could be a stark choice for the business and jobs could end up being lost altogether if there is not a little bit of flexibility. We are dancing on the head of a pin here, and it is about exceptional cases, but I do not want to see exceptional cases suddenly reducing the overall employment numbers in this country.
Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
In response to the hon. Member for Dundee Central, the shadow Minister struggled to come up with a concrete example of a business that might be in the situation he is describing, with very small margins and staff costs not meeting the demand. I can think of two examples from my experience before coming here and from my constituency. One is car washes, where we frequently see very low-paid employees being recruited on demand and very small margins. Another is nail bars, which we see on high streets across the country, where fluctuating demand requires small amounts of work to be done, so people are employed on very short contracts with hours cancelled at very short notice.
The shadow Minister will also have noticed last week that the net migration figures for the last year of the Conservative Government reached almost 1 million. The point I am making is that we need to think about not just the impact on individual workers and businesses, but the bigger, broader impact on society as a whole. The problem we have seen with small businesses such as car washes and nail bars is that there is a high supply of labour, generally from exploited migrant workers. It is not a coincidence that the two industries I have just described are also where we see the highest incidence of modern slavery. That is because workers in those industries have very few rights, so they can be treated as almost expendable by their employers, and have their hours cancelled at very short notice, and they have absolutely no recourse. So, it is not a coincidence that it is the most exploited workers, or the most vulnerable workers, who have ended up taking such jobs.
On high streets across the country we have seen the growth of multiple small car washes and small nail bars. The industries are not struggling, but the employers are deliberately working on incredibly small margins. The point is that the dynamic between employer and employee is unbalanced, which is what the Bill seeks to correct.
The Chair
We just have get the balance correct between a speech and an intervention, if we can.
Greg Smith
The hon. Gentleman makes a fundamentally good point about issues such as modern slavery. Actually, it was a former Conservative Prime Minister—I accept that we had a few in the last Government—my noble Friend Baroness May of Maidenhead, who did an enormous amount to tackle modern slavery in this country. Is it a case of job done? No, clearly not. However, we have made enormous strides and I encourage this Government to do all they can to continue the fight against modern slavery, which is a particularly evil crime that needs to be stamped out for good.
The hon. Gentleman asked for concrete examples. I felt that I gave one, with the example of the two-employee furniture maker. However, I will give another example of where force majeure may come in. Let us take the example of a small business. In fact, let us take a bathroom fitter, where there is perhaps one business owner who has, say, two employees who support him or her in fitting those bathrooms. They take on a big job in a hotel to refit all the bathrooms. Let us say that it is a 25-room hotel; I can think of a couple of those in Buckinghamshire. However, that hotel goes bust. It is not the fault of the company whose owner thought they had just taken on a really lucrative contract to refit 25 bathrooms. Clearly, it is the fault of the hotel that, sadly and for whatever reason, has ceased to trade, or perhaps it has been taken over as an asylum hotel. Obviously, that order to refit the bathrooms would have fallen.
What does that business do? It cannot suddenly magic up 25 bathrooms to fit in the space of a month, or a quarterly period, or whatever period it might be. However, it has probably already had to fork out for the parts, bathtubs, showers, toilet cisterns and everything else that goes into a bathroom. I gently suggest to the hon. Gentleman that that is a concrete example of where it is a lose-lose situation for the business owner and their employees, until they can get themselves back on track.
Nobody wants to see that type of thing happen, but it does happen. It is a reality of trading, not only in this country but worldwide, that sometimes bad things happen. So, there has to be flexibility around such events. That is notwithstanding the good points that the hon. Gentleman made about modern slavery and businesses exploiting those who perhaps are less able than other workers to stand up for themselves in workplaces in this country. However, I accept the broad sweep of the points the hon. Gentleman made in that regard.
I am conscious of how long I have been speaking about this amendment, but I am always up for a good debate. I will conclude by returning to the evidence that—
Greg Smith
I am tempted not to give way to the hon. Gentleman, since he seemed less than keen to take my interventions in the farming debate yesterday, but I will grant him an intervention today.
Jon Pearce
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mr Mundell. I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and to my membership of the GMB. I apologise to the shadow Minister for not taking his interventions yesterday. I did take two, if that assists.
I wanted to build on the point that the shadow Minister was making. I actually agreed with some of the examples he gave, in that there are emergency situations where things do not work out for a business. I am interested in whether the shadow Minister would apply the same principle when the employee has an emergency, which builds on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby. For example, an emergency for the employee might be childcare, the illness of a family member, or the death of a family member—actually that may not be relevant because that would be a different type of leave. In those emergency situations, there is a right to dependant leave, but that dependant leave is unpaid. Would the shadow Minister accept the principle in those circumstances that the employer should equally bear the cost and pay the employee?
Greg Smith
I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman makes, and I fundamentally agree with his point about bereavement leave and dependant leave. As we heard in the evidence sessions, I have an enormous amount of sympathy for extending certain elements of bereavement leave, including to pregnancy loss before 24 weeks, which we will come on to later in the Bill. Those circumstances are arguably more about humanity than some of the practical realities of market failure, supply chain failure or whatever it might be. I think they should be kept in very distinct columns. One is a human response to tragedy and the facts of life with dependants, or people to whom individuals might have a caring responsibility, as opposed to the need for flexibilities to exist, such as with the example of the lost contract or supply chain problems. I accept that this is a slightly different point to being told, “No bookings today” in a hospitality setting, or whatever it might be. I accept the point made by the hon. Member for High Peak, but I see it as a distinct column as opposed to something that is all in the same category.
Jon Pearce
The principle is, though, that with dependant leave in those emergencies, whether that is childcare or anything else, there is no right to pay; that is the point I am trying to make. The shadow Minister is saying that if there is an emergency for the business they should bear no cost of it. If there is an emergency for the employee, that employee will, under the statutory provisions on dependant leave, bear the cost of it. In both scenarios, the shadow Minister appears to be asking the employee to bear the cost. Is that correct?
Greg Smith
I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman makes. Actually, at no point have I said there should be no cost to the employer; I have said there needs to be flexibility, as opposed to a hard and fast rule. On Tuesday I had an exchange with the hon. Member for Birmingham Northfield on the point around, “Okay, what else?” While I put that problem list back in the column for the Government to address, there are other safeguards; there are other things that the Government could look at so that the burden is more shared, as opposed to zero cost to the business. The key word here, which I have probably said 100 times this morning, is “flexibility”, as opposed to hard and fast rules.
I will get back to my conclusion. Allen Simpson from UKHospitality made some sensible points when giving evidence to the Committee last week, so I pose his questions to the Minister. I should be grateful for a response on each, as I imagine employers throughout the country would be. Could a different approach be taken to what constitutes “reasonable notice” for different employers in different sectors? That goes back to the point made by the Opposition earlier. Will shift swapping still be allowed, and if so, how will the regulations account for it? If shift swapping will not be allowed, why not? What will be considered “reasonable notice” within shift-swapping provisions? If an employee wants to change their shift at the last minute, are they allowed to do so, and in what circumstances? What would happen if an employer were to put out a message saying, “There is a shift available right now. Does anyone want it?” Does that constitute an offer of employment? Will there be a time after which employers will not be able to do that, because it does not constitute reasonable notice? Those were very sensible, thoughtful questions from UKHospitality, and as this legislation progresses through Committee it is only right that the Government and the Minister give a clear and full answer to them.
Justin Madders
Well done to the shadow Minister—he must have had his Weetabix this morning. He has clearly put in a great deal of time and we appreciate the way that he has engaged with the debate and some of the issues. He is taking a much broader look at the principles behind the legislation, rather than a quite narrow technical amendment about when shifts are moved or curtailed, but I am happy to address his points as far as I can.
I understand that the shadow Minister accepts the principle that we are trying to create some additional fairness in the workplace. That is welcome to hear, and I can assure him that this will not be a rush job. We do not anticipate these measures being implemented until 2026, and he will not be surprised to hear that the reason is that we intend to engage deeply with business and workers’ representatives on the details. There will be a consultation, following which we will set out in regulations what periods of notice should be presumed unreasonable; we will also set out factors for tribunals to take into account when considering whether notices are reasonable. That will go a long way towards addressing some of the concerns he mentions from Allen Simpson of UKHospitality. I think it is fair to say he generally welcomed the approach, but clearly some of the detail is to be worked on.
I do not think there will be any prohibition on workers swapping shifts, but if the employer, having been notified that worker B has taken the shift instead of worker A, then cancels the shift at short notice, we would intend that the regulations would then be engaged.
Greg Smith
So that we are absolutely clear on the shift-swapping provision—[Interruption.] I correct the Minister on the Weetabix; it was the Tea Room black pudding.
If worker A and worker B consensually decide that they wish to switch, worker B being the one who will take the shift and worker A the one whose shift is now displaced either to another time or not at all, and worker A being quite happy with that, will the employer be penalised?
Justin Madders
I am grateful for the details of the shadow Minister’s dietary exploits today.
We are looking in quite close detail at that situation, because there are a number of knock-on consequences, but we do not envisage that, in a situation where two workers agree of their own volition to swap shifts, the employer should in any way be penalised. We do not think that is in the spirit of what we are trying to achieve here.
I return to the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh made about particular workplaces. The Director of Labour Market Enforcement has undertaken quite a lot of work in respect of those issues; considerable evidence is emerging about concerns in those sectors, and I encourage him to undertake some further reading on that.
There will be further consultation on what reasonable means. We all understand that there could be different factors applying, but what we want at the end of this process is for businesses to be clear about their obligations. That could mean a particular time period, but it could be different depending on the industry or the circumstances. It is right for us to take our time to consult and engage on that.
The shadow Minister referred to the force majeure issue; there is a power in the Bill for us to provide for exemptions for short-notice shift cancellation—that is always a tricky phrase to get out—but in some of the examples he gave where a huge contract was lost, a notice cancellation payment was probably the least of the employee’s and the employer’s problems in that situation; there may be bigger questions about whether there is enough work at all. Those are the kinds of things we will be looking at, as the power in the Bill gives us that opportunity.
Amendment 30 agreed to.
Justin Madders
I beg to move amendment 31, in clause 3, page 19, leave out lines 5 to 18 and insert—
“(a) where the shift is cancelled, the amount of remuneration to which the worker would have been entitled had they worked the hours that will not be worked because of the cancellation;
(b) where the shift is moved, or moved and curtailed (at the same time), and no part of the shift as moved, or as moved and curtailed, corresponds to the time of the shift (“the original shift”) before it was moved, or moved and curtailed, the amount of remuneration to which the worker would have been entitled had they worked the original shift;
(c) where the shift is moved, or moved and curtailed (at the same time), and part of the shift as moved, or as moved and curtailed, corresponds to the time of the original shift (but part does not), the amount of remuneration to which the worker would have been entitled had they worked the part of the original shift that does not correspond to the shift as moved, or as moved and curtailed;
(d) where the shift is—
(i) curtailed but not moved, or
(ii) moved and curtailed (at the same time) and the shift as moved and curtailed is to start and end within the time of the original shift,
the amount of remuneration to which the worker would have been entitled had they worked the hours that will not be worked because of the curtailment, or the movement and curtailment.”
This amendment has the effect of clarifying the maximum amount of a payment that can be specified in regulations under proposed section 27BO(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 in cases where there is a combined short notice movement and curtailment of a shift and makes associated drafting changes to the amended provision.
Justin Madders
These amendments should be considered alongside amendment 30, because they clarify what happens when a shift is both moved and curtailed at the same time. The Bill provides a power to specify the amount that must be paid by employers when they cancel, curtail or move shifts at short notice. It cannot be used to specify a payment amount in excess of what the worker would have earned from working the original hours.
However, the Bill was not clear whether the maximum payment due when a shift is both moved and curtailed at the same time should be calculated based on the provisions on movements or on curtailments, which would create different effects. For example, if a worker’s shift was due to be worked from 2 o’clock to 6 o’clock, but is moved and curtailed to 4 o’clock to 7 o’clock, the maximum payment could be based either on one or two hours of work, as the shift was moved by two hours but was curtailed by one hour.
Amendment 31 clarifies what happens in such cases. The maximum payment in this scenario would be what they would have earned from two hours’ work, reflecting the maximum they would have earned had they worked their original four-hour shift. That will ensure that workers are compensated appropriately, and it will also provide clarity for employers.
Amendment 32 clarifies for workers and employers how to calculate what amount of contractual payment can be offset against payments under clause 3 in cases where there is a combined short notice movement and curtailment of a shift. Again, the Bill is unclear whether the calculation should be based on the provisions on movements or on curtailments, which would create different effects. For example, if a worker’s shift was due to be worked from 2 o’clock to 6 o’clock, but is moved and curtailed to 4 o’clock to 7 o’clock, then after deducting the two hours in the shift that have stayed the same—4 o’clock to 6 o’clock—the remaining hours to be offset could be based on either one or two hours’ work.
The amendment clarifies that the hours to be offset should be for two hours’ work, as the worker should be entitled to the payment under proposed new section 27BO of the Employment Rights Act 1996 for two hours. That will ensure that it is clear that an employer is not doubly liable for some hours in such scenarios.
Although I appreciate that the amendments may appear complex, they will have the overall effect of simplifying the policy for employers and workers, so that it is very clear what happens when a shift is both curtailed and moved at the same time. They therefore prevent us from ending up with a whole load of litigation to decide what the correct outcome will be.
I reassure the shadow Minister that the changes will not be rushed: they will not be implemented before 2026, which will give us time to consult further and provide some more information on how the measures will work in practice so that employers understand what is expected of them. We will provide clear guidance throughout.
Many employers already guarantee hours, give reasonable notice of shifts, and make payments when they cancel shifts at short notice, so they will not need to alter their behaviour at all. In fact, data from the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development suggests that around 33% of employers already pay some form of compensation for shifts cancelled with less than 24 hours’ notice.
Greg Smith
I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation of amendments 31 and 32. As he said, these amendments clarify the maximum amount of payment and the hours to which a payment relates in cases where there is a cancellation, movement or curtailment at short notice of a qualifying shift that the worker has agreed to work for the employer. Amendment 31 establishes that the payment should be for the hours that would have been worked.
The amendments make sense given the policy direction of the Bill but, once again, I gently suggest—as I will probably do multiple times during our discussions—that it is unclear why these provisions could not have been included in the Bill on its introduction. They seem like a fundamental part of the Bill. I would be grateful if the Minister could explain why it took so long to come to the conclusion that this was the way forward.
Justin Madders
I will address that point, which I am sure we will hear on numerous occasions from the shadow Minister. He will be aware that it was a manifesto commitment to introduce the Bill within 100 days, which we are very pleased to have been able to adhere to, but that meant that not every element of policy was ready. As we have continued to consult, engage and develop our thoughts in this area, it has become apparent that it is possible to add to the Bill at this stage, to close some loopholes and provide some clarity. That is why the amendment was tabled.
Amendment 31 agreed to.
Amendments made: 32, in clause 3, page 21, leave out lines 3 to 13 and insert—
“(a) where a shift has been cancelled, the hours that would have been worked if the shift had not been cancelled;
(b) where a shift has been moved, or moved and curtailed (at the same time), and no part of the shift as moved, or as moved and curtailed, corresponds to the time of the shift (“the original shift”) before it was moved, or moved and curtailed, the hours that would have been worked during the original shift;
(c) where a shift has been moved, or moved and curtailed (at the same time), and part of the shift as moved, or as moved and curtailed, corresponds to the time of the original shift (but part does not), the hours that would have been worked during the part of the original shift that does not correspond to the shift as moved, or as moved and curtailed;
(d) where a shift has been—
(i) curtailed but not moved, or
(ii) moved and curtailed (at the same time) and the shift as moved and curtailed is to start and end within the time of the original shift,
the hours that would have been worked if the shift had not been curtailed, or moved and curtailed.”
This amendment has the effect of clarifying the hours to which a payment under proposed section 27BO(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 relates in cases where there is a combined short notice movement and curtailment of a shift and makes associated drafting changes to the amended provision.
Amendment 33, in clause 3, page 21, line 26, leave out “three” and insert “six”.
This amendment would increase the time limit for bringing proceedings under the new section 27BS(1)(a) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 from three months to six months.
Amendment 34, in clause 3, page 21, line 31, leave out “three” and insert “six”.
This amendment would increase the time limit for bringing proceedings under the new section 27BS(1)(b) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 from three months to six months.
Amendment 35, in clause 3, page 21, line 36, leave out “three” and insert “six”.
This amendment would increase the time limit for bringing proceedings under the new section 27BS(1)(c) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 from three months to six months.
Amendment 36, in clause 3, page 21, line 40, leave out “three” and insert “six”.—(Justin Madders.)
This amendment is consequential on amendments 33, 34 and 35.
Justin Madders
I beg to move amendment 37, in clause 3, page 22, line 11, after “must” insert “—
(a) make a declaration to that effect, and.
(b) ”.
This amendment and amendment 38 require an employment tribunal that finds a complaint under proposed section 27BS of the Employment Rights Act 1996 well-founded to make a declaration to that effect.
Justin Madders
Proposed new section 27BT of the 1996 Act makes provision for a payment to be made to the worker where an employment tribunal finds that the worker’s employer failed to make a payment for a qualifying cancelled, moved or curtailed shift, or where an exception was relied upon but notice of that either was not given or was inadequate or untrue.
Amendment 37 will require the employment tribunal to additionally make a declaration in cases where the employer failed to make a payment for a qualifying shift, confirming that the worker’s rights have been violated. The declaration will be accessible not only to the directly affected worker but to others, including those working for the same employer. That will ensure that it is clear to other workers where and how such payments should apply if they have a shift cancelled, moved or curtailed in a similar way.
Amendment 38 will require the employment tribunal to additionally make a declaration where an exception applied and a notice was not given or where the notice was inadequate or untrue, confirming that the worker’s rights have been violated. Again, that will ensure that workers always receive a remedy in such cases, even where the tribunal decides that an award of compensation is not justified in the circumstances. That should ensure that it is clear to other workers where exceptions do and do not apply if they have a shift cancelled, curtailed or moved in similar circumstances.
Mandatory declarations of that nature are a common remedy across employment law. The amendments are in line with other similar provisions that concern complaints to the employment tribunal. Proposed new section 27BT also makes provision for the tribunal to order an employer to pay a worker where an employment tribunal finds that the worker’s employer failed to make a payment for a qualifying cancelled, moved or curtailed shift, or where an exception was relied upon but notice of that was either not given or was inadequate or untrue.
Amendments 39 and 41 will allow an employment tribunal discretion to award an appropriate level of compensation in cases where an exception applied but the employer either failed to give notice or gave an inadequate or untrue notice. That will remove the need for a tribunal to take an all-or-nothing approach by awarding the full, maximum amount or nothing. The amendments will instruct an employment tribunal to consider the seriousness of the matter when determining what payment to award the worker, which might include, for example, considering whether the employer had acted in bad faith.
That is a more appropriate approach than under the previous drafting, and there may be cases where the maximum award is not reasonable. For example, if a worker has a shift curtailed by an hour and their employer relied on an exception but did not give notice of that, it would not be logical for their award to be greater than the amount that would have been owed for the curtailment of a single hour. The award itself is discretionary and it is appropriate that the payment amount should equally be discretionary up to a specified amount, which will allow employment tribunals to make awards that are just and equitable to all parties.
On amendment 40, proposed new section 27BT makes provision for a payment to be made to the worker where an employment tribunal finds that the worker’s employer failed to make a payment for a qualifying cancelled, moved or curtailed shift, or where an exception was relied upon but notice of that was either not given or was inadequate or untrue.
The amendment is minor and technical, correcting drafting so that the provisions do not make reference to a scenario that could never arise. An employer cannot be found both to have unreasonably failed to give a worker notice of an applicable exception in relation to a payment, yet also to have been liable to make that payment and have failed to do so: either no exception applies and payment is due, or an exception applies and a notice should be given as no payment is due. The amendment removes the potential confusion caused by the drafting as introduced. I apologise for that, but as the Committee will appreciate that we have been working to a very swift timetable. We hope that brings some clarity to the situation.
Greg Smith
The word “clarity” is doing quite a lot of heavy lifting there, so I will probe it a bit. Amendments 37 and 38 concern provisions in the Bill about how employees may make a claim to an employment tribunal where they have not been paid or received reasonable notice of shifts, or the employer had purported to give notice in compliance with the rules on right to reasonable notice, but in a way that was inadequate.
The amendments specify that if an employment tribunal finds claims to be well founded, it must make a statement to that effect. Why were these amendments, along with those increasing the time limit from three to six months, not included in the Bill when introduced? Those provisions do not seem like a loophole being closed or a minor technical drafting error; they seem fundamental to what the Government are trying to do here, so that was one of the bigger surprises. Why were they not locked into the Bill from day one?
I understand the point about political priorities and commitments to publish something in 100 days, because sometimes these things take a lot longer than 100 days to get right. Whether one agrees with the principle and practicality of the provisions or not, it is tough on those in the civil service and those who are drafting the Bill to be able to deliver something of this complexity in 100 days, but these seem to be fundamental provisions. I would also be grateful for clarity from the Minister about how much the Government estimate that the provisions in these amendments, as well as in the wider Bill, will increase employment tribunal claims.
On amendments 39 to 41, if an employee brings a claim to an employment tribunal for their employer breaching the duties imposed by the Bill, amendment 39 provides that the court can award compensation up to a cap to be set in regulations. We are back to our old friend: we do not know what those regulations are going to be. I have a set of what I hope will be straightforward questions for the Minister. What is the cap planned to be? I am sure that it will be open to consultation, but again, the Government must have a window in mind. That is a reasonable question that businesses up and down the land will be interested to know the answer to, so that they can start preparing their viewpoints and evidence base to present to the Minister for any future regulations.
In our oral evidence sessions, we heard witnesses ask several questions about how the provisions on the right to reasonable notice of cancelled, curtailed or moved shifts will work in practice, because there is precious little detail in the Bill. Can we now have that detail? Will the Minister provide a timeline by which the Government intend to provide some information not just to this House, but to businesses up and down the country, about how the measure will work?
When will we be able to see the draft regulations? It would be helpful if we could see them during the passage of the Bill, be it prior to Report, which would be the best case, or before it goes to the other place for consideration, so that the House of Lords can fully explore them, which would be better than nothing. Can the Minister explain why the clauses on award of cost are proportionate to the benefit that they may bring to employers?
The Chair
Government amendment 37—sorry, Minister, I should allow you the opportunity to respond.
Justin Madders
I am sure that the shadow Minister and the whole Committee are delighted that I have the opportunity to respond.
The shadow Minister asked some perfectly reasonable questions. On the first issue, it is a well-established principle that employment tribunals have the right to make declarations in a whole range of claims. Again, I can only refer him to my previous answers with regard to why that was not in the original Bill—we were up against a tight timetable. It is also worth bearing in mind that the Bill will not become law until it has passed through this House and received Royal Assent, so when it finally appears before the public, all those issues will be ironed out. I give him the same answer about regulations, because—as we are doing as we go along—the Bill can be amended here, on Report and in the other place.
It may be that the final Bill does not entirely reflect what we have before us, so it would be premature to draw up regulations at this stage. However, part of our ongoing dialogue with businesses, workers’ representatives and trade unions is about what regulations we will look at.
Greg Smith
I understand the Minister’s point, but this is a Government Bill; I accept that it is derived from their manifesto and from their political priority. Notwithstanding the Minister’s perfectly correct point that the Bill can be amended before it receives Royal Assent, does he at least accept the point that as this is a Government Bill, they should at least give a starting point on any consultation or proposal that people could then work around, as a test of reasonability for business owners and the wider public? People around the country, as well as Members of this House, could then let their views be known as they seek to challenge and amend the Bill.
Justin Madders
We are taking this approach because we want to be reasonable and engage with businesses and trade unions on what the shape looks like. That is why the full consultation, which will look at the broad range of issues, is not yet ready. It is not really in the spirit of that for us to nail down everything in the Bill. Most employment rights have their detail in secondary legislation.
There are some clear principles about the levels of compensation that we will set out. Clearly, a worker should not be compensated for more than the number of hours that he or she has lost. If other heads of loss occur, there are already principles about wages, for example, whereby ongoing losses have to be compensated for. That is the kind of thing where the detail ought to be put into secondary legislation and consulted on fully, which is what we intend to do.
Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)
The one thing that businesses do not like is uncertainty. Unfortunately, there are so many gaps that need filling in the Bill that it makes it very difficult for businesses to plan for the future—for example, about how many people they will employ, what risks they will take on, and how to budget. Does the Minister accept that the Bill is so full of gaps that it causes more uncertainty for businesses and makes it harder for them to plan?
Justin Madders
The hon. Member is trying to have it both ways. If we had set out too much detail in the Bill, he would no doubt have criticised us for not engaging and consulting, and for being too dogmatic in our approach. That is why we have taken the approach that we have. We want to engage, consult and get the detail absolutely right, because we are clear that the Bill will be effective only if it has buy-in from all concerned. That is why the detail will follow.
Amendment 37 agreed to.
Amendments made: 38, in clause 3, page 22, line 15, after “tribunal” insert “—
(a) must make a declaration to that effect, and
(b) ”.
See the explanatory statement for amendment 37.
Amendment 39, in clause 3, page 22, line 16, leave out
“of a specified amount to the worker”
and insert
“to the worker of such amount, not exceeding the specified amount, as the tribunal considers just and equitable in all the circumstances”.
This amendment has the effect of providing an employment tribunal with discretion, up to an amount to be specified in regulations, as to the size of a monetary award in respect of a complaint under proposed section 27BS(1)(b) or (c) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (rather than there only being discretion as to whether a monetary award is made, but not the amount).
Amendment 40, in clause 3, page 22, leave out lines 18 to 20 and insert
“(2)(b) relating to a notice given in purported compliance with section 27BQ(2) if the tribunal makes an order under subsection (1)(b) relating to the same payment to which the notice related.”
This amendment has the effect of removing from proposed section 27BT(3) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 reference to a scenario that could not arise (because an employment tribunal could not make an order under both section 27BT(1) and (2) if no notice had been given).
Amendment 41, in clause 3, page 22, line 20, at end insert—
“(4) In determining—
(a) whether to make an order under subsection (2)(b), and
(b) if so, how much to order the employer to pay,
an employment tribunal must have regard, in particular, to the seriousness of the matter complained of.”—(Justin Madders.)
This amendment supplements amendment 39.
The Chair
I consider that the principles of the clause have been fully debated during discussion of the amendments, so if there is to be a clause stand part debate, it should be short.
Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
Justin Madders
Thank you, Mr Mundell. I am not sure whether that was directed at me, other members of the Committee, or maybe all of us.
Justin Madders
I am sure you always intend to be helpful, Mr Mundell.
I will briefly go through the provisions of clause 3. I appreciate that we have covered a lot of the issues already, but I think it is important to set out what the clause does in the round, because after discussions on quite a few amendments, we may not have followed exactly where we are.
It is obvious that predictability of income is a crucial part of a secure future. We need to address the scourge of insecurity at work. Equally, we understand that businesses want clarity about their obligations. The right to reasonable notice of shifts and of changes to them is important and will be enforceable at employment tribunals. While we regard the right to reasonable notice as appropriate, we also see a need for a rather speedier mechanism to provide some reimbursement to a worker when a shift is cancelled, moved or shortened at short notice. Of the 2.4 million people potentially eligible for these new rights, we estimate that around 600,000 have shifts cancelled at short notice. Clause 3 clearly sets out the obligations on both workers and employers, and I will go through the amendments that it will make to the Employment Rights Act 1996.
New section 27BO of the 1996 Act outlines the new duty that will be placed on employers to make a payment to workers if they cancel, move or curtail shifts at short notice. The duty will apply to workers on zero-hours contracts and arrangements, and workers on contracts to be specified in regulations. When workers have the timing of their usual shifts set out in their contract but are sometimes asked to work extra or longer shifts, the duty will also apply to the additional hours. The new section also provides the power to set what period constitutes short notice; what the payment amount should be; how quickly the payment should be made; when notice is treated as having been given; and the maximum delay of a shift, or bringing forward of a shift, for which payment is not due.
New section 27BP adds several supplementary details on the powers to make regulations provided in new section 27BO and therefore on the functioning of the right to payment. It restricts the period that can be set in regulations as “short notice” to no more than seven days, and it ensures that the payment due to a worker cannot be more than they would have been paid had they worked their original shift. It allows for regulations to vary the amount of the payment according to how short the notice of cancellation is. It also provides that the contracts in scope of the right to payment may be specified in regulations by setting an hours or pay cap.
New section 27BQ provides a delegated power to make exceptions to the right to payment, and states that where an exception applies, the employer must notify the worker of it and explain why it is considered to apply. The section enables regulations to specify how the notice of the applicable exception should be given and when it is deemed to be received.
New section 27BR ensures that a worker is not entitled to receive payment both under their contract and under new section 27BO in respect of the same hours. New section 27BS enables workers to complain to employment tribunals that their employer has failed to comply with the duties. New section 27BT establishes the remedies where a complaint to a tribunal is found to be well-founded.
I commend the clause to the Committee.
Greg Smith
Mindful of your comments, Mr Mundell, I will not speak at length to the clause, other than to underline the points that I and my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Leicestershire have made about certainty. I understand the political priorities of the Government, and I understand the principle of what they are trying to do. However, as my hon. Friend said, businesses need to be able to plan.
I accept that not all legislation can give detail on everything to the nth degree, but I think it is reasonable and proportionate for businesses small, medium and large in this country to expect to be given at least a hint of what is coming down the line. That way, they can begin the process of planning and putting their thoughts together, so that when the consultations come they can give as full and frank an account of their circumstances as they can, and describe what the proposals will mean for them and their employees, so that the Minister can come to a reasonable judgment before laying any regulations.
The Opposition are not opposed to the principle of the clause, but because of the holes in it, we cannot support it.
Question put, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
Justin Madders
I beg to move amendment 42, in clause 4, page 23, leave out lines 34 to 39.
This amendment is consequential on NC11.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss Government new clause 11—Orders and regulations under Employment Rights Act 1996: procedure.
Justin Madders
Amendment 42 is another technical amendment that concerns not the function of the Bill but parliamentary procedure, so if we want another dry, technical debate, we certainly have the opportunity.
Clause 4 makes provision for new section 27BW to be inserted into the Employment Rights Act 1996. New section 27BW(3) would allow regulations made under part 2A of the 1996 Act, relating to the provisions concerning zero hours, that are subject to different or no parliamentary procedure to be included in regulations subject to the affirmative procedure. New clause 11 amends section 236 of the 1996 Act and makes the same provision to allow the combining of instruments, but applies to any orders and regulations made under that Act, rather than to only those made using powers in part 2A. This is a technical amendment intended to ensure that implementation can be undertaken as efficiently as possible.
On what instruments might need to be combined, we will be setting out further details required to implement zero-hours provisions through secondary legislation, but existing powers in the 1996 Act, such as the power in section 10 regarding pay statements, may play a part in supporting implementation. It may be that it would be appropriate to exercise that power to prescribe that pay statements must specify where payment has been made under proposed new section 27BO for the short-notice cancellation, movement or curtailment of a shift. Should that be the case, this provision would allow that amendment to be made in the same regulations as others to be made under new powers being inserted by this Bill that are—I am sure that the shadow Minister will be pleased to hear this—subject to the affirmative procedure. That will mean that provisions to be detailed in regulations that would have been subject to the negative procedure, or no procedure, receive greater scrutiny from Parliament before becoming law.
In the light of the amendment made to section 236, amendment 42 removes the provisions that apply only to part 2A of the 1996 Act, as they will be redundant.
Greg Smith
As the Minister says, this is a very technical amendment—and who doesn’t love a dry, technical debate? However, I am not sure that anyone seeking a dry, technical debate over some hours is going to be happy. I gently suggest that the Government should reflect on the procedural nature of these provisions and their intersection with the Employment Rights Act 1996, which is very complex to unpick and fully understand, not necessarily for those who sit in this House, or indeed in the other place, but certainly for businesses out there, which will require a lot of professional services and advice to navigate it.
On the particular, technical nature of the procedure, I heard what the Minister said about the affirmative procedure, but can he explain something to the Committee? This question could result in a very short answer or a very long one—I apologise for asking it if it prompts a longer one, although in some ways that would be better—but can he explain which powers in the new clause will not be subject to the affirmative procedure? Is there a list? And—it would be remiss of me not to throw this in—why could this not have been on the face of the Bill from day one?
Justin Madders
I am afraid that I will not be able to tell the shadow Minister what will not be subject to the affirmative procedure. I think that the intention is actually for the amendment to bring everything that is in scope of the clause under the affirmative procedure, but I will endeavour to confirm that and come back to him, if that is okay.
Amendment 42 agreed to.
Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
Justin Madders
I will not detain the Committee too long on clause 4. It contains amendments to the Employment Rights Act 1996 related to clauses 1 to 3, which we have just debated.
Proposed new section 27BU defines various terms used in clauses 1 to 3, and the rest of part 2A of the 1996 Act, relating to zero-hours workers and other similar workers. In particular, it copies across the definition of “zero hours contract” from section 27A of the 1996 Act. A zero-hours contract exists where the worker undertakes to work for the employer when the employer makes work available to them but there is no obligation on the employer to make work available. While that might be quite a lengthy explanation, I think that we all understand what we mean by that. New section 27BU also defines “zero hours arrangement” as an arrangement under which an individual works when the work is provided but
“the employer is not required to make any work available to the individual, nor the individual required to accept it”.
Greg Smith
I will not speak at length on this clause because, as the Minister said, it has a bit more clarity in it than many of the others. He has just outlined the new definitions, but perhaps I can put to him an example case showing how they would meet someone on what I believe he may describe as a zero-hours contract, but which also has some compensation for being a zero-hours contract. I will explain what I mean by that.
This is a live example of someone who explained their working relationship with their contracted employer to me the other day. He is required to be up, dressed and ready to go at 5 am every day—perish the thought—and he will receive a call by 5.30 am about whether there is a number of hours to be worked that day. He receives a payment for doing that. Each week, he receives a payment for being up at 5 am and being ready to go if required, but of course if he is not required he does not receive anything further for the shift or the full day of work.
There are probably not many such contracts in the economy, but that is a real-life one. I happened to be briefed on it by the individual involved the other day. The employee is happy. Not everybody is happy at 5 am, but he gets his payment for doing that. He accepts the quid pro quo that he may or may not get a full day’s work off the back of that. If he does not, he can go back to bed or do whatever he fancies with the rest of the day. How do the definitions in the Bill fit somebody who is quite happy with such an arrangement?
Justin Madders
At the all-party parliamentary beer group’s reception last night, the shadow Minister and I talked about pubs. His question sounds perfect for a pub quiz for retired employment lawyers: it is the sort of thing that might end up getting taken to a group of KCs to understand the precise relationship. My best guess is that it would be classed as a zero-hours arrangement and would therefore be covered by the legislation. However, I do not wish to set a precedent inadvertently, so I will take further advice and come back to the shadow Minister. I hope he has some more interesting teasers like that: I am sure the entire employment law community are furiously scrabbling through their books to find the answer to his conundrum.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 1
Consequential amendments relating to sections 1 to 3
Justin Madders
I beg to move amendment 43, in schedule 1, page 106, line 8, at end insert—
“In section 27 (meaning of ‘wages’ for purposes of Part 2 of the Act), in subsection (1)—
(a) after the paragraph (ce) inserted by the Neonatal Care (Leave and Pay) Act 2023 insert—
‘(cf) a payment under section 27BO(1) of this Act (payment for a cancelled, moved or curtailed shift),’;
(b) renumber the paragraph (ce) inserted by the Employment (Allocation of Tips) Act 2023 as paragraph (cg).”
This amendment provides for a payment under proposed section 27BO(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 in respect of a short-notice cancellation, movement or curtailment of a shift to be treated as “wages” for the purposes of the provision about protection of wages in Part 2 of that Act.
The right of a worker to bring a claim for unlawful deduction of wages is an important principle in employment law. It is right that payments for cancelled, moved and curtailed shifts are included in this provision. Although a worker can already claim through the employment tribunal that their employer has not made a payment for a cancelled, moved or curtailed shift, in some cases it may be more appropriate for workers to bring a claim under the unlawful deduction of wages provisions, for example if there are instances of non-payment covering a period of months or years; if they want to claim for financial loss as a result of non-payment, for instance because of bank charges; or if a claim covers non-payment of cancellation payments and other wages.
The amendment will provide workers with an alternative remedy for non-payment, in addition to the new provisions in proposed new sections 27BS and 27BT of the Employment Rights Act 1996. That is in line with other statutory rights to payment, such as remuneration during suspension of work on medical grounds. I hope that that is a clear explanation.
Greg Smith
I do not say so often in this Committee, but that was actually a helpful clarification. I can only come back to a point that I will make countless times in this Committee: why on earth could that not have been clearer at the start, when businesses up and down the land were submitting their written evidence, or indeed when they were providing us with oral evidence last week? I stress that it is helpful to have that clarity now. I take no issue at all with the Minister’s explanation, other than to gently repeat the point about certainty and planning going forward.
Justin Madders
I am grateful for the shadow Minister’s support for the amendment.
Amendment 43 agreed to.
Amendments made: 44, in schedule 1, page 107, line 10, after “27BA(1)” insert “or 27BD(5A) or (5B)”.
This amendment is consequential on amendments 11 and 14.
Amendment 45, in schedule 1, page 107, line 10, after “27BA(1)” insert “or 27BEA(1) or (2)”.—(Justin Madders.)
This amendment is consequential on amendment 13.
Justin Madders
I beg to move amendment 46, in schedule 1, page 107, line 16, at end insert—
“(4A) A worker has the right not to be subjected to any detriment by any act, or any deliberate failure to act, by the worker’s employer done on the ground that—
(a) the duty imposed by section 27BA(1) applies to the employer in relation to the worker and a particular reference period, or
(b) the employer believes that that duty so applies.”
This amendment ensures that a worker’s right not to be subjected to detriment includes a case of detriment on the ground that the worker is, or the employer believes the worker is, entitled to a guaranteed hours offer under proposed new section 27BA of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
Justin Madders
Amendment 46 will broaden the detriment provisions in respect of the right to guaranteed hours. It will ensure that a worker has a right not to be subjected to detriment on the grounds that the worker is, or the employer believes that the worker is, entitled to an offer of guaranteed hours. The existing provisions protect workers from detriment only where a worker accepts or rejects an offer of guaranteed hours or proposes to do so; where the worker declines to work a shift, as they believe their employer has failed to comply with their obligation in relation to notice of shifts; or because the worker alleges the existence of such grounds to take a case to an employment tribunal.
Amendment 47 is a consequential amendment that clarifies the definition of “reference period” in amendment 46.
The amendments will extend the protections to ensure that detriment to the worker arising from the right to guaranteed hours can be addressed. The detriment experienced by the worker may include cases in which a worker’s contract is terminated. Whether a worker experiences a detriment on those new grounds will be a matter for the employment tribunal to determine in the usual manner.
Greg Smith
I am grateful for the Minister’s explanation. The Opposition can clearly see that amendment 46 will ensure that a worker’s right not to be subjected to detriment includes a case of detriment on the grounds that the worker is, or the employer believes that the worker is, entitled to a guaranteed-hours offer under proposed new section 27BA of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The question—our old friend—is why that was not in the Bill in the first place.
I would be grateful if the Minister explained what sort of detriment the Government are concerned about and are trying to prevent with the amendments. It is another point of clarity: it is about giving businesses an early understanding of where the Government are trying to go. This is one of the areas in legislation that could be widely open to legal opinion, if I may put it that way: a sort of lawyers’ charter, whereby if a bunch of lawyers are put in a room they could easily come up with many different interpretations of detriment and of the scope of amendment 46.
We see uncertainty in legal opinion all the time on the legislation that passes through this House. Once the Bill, in some form, has become an Act—as undoubtedly it will, given the parliamentary arithmetic—and a case comes to court, it will be helpful for the judiciary to look back at the parliamentary debate and see the full meaning of this provision.
Justin Madders
I am grateful for the shadow Minister’s question. I recall on one or two desperate occasions quoting Hansard in an employment tribunal. I always felt, “If you’re explaining, you’re losing,” as the old phrase goes.
We are not actually creating a new category of detriment. Detriment is something that already applies across a whole range of employment rights, so we are not inventing something that is not already there. At the moment, there is quite a live academic debate about how far the extent of detriment reaches, which we may come to at a later point.
To answer the shadow Minister’s points, the amendment will not create a whole new area of litigation about understanding what detriment means in this circumstance. It will still be the same detriment that would apply in other employment-related claims.
Amendment 46 agreed to.
Amendment made: 47, in schedule 1, page 107, line 29, at end insert—
“(7) In this section ‘reference period’ has the same meaning as in Chapter 2 of Part 2A (see section 27BA(4)).”—(Justin Madders.)
This amendment is consequential on amendment 46.
Justin Madders
I beg to move amendment 48, in schedule 1, page 107, line 37, at end insert—
“(2A) In subsection (2), for ‘and (6)’ substitute ‘, (6), (7) and (7A)’.”
This amendment makes technical changes to section 49 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The reference to subsection (7A) is consequential on amendment 49.
Justin Madders
The amendments will ensure that the provisions on the maximum compensation awarded by a tribunal for detriment cases will be workable for cases involving the termination of an arrangement that is not a worker’s contract. Where there is no worker’s contract in place, it may be very difficult to determine the individual’s termination date. Let me clarify what I mean by that, if I can do so in such a technical area.
A zero-hours contract is a contract in which the worker undertakes to work for the employer when the employer makes work available to them, but there is no obligation on the employer to make work available. It is a worker’s contract because it involves obligations on the worker to undertake work. A zero-hours arrangement is an arrangement under which the employer is not obliged to make work available, and the worker is under no obligation to accept work when offered. Zero-hours contracts are workers’ contracts because there is an undertaking to work, whereas zero-hours arrangements are not workers’ contracts because there is insufficient mutuality of obligation.
There are particular complexities in applying legislation that involves a particular effective date of termination to those on zero-hours arrangements. The worker’s exact termination date may be difficult to determine and the calculation of compensation will therefore be circumstance-specific, meaning that it is more appropriate for the employment tribunal to use its discretion in arriving at such sums.
The amendment will ensure that in such cases, the amount that a tribunal awards will be left to its discretion. While there will not be a set maximum compensation for an individual on a zero-hours arrangement, as opposed to an employee on a zero-hours or low-hours contract, that maximum will be left to the discretion of the employment tribunal, which has the expertise to draw from the existing thresholds in compensation and apply them specifically to these types of cases.
Greg Smith
I have two questions for the Minister—hopefully simple ones—about Government amendments 48 and 49, which relate to the maximum award for a detriment claim.
First, there does not seem to be a set limit for the maximum award. Can the Minister explain that? Can he give an indication whether a maximum award will be set further down the line, either via a consultation process or in regulations?
My second question is possibly less straightforward, but it will be important as we look at the practical application of the Bill once it receives Royal Assent and comes into force. How much does the Minister envisage that tribunals may award under amendment 49?
Justin Madders
I am grateful for the shadow Minister’s questions. They cannot be answered in the round, as all cases will be very fact-specific. The maximum that a tribunal awards will be down to the circumstances in which workers find themselves. With a zero-hours contract, there will be a whole range of issues relating to the kind of work that they would have expected if the detriment had not taken place. It is a well-established principle that a tribunal will award what is just and equitable in the circumstances. Tribunals are well versed in understanding the factors that they would need to take into account in making such awards. The shadow Minister tempts me to get into details, but as this is a Bill Committee and not an employment tribunal, I cannot give him the kind of detail that he is looking for.
Greg Smith
I am grateful to the Minister for that answer. I understand the broad principle that he outlines, but there could be a mechanism, without putting a pounds-and-pence limit on any award, to bake in some formula that would cap an award according to proportion of original pay, contracted hours, length of service or some other factor. For the clarity of the record, is the Minister saying that no such framework is envisaged and that it will be a totally open-ended question for any employment tribunal?
Justin Madders
The amendments relate to detriment claims only, whereas the shadow Minister’s question is a slightly broader one. The point about compensation in other situations would be far more detailed. As this is about people on irregular contracts who may have suffered a detriment that we cannot possibly predict in advance, it is normal to say at this stage that the usual principles of the just and equitable compensation that an employment tribunal would award will apply in those circumstances.
Laurence Turner
Does the Minister agree that if a cap of some sort were introduced, there would be a risk that, as we have seen in other cases, people who have been subject to a detriment may seek other routes, particularly under equalities legislation where damages are uncapped? That is an existing problem that has added to the strain in that part of the employment tribunal system.
Justin Madders
There is a danger that we will get too prescriptive about this. There will be a relatively small number of cases in which there is detriment, but they are all going to be very fact-sensitive. That is why we have framed the amendment in this way.
Mr Bedford
The hon. Member for Dundee Central referred to how a lot of businesses will have insurance for various eventualities. As a maximum is not specified, have the Government considered the unintended consequences of such provisions on businesses’ ability to insure against such instances?
Justin Madders
We are not talking about the general running of a business, with reference to shift notice and cancellations; we are talking about a very specific set of circumstances in which an employer’s act is considered to be detrimental to the employee and gives rise to an employment tribunal claim. I am sure that there are insurance products that cover all employment tribunal claims, but this is about individual acts of penalisation against employees or workers. This is not a departure from existing legal principles; it is well set out and understood by lawyers and HR practitioners. I do not envisage that this is a provision that will be greatly used, but it is an important principle to have in the Bill.
Amendment 48 agreed to.
Amendment made: 49, in schedule 1, page 107, line 39, leave out from beginning to end of line 11 on page 108 and insert—
“(7A) Where—
(a) the complaint is made under section 48(1BA),
(b) the detriment to which the worker is subjected is the termination of the worker’s contract, and
(c) that contract is not a contract of employment,
any compensation must not exceed the compensation that would be payable under Chapter 2 of Part 10 if the worker had been an employee and had been dismissed for a reason specified in section 104BA.”—(Justin Madders.)
This amendment relates to the maximum award of compensation by an employment tribunal in a detriment claim under section 48(1BA) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The change achieved by the amendment is that the maximum award in cases involving the termination of an arrangement that is not a worker’s contract is at the tribunal’s discretion.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Anna McMorrin.)
Employment Rights Bill (Eighth sitting)
Thursday 5th December 2024
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Employment Rights Act 2025 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 5 December 2024 - (5 Dec 2024)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 12 / Noes: 3 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Justin Madders)
I beg to move amendment 50, in schedule 1, page 108, line 34, at end insert—
“or the employer believes that that duty so applies, and”.
This amendment extends proposed section 104BA(3) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (dismissal is unfair if done to avoid giving a worker a guaranteed hours offer to which the worker is entitled under proposed section 27BA of that Act) to a case where an employer believes a worker is entitled to such an offer.
Justin Madders
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Christopher. As is now our custom, I will start by referring to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my membership of the GMB and Unite trade unions.
Government amendment 50 will expand the existing protections for employees who are dismissed as a result of employers seeking to avoid the new duty to offer guaranteed hours. It will ensure that an employee who is dismissed because their employer believes that the right to guaranteed hours applies will benefit from unfair dismissal protections. As drafted, the provisions apply only if the duty to offer guaranteed hours actually applies. That could leave a loophole whereby an employee who is dismissed because their employer mistakenly believes that the obligation applies would have no protection from unfair dismissal. All employees deserve protection from unfair dismissal, whether or not they are eligible for guaranteed hours. The amendment will ensure that equal protection is in place.
Government amendment 51 is a small amendment that will remove wording in the Bill about when the termination of a worker must take effect in order for them to be regarded as unfairly dismissed for the purpose of proposed new section 104BA(3) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The Government have concluded that there is no need to set out when the termination occurred. The amendment will make the Bill’s meaning clearer, as it is logical from its provisions that that would be during a reference period or the corresponding offer period. Remaining silent on the effective date of termination also follows the precedent set for other rights under the 1996 Act.
Government amendment 52 is consequential on Government amendment 51.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Christopher. I understand the Minister’s explanation of the amendment, which appears to be a logical consequence of the other provisions on guaranteed hours, although we have the old chestnut about why it was not in the Bill when it was first introduced. It seems a pretty straightforward measure that reflects where the Government have always said they are coming from, so it is peculiar that it is coming at this stage. I might go so far as to ask the Minister whether Government amendments 50 and 51 are in fact correcting mistakes, as opposed to adding to the original drafting of the Bill.
I have some specific questions about the amendments. How does the Minister envisage that it will be proven that an employer believes that a worker is entitled to an offer of guaranteed hours? Some clarification would be helpful, not just so that the Committee and the House can understand the scope of the amendment, but so that businesses can plan for what might be coming down the line.
May I also ask the Minister for clarity about what amendment 51 will mean for dismissal during the reference period? I am not sure that we have enough clarity on that point to satisfy the Committee. Given how the schedule and the amendments are drafted, there is a possibility of a legal opinion indicating that it is possible for employers to dismiss employees during the reference period. From everything else that the Minister has said, I would be surprised if that were the Government’s intent. When he sums up, it will be useful if he clarifies whether that is indeed his intent. Is that one of the many loopholes that he is seeking to shut down with the Government’s amendments, and does it need shutting down further? Or is it the Government’s intent that that should be possible for employers within the scope of the Bill?
Justin Madders
I am grateful for the shadow Minister’s questions. I feel that we are embarking on an employment law masterclass, although I am not sure that I consider myself a master.
The first point was about how an individual would demonstrate that an employer had believed that they were entitled to particular rights and therefore had reason for dismissal. It is akin to existing case law and legal precedents from other jurisdictions: a set of facts can be presented to the employment tribunal to determine its judgment. I accept that it is not the easiest thing to prove, but that is how the law is currently structured and there will be no departure from that.
On the second point, clearly we would not want this to have the unintended consequence of not relating to a dismissal during the reference period. Proposed new section 104BA(3) logically demonstrates that if there is a termination during the reference period, the same protections would still apply. I am happy to seek further advice, but my understanding is that the Bill, as drafted, covers that situation. Clearly we would not want a loophole of that nature. I hope that that deals with the shadow’s Minister’s questions.
Amendment 50 agreed to.
Amendments made: 51, in schedule 1, page 108, leave out lines 39 to 41.
This amendment removes a requirement about the timing of a dismissal from proposed section 104BA(3) of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
Amendment 52, in schedule 1, page 109, leave out line 1. —(Justin Madders.)
This amendment is consequential on amendment 51.
Justin Madders
I beg to move amendment 53, in schedule 1, page 109, line 30, leave out “last” and insert “latest”.
This amendment and amendment 54 concern the calculation of a week’s pay for the purposes of an award of compensation by an employment tribunal following a complaint under proposed section 27BF of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The amendments ensure that the rules work for all such complaints.
Justin Madders
Amendment 53 will ensure that the provisions in section 225 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 on the calculation date for the purposes of calculating a week’s pay will work in relation to the new right to guaranteed hours. It is a small amendment: it will replace the word “last” with “latest” to reflect the fact that the date of termination will not necessarily correspond with the final day of the reference period. It sits alongside Government amendment 54; combined, the amendments will ensure that there is clarity for employment tribunals on calculating a week’s pay for the purpose of determining compensation for a well-founded complaint brought under proposed new section 27BF. The maximum number of weeks’ pay that may be awarded by a tribunal for a claim brought under proposed new section 27BF is to be defined in regulations.
Greg Smith
This is a minor and technical amendment that brings, on this specific point, the clarity that we have been asking for on so many other clauses and Government amendments. It appears to be correcting defective drafting in the version of the Bill originally presented to the House.
The need for such amendments suggests that the arbitrary target to publish the Bill in 100 days has once again been found wanting. As I have said before, I understand the political imperative for the Government to have done so, but it brings little comfort to employers or employees, who need certainty and clarity on the Bill. At least with Government amendments 53 and 54, that certainty and clarity has now come. I urge the Government to apply the same rigour to their other amendments so that businesses planning for the future can do so—perhaps not with jubilant support for the Bill, but with an understanding of what the Government are legislating for.
Amendment 53 agreed to.
Amendment made: 54, in schedule 1, page 109, line 31, at end insert
“on which the worker was employed by the employer under a worker’s contract”.—(Justin Madders.)
See the explanatory statement for amendment 53.
Question proposed, That the schedule, as amended, be the First schedule to the Bill.
Justin Madders
Schedule 1 will make various amendments to the Employment Rights Act 1996 and the Employment Tribunals Act 1996. Among those amendments, which are consequential on clauses 1 to 3, I highlight the insertion of proposed new section 47H of the Employment Rights Act 1996, to make provision for a worker not to be subject to detriment on various grounds relating to the right to guaranteed hours. The employer cannot penalise the worker for accepting an offer of a guaranteed hours contract, for example, or for challenging an offer that is not in compliance with the obligations on the employer regarding guaranteed hours.
Amendments have been made to extend these detriment provisions to situations in which a worker brings a claim or alleges the existence of a claim in relation to a breach of the duties relating to information rights and notice requirements. The detriment provisions are also extended to situations in which a worker suffers a detriment because they qualify for the right to guaranteed hours or the employer believes that they do. Whether a detriment has occurred in such instances will of course be for an employment tribunal to determine. Likewise, the employer cannot penalise the worker for declining to work a shift that the worker reasonably believed was offered with unreasonable notice. This is an important right that helps to address the potential power imbalance between an employer and a worker who is seeking to enforce their statutory rights.
Schedule 1 will also insert proposed new section 104BA of the Employment Rights Act, which makes provision for an employee to be treated as unfairly dismissed if the reason—or principal reason—for the dismissal is that the employee accepted or rejected, or proposed to accept or reject, an offer of guaranteed hours. Likewise, an employee will be treated as unfairly dismissed if the employer was under a duty to offer guaranteed hours but the employer dismissed the employee during the reference period to avoid having to comply with that duty. Amendments have been made to ensure that unfair dismissal protections extend to cases where a worker is dismissed because the employer believes they have a duty to offer guaranteed hours, even if that belief is mistaken.
Greg Smith
My argument is similar to the arguments that we have had in substantive debates on previous groups of amendments to the schedule. With this Bill, we have consistently seen an approach of legislating first and consulting second. I understand why that might be appropriate in some circumstances, but certainly for many of the schedule 1 provisions that the Minister has outlined, businesses will find it inadequate. They will find it too difficult to start making their business plans, their plans for growth, their plans for new contracts or their plans to expand in the next financial year, the year after, or even the year after that. It is not unusual for businesses to engage in medium and long-term planning, but too many aspects of the schedule mean that they cannot. Real businesses in the real world are trying to scope out where their next capital investment, their next expansion or their next acquisition of another business is coming from.
Because of those holes, the Opposition are deeply concerned that the Bill, which was incredibly rushed to meet an arbitrary 100-day political rather than legislative objective, will bring too much uncertainty to the economy and to business. At the end of the day, judging from the evidence that we heard in last week’s four sittings, it is having the net effect that businesses will simply take a deep breath and draw back from employing more people. They will not take the risk of taking on new hires. Given our debates on Tuesday, I am thinking particularly of that all-important risk of giving a second chance in life to a marginal candidate.
Sometimes an employer is not entirely convinced that a candidate is the best fit for their workplace, for any of a number of reasons—they may be a rehabilitated former offender or they may have had a number of struggles in life—but is willing to give them a chance. We heard from witnesses that those employers who were going to give people in those circumstances that chance in life—that chance to better themselves—might not now do so. That would be an absolute tragedy for the individuals involved and a travesty of justice when it comes to employment numbers in this country.
Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that if the Bill were to go back to the Department as he suggests, the period in which changes to employment legislation are considered by Parliament would be extended and the uncertainty of which he speaks would be prolonged? Does he further accept that one of the business community’s key requests was for ongoing consultation as the Bill makes its way through its parliamentary stages, and that if we were to take the action he suggests, the Government would be breaking that commitment to business that business has asked for?
Greg Smith
I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point, but I believe that it was the Deputy Prime Minister who, in the media over the weekend, could not name a single business that supports the Bill. I will gladly take another intervention from the hon. Gentleman if he can name a single business that supports the Bill. [Interruption.] Not an umbrella body, but an actual business.
Laurence Turner
We heard from the Co-op, in the evidence sessions that we all attended last week, that that support is there. Off the top of my head, I would add Octopus and Centrica, two examples of very significant businesses that have welcomed provisions in the Bill.
Greg Smith
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. There are clearly thousands of businesses in this country; I notice that he did not name a single business from his constituency. I actually know Northfield very well: my late grandmother worked in Walter Smith butchers in Northfield for many years, well into her 80s.
I fully understand the need for any Government to have ongoing dialogue with business, but I gently say to the hon. Gentleman and all Government Members that there is a big political cost when any Government legislate too swiftly without fully thinking things through and without clarity of thought and of objectives. Yes, there are principles—they are clearly Labour principles—running through the Bill, but there is not that clarity of thought as to many measures in schedule 1.
I say gently, perhaps from bitter experience in the four and a half years prior to the general election, that I know what happens when legislation is rushed. From the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 to the Illegal Migration Act 2023, there were multiple pieces of legislation, none of which hit the nail on the head. Perhaps they were a little bit too rushed. They failed to meet the objective that we, the previous Government, clearly set out to achieve of ending small boat crossings in the channel.
I raise that clearly very out-of-scope point only as a warning to the Government that if they insist on going too quickly and rushing the Bill through just to meet the headline of having published it in 100 days, it could turn out to be a very painful experience not just for them as a Government, but for the business community in this country. These are the businesses that will be the backbone of our economy and will actually create the jobs that I think the Government also want to see, but the Bill might have the unintended consequence of damping them down.
Justin Madders
My irony meter has reached overload. I think it is fair to say that in the last four years of chaos under the previous Government, uncertainty was brought to a new level. That was not about legislation; it was just about the way that the Government operated, or failed to operate, as the case may be.
Let me try to put the shadow Minister’s mind at ease about the process. We consulted extensively in opposition, we consulted in government before the Bill was published, and we are continuing to consult. The Bill will set out the broad powers that the Government wish to take in respect of employment rights. There will then be more detailed consultation as we get into the secondary legislation, where the detail—the real meat and veg of this law—will be dealt with. There is not going to be a rush for this provision to be enacted, because we understand that it is important to get the details right. Many of these measures will not come into force until 2026, because we want to get this right.
We want to make sure that we take businesses with us and listen to their concerns, to workers’ concerns and to trade unions’ representations. The impact assessment is clear that there is no expected impact on the number of jobs available.
Greg Smith
The Minister talks about further consultation. Can he give a commitment right here, on the record, to consultation on all the measures in schedule 1 and the rest of the Bill that go through to his 2026 deadline? First, can he commit that 2026 really is the deadline? Secondly, can he commit that consultation with trade unions and with business will have equal billing, and that one of the two will not outweigh the other?
Justin Madders
I think there was a suggestion there that we may favour one stakeholder group over another. I assure the shadow Minister that when we tot up the engagements that we have had so far, the number of businesses and business organisations is far in excess of the number of trade unions. Actually, we want to consult with everyone, broadly: we do not think that there should be an arbitrary limit on who we discuss this with.
On the time limits, the “Next Steps” document is very clear about the timetable. If it takes more time, it takes more time. We do not want to rush the Bill through and create unintended consequences of the type that the shadow Minister is rightly concerned about. We want to get it right. That is why we are committed to consulting as we go forward.
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
On the point about process: at the point at which the Bill came before the House for a Second Reading, how many of its clauses were already subject to revision within the Department?
Justin Madders
I was not privy to the drafting of individual clauses—the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel does that, and it is a separate organisation from the Department—but I can certainly write to the hon. Gentleman with details on which clauses we expected to be amended. It is fair to say that we expected a number of clauses to be amended when the Bill was published.
It is important that we get this right. The Bill is a Bill, not an Act, so it will continue to evolve; there will then be further detailed consultation on implementation and the regulations. That is why I believe that the shadow Minister’s concerns are ill-founded.
Question put, That the schedule, as amended, be the First schedule to the Bill.
Justin Madders
Clause 5 is the first of several clauses that will repeal previous legislation, although it may not be the most controversial of our repeals. The clause will repeal the previous Government’s Workers (Predictable Terms and Conditions) Act 2023, which if commenced would have brought in a right for workers to request a more predictable working pattern. Requests could still be turned down by the employer. That approach is clearly different from the right to guaranteed hours that we have set out in the Bill. We do not want to confuse employers and workers with two different models, so the Bill will repeal the 2023 Act entirely. Nevertheless, the work that was done to develop the 2023 Act has been useful in the drafting of our new measures and will continue to be taken into account as we evolve and develop our policies.
We want predictability and security to be the baseline in all jobs, creating an economy that works for all. We think responsibility for offering guaranteed hours should therefore rest with the employer. Without guaranteed hours, workers do not have any form of certainty as to their earnings, making it difficult for them to apply for credit or a mortgage, rent a flat, plan for major events such as weddings or holidays, or even manage day-to-day expenses.
In addition, when people have a better idea of how many hours they will be working, it is easier for them to organise their family and social life, plan time together and organise travel and childcare—all things that are just so important for the wider welfare of our society. These provisions of the Bill will apply to all employers, levelling the playing field so that best-practice employers are rewarded rather than placed at a competitive disadvantage against employers who want to place risk wholly on the worker.
Greg Smith
On the one hand, the Minister says that he wants certainty. On the other hand, he is repealing legislation that is but a year old. I fully appreciate that a new Government will want go through the legislation that the previous Government put on the statute book: it is vital in our democracy that we maintain the principle that no Parliament can bind a future Parliament, and I fully acknowledge and accept that the Government have a mandate to deliver their manifesto. However, I gently put it on the record—I direct this point towards the Minister—that certainty does not come from abolishing year-old legislation that businesses have only just started thinking about, let alone implemented.
Justin Madders
I think it is fair to say that we signalled our intention to repeal the 2023 Act shortly after taking office. It had not actually been implemented, so it is not a case of creating additional burdens. I am sure the shadow Minister will concede that if we had allowed it to take its course, it would have created a set of regulations, involving time and expense, that would only have been replaced in short order with another set of rules. The problem with the 2023 Act is that it would still create a huge power imbalance for the employer, as the Low Pay Commission recognised when it expressed its concerns.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 5 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 6
Exclusivity terms in zero hours arrangements
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Justin Madders
Clause 6 will amend section 27B of the Employment Rights Act 1996 to reflect the new definition of “zero hours arrangement” in clause 4, which will apply to the whole of part 2A. As has been discussed in relation to clause 4, the definition has been amended to ensure that it does not inadvertently exclude any zero-hours workers in cases where they have a contract with the employer but the contract does not, in itself, make them a worker. The definition of “zero hours arrangement” captures those who have an arrangement to work for their employer when work is provided but have no obligation to accept work, and the employer has no obligation to provide it. Such an arrangement between the employer and the individual could, however, include other obligations that amount to a contract, albeit that they are not a workers’ contract. The clause will ensure that individuals caught in that situation are also covered by the Bill.
On a technical point—I put this on the record for clarity—the definition of “non-contractual zero hours arrangements” in section 27B of the 1996 Act is amended by clause 6, but a new definition for the whole of part 2A will be inserted by clause 4. The definition of “non-contractual zero hours arrangements” in part 2A is being changed by clause 6, as well as being inserted by clause 4, which may well be commenced after clause 6 for the rest of the provisions. The changes in clause 6 will ensure that the definition in section 27B operates as intended before the commencement of other provisions on zero-hours arrangements. The definition in section 27B will then be repealed on commencement of the other provisions, as is provided for in schedule 1.
I hope that that was clear to everyone. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Greg Smith
I feel that we have gone over those details multiple times, particularly on Tuesday, so I will not take up a great deal of time. However, it is important to put on the record the Opposition’s concern about cases such as the one that I outlined in this morning’s sitting. The Minister conceded that it probably was a zero-hours contract, but it did have an element of certainty of pay as that individual was contracted to be up at a certain time of day to find out whether he had work that day, so there was payment for it but not necessarily guaranteed hours. Such cases still need an answer, whether from the Government’s legal counsel or within the Department. I take the Minister at his word: he said this morning that he would look into such cases and test how the Bill will apply. That is as relevant to clause 6 as it is to other clauses that we have discussed.
The worst-case scenario is that the Bill becomes too prescriptive and takes away arrangements that individuals enter into freely and want to enter into; perhaps it suits them to do so. I accept that that is probably not the majority of cases, but there will be people out there in the economy who perhaps do not need to work. Perhaps they do not need the money. There are such people, believe it or not—I am certainly not one of them. There are people who want to take on a zero-hours contract for something to do. I fully accept and place it on the record that that will be a very small number of people, but if they are completely wiped out by some of these prescriptions without flexibility, that will be a problem for the economy, much as it is if employers just take everybody on a zero-hours contract and offer them nothing further. That, equally, would be a tragedy.
I understand where the Government are coming from in clause 6. I understand the principles behind it. Again, however, I urge the Minister to double-kick the tyres and check that there will not be unintended consequences that have a negative impact on employment in this country.
Justin Madders
I am grateful for the shadow Minister’s comments. I have been reflecting on his scenario from this morning. Actually, the first thing I thought about over lunch was how the employer would be checking that the individual was up and dressed at 5 o’clock in the morning to make sure he had complied with the terms of his contract. However, the intention behind the Bill is to make sure that we do not get into lots of debates about whether someone is covered by this legislation or whether everyone who is in some sort of arrangement or contract is covered by it. Of course, if they do not wish to have an offer of guaranteed hours, they are entitled under the legislation not to accept it. I think that this clause will bring clarity and consistency across the board in that respect.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 6 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 7
Right to request flexible working
Greg Smith
I beg to move amendment 136, in clause 7, page 25, line 5, at end insert—
“(1AZA) But where the employer is—
(a) the Security Service;
(b) the Secret Intelligence Service, or
(c) the Government Communication Headquarters,
the test of reasonableness in subsection (2)(b)(ii) does not apply, and the notification under subsection 1(aa) need not explain why the employer considers that it is reasonable to refuse the application on that ground or those grounds.”
This amendment would exclude the security services from the Bill’s provisions on flexible working.
Amendment 136 is essentially a probing amendment—I make that clear from the outset—but one that should go to the nub of exactly where the Government want to go with this measure, not least bearing in mind the Minister’s comments at the end of the last debate about ensuring that everybody falls under the same set of rules. There may be organisations where it is impractical for their employees to be under the same set of rules. The amendment seeks to probe the matter of exempting those working in the security services from clause 7. We define the security services as MI5, GCHQ and the Secret Intelligence Service.
The Regulatory Policy Committee has explained that the Government have not proved that the measures on flexible working are necessary or undertaken any proper assessment of the costs to business. We therefore want to probe the Government’s thinking on how the provisions might apply in practice. There may be certain occupations, such as the security services, where it is harder for the employer to agree requests for flexible working. I am sure that everyone can see the practical realities and the potential consequences for national security and the safety of everyone in our great United Kingdom if the security services were to suddenly have flexible working arrangements.
Has the Minister given any consideration to which sectors may find these provisions either more difficult or completely impractical to comply with? The amendment takes the example of the security services, where irregular hours are worked. I am sure that hon. Members can think of other occupations, such as policing—and perhaps ours, if I may be so bold, Sir Christopher—where irregular hours are more than commonplace.
We would like to understand how the provisions of the Bill will apply to the security services and to understand the Minister’s thinking as to why. That is the critical question in politics—my early mentor in politics, the late, great Eric Forth, was clear that it is the only question that matters in politics—so I put it to the Minister. We want to understand the balance between the right to request flexible working and public protection. Again, I do not believe that any Member of this House wants to undermine public protection and the safety of our nation. The first duty of Government is the defence of the realm and the security of its citizens.
The security services will not be the only profession that might find the requirements difficult to administer. Will the Minister let us know, when he responds to what I repeat is a probing amendment, where the Government stand? What is his assessment of those areas that simply will not be able to comply with the provisions of the Bill? What safeguards will the Government put in place for them? We seek to understand the practicalities of the requirements that the Government are seeking to impose.
Laurence Turner
It is a pleasure to serve under your exemplary chairmanship, Sir Christopher.
Before I get into the clause, may I say that I enjoyed my discussion with the shadow Minister about the Northfield constituency? I am half tempted to cite my great grandparents, who were confectioners and newsagents, to burnish my small business credentials, but some on the Labour Benches can do it better. I appreciate that he said that the amendment is probing and that he is taking a particularly unique case in order to test the limits of the Bill.
Focusing on the words of the amendment rather than on the wider issues, because it is the words that matter, it is important to look at the history of employment rights as they relate to the intelligence services, because this is an area that was tested in the 1980s and 1990s in particular. The consequences of not extending these rights to the intelligence services speak to the argument against making the amendment.
For those of us who come from a trade union background, there is an uncomfortable reminder of the ban on trade union activity at GCHQ in the 1980s, which led to a number of skilled professionals leaving the employment of that service. It is important to remember the 14 trade unionists who were sacked because they did not give up their trade union membership. Many of them were re-employed 13 years later, because they still had their skills, which were in high demand.
The shadow Minister talked about the unique nature of flexible working in the intelligence services. I suspect that employees of those services have flexible working arrangements that are hard for any of us on the Committee to imagine, but when employees of the intelligence services did not have recourse to most of the normal procedures of employment law, it was an acknowledged problem that dissatisfaction among employees of the services in itself became a security risk. Some hon. Members may recall that there were a number of very high-profile cases of dissatisfied members of those services who went on the public record in breach of the Official Secrets Act. In some cases, that was attributed to dissatisfaction with employment situations. I can do no better than quote from the Intelligence and Security Committee’s annual report of 1997-98. At that time, the Committee was chaired by Baron King of Bridgwater, the predecessor of one of the Conservative Members who tabled the amendment. It stated:
“The Committee also believes that everything possible should be done to ensure that employees of the Agencies have the same rights as employees elsewhere.”
Nick Timothy
The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful case for the universalism, or near-universalism, of employment rights and presumably, within that, trade union rights. The power to withdraw one’s labour is a very important part of modern employment practice. We are talking about the three security and intelligence agencies listed by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Buckinghamshire, but I want to give the hon. Gentleman an opportunity to give his view about the universalism of these rights, including the right of the police, for example, to join a union and to strike.
Laurence Turner
I am grateful to the hon. Member for raising that point. It is a shame that our Liberal Democrat colleagues are not able to join us, because we could have an interesting discussion about the consequences of the 1919 police strike, and the promises that Lloyd George made and subsequently broke, which led to the creation of the Police Federation rather than an independent trade union, but I will not detain the Committee on that matter. I will just say that we are operating under the international framework for employment law, which sets out very clearly that there are exemptions to the normal right of freedom of association—let us call it what it is—and that includes industrial action. I do not think that the Bill is the right place to diverge from that international framework.
I had reached the end of my points. As I say, there are good national security reasons for rejecting the amendment.
Michael Wheeler (Worsley and Eccles) (Lab)
It is, as ever, a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. As this is my first time speaking today, I draw everyone’s attention to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my trade union memberships. I want to pick up very slightly on some of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield.
I fully appreciate that we are talking about a probing amendment. I will not revisit my use of the word “ridiculous” on Tuesday—we stayed in that territory for long enough—but the shadow Minister perhaps underestimates the ability of different sectors to accommodate flexible working and to overcome the challenges that he believes the flexible working measures in the Bill might present. In fact, GCHQ already operates a flexible working policy. On its website it is proud to point out that
“Work-life balance is important to us”
and that its
“flexible working patterns…are designed to help work fit… alongside…personal lives.”
If anything, exclusions for entire services sectors would be a retrograde step in places where flexible working provisions are already working perfectly well.
Moving on to the broader point, as demonstrated, I believe that sectors, businesses and employers can cope with this change. There are adequate measures for reasonableness in the Bill. Access to flexible working is an incredibly important right for workers in a modern, evolving workplace. Measures such as these gear the world of work for the future by enabling people to enter the workforce and to stay in it—something that the shadow Minister has expressed a concern about. Anything like this amendment that would exclude sectors, groups or organisations wholesale feels unnecessary, especially in the light of how the measures would work in practice.
Alex McIntyre (Gloucester) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I want to refer to a couple of the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield. I appreciate that this is a probing amendment and that, as the MP for Gloucester, I perhaps have a vested interest, given that a number of my constituents work over the constituency border in Cheltenham.
Flexible working will not be available in every role, for some of the reasons listed in the Bill, but for many roles there would be the ability to start half an hour later and finish half an hour earlier, perhaps, or to work different hours over the course of a week. Those are results of flexible working requests. I think that, sometimes, there is a haste from the Conservative party to equate flexible working with working from home—and to put little notes on people’s desks saying that they are not working hard enough. It is really important that we look at flexible working as a whole.
In my experience as an employment solicitor, the Bill is welcome, because the “reasonable” test is important in making sure that we are encouraging employers to think properly about flexible working requests. This measure is also very business friendly, because there is a long list of exemptions that will allow an employer to say, “Because of x, y and z, flexible working is not appropriate.” There is no requirement to accept a request; there is only a requirement to think about it, and to think about those exemptions reasonably. In the context of what we are trying to do, and that balancing act between rights for employees and rights for businesses, I think this lands in about the right place.
The shadow Minister is right that this change will not apply evenly in every sector; it cannot in every business, because of the reasons listed in the exemptions. Each business will have different requirements regarding customer demands, performance and quality. It would be quite difficult for a dentist to work from home, I suggest, but it might be quite easy for them to come in at half-past 9 two days a week. Again, that is a flexible working request. The reasonableness test deals with the purpose of the shadow Minister’s amendment, which is to look at how different sectors might approach the change rather than having a one-size-fits-all approach.
Jon Pearce (High Peak) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Christopher. I refer Members to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, and my membership of GMB.
I will apologise now if I have an out-of-date amendment paper; the one that I have is dated Tuesday 3 December. Very early on in our discussions, we had the strange definition of a small or medium-sized businesses as one employing 500 people or more. I just want to check whether the proposed amendment is indeed accurate, because it refers to
“the test of reasonableness in subsection (2)(b)(ii)”.
I do not think that any such subsection exists—I think it should be (3)(b)(ii)—but I appreciate that that might be my misunderstanding.
The Minister for Equalities (Dame Nia Griffith)
I draw the Committee’s attention to my interests, and to my membership of the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers and the National Education Union.
The hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire seeks to amend clause 7 in order to commit the Government to exempting the security services from the requirement to refuse a flexible working request only when it is reasonable to do so against one of the eight reasons set out in legislation. His amendment would also exempt the security services from having to explain to an employee why their request for flexible working could not be met. My hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham Northfield, for Worsley and Eccles and for Gloucester have pointed out many good reasons why that is unnecessary, and I will explain why I think the same.
The grounds for refusing a flexible working request are intentionally broad, so that they capture all the business reasons that may make such a request unfeasible. That applies to the security services as it does to any other employer. I will not read out all eight reasons, but I will give some examples. The work may not be able to be reorganised among other staff, or quality or performance may be negatively affected. There may be a lack of work at a particular proposed time, or the business’s ability to meet the demand of customers—we have mentioned the Home Office—may be negatively affected. There is a huge range of reasons that could be used, and they would surely cover—
Nick Timothy
I would be grateful if the Minister could explain what conversations she has had with MI5, MI6 and GCHQ to understand whether, given their unusual, specific, specialist operations, there are any circumstances that might go beyond those already set out.
Dame Nia Griffith
If I may continue, the point is that there is significant leeway. Basically, the way the provision is worded takes into account the context of the particular type of business. There are many different types of roles in the security services, as has been pointed out, and different things will apply in different circumstances. There is plenty of opportunity there.
Nick Timothy
I think the answer to the question must be no. That may be fair enough, but can the Minister tell us whether she has had any conversations with her opposite numbers in the Home Office, which sponsors MI5, or the Foreign Office, which sponsors GCHQ and MI6?
Dame Nia Griffith
What really matters is that flexibility is in-built, and I am sure that colleagues in the Home Office will be able to use it.
The other point that the hon. Member for West Suffolk might like me to address is whether giving a reason could expose something that it would be undesirable to expose—in other words, whether any explanation given would incur a breach of security. In many cases—probably the majority—the reason for refusing a flexible working request will not involve matters of national security. It might be a matter of not being able to reorganise the work among existing staff to facilitate a requested working pattern, or there being insufficient work during the period someone has asked to work. Those reasons will be no different from what other employers are considering. In most cases, it will be possible for an employer to give reasons for their refusal without disclosing any sensitive information.
There will certainly be cases where matters of national security come into play, but there are already protections in place. The grounds for refusal given by the employer have to be made public only at the point at which legal proceedings are started. In the unlikely event that an employee makes a claim in the employment tribunal, the tribunal is able to conduct all or part of the proceedings in private, or to order a person not to disclose any document. I therefore invite the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire to withdraw his amendment.
Greg Smith
I am grateful to the Minister for her responses. I highlight that this is a probing amendment designed to test the Government’s thinking. I appreciate the flexibilities that she has outlined, but as my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk set out, the security services are a particularly unique element within public service.
I can see a multitude of reasons why some of those flexibilities will not be good enough to ensure that those predominantly charged with our national security can comply with every measure in the Bill. I urge the Minister to have those conversations with relevant Ministers in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and the Home Office, who are responsible for our security services, to double-check that they are entirely comfortable with the provisions in the Bill, which I dare say has been through the write-around process. Sometimes minutiae and detail can be lost in that process, and it is vital for our national security that the Bill should be properly road-tested to the nth degree.
Greg Smith
I will finish the line, and then I will. I make that point just to highlight that there are sometimes circumstances in which the flexibilities that the Minister spoke of may not fully apply. I am sure a witticism is coming.
Alex McIntyre
Sadly, I am not very funny. Would M’s HR adviser not say, “That might have a detrimental impact on your performance, Mr Bond”? That flexible working request could therefore be reasonably denied.
Greg Smith
I think that has probably been a plot line already. The hon. Member for Gloucester understands the point that I am making here within certain elements of employment in this country. This was a probing amendment, and we will come back to the principle of this discussion—although maybe not the detail of the Bond example—later in the Bill’s passage. For the time being, I urge the Minister to have those conversations with colleagues in other parts of Government to double-check that they are fully appreciative of the measures in this Bill. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 26—Consultation and assessment on the right to request flexible working—
“(1) The Secretary of State must carry out an assessment of the likely impact of the right to request flexible working provided for in section 7 of this Act.
(2) As part of the assessment, the Secretary of State must carry out a consultation on the proposed right to request flexible working.
(3) The assessment must—
(a) include labour market and broader macroeconomic analysis,
(b) examine the impact of the measures in section 7 on employment, wages and economic output,
(c) consider the likelihood of the costs of flexible working measures being passed on to employees through lower wages, and
(d) examine the likely effect of the right to request flexible working on—
(i) productivity,
(ii) wage growth,
(iii) equality of opportunity,
(iv) job security,
(v) economic activity, and
(vi) employment.
(4) A report setting out the findings of the assessment must be laid before each House of Parliament no sooner than 18 weeks after the consultation has been initiated.”
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to assess the impact of the provisions of Clause 7.
Amendment 132, in clause 118, page 105, line 20, at end insert—
“(3A) But no regulations under subsection (3) may be made to bring into force section 7 of this Act until the findings of the report under section [Consultation and reporting on the right to request flexible working] have been approved by a resolution of the House of Commons on a motion moved by a Minister of the Crown.”
This amendment is linked to NC26.
Dame Nia Griffith
Flexible working is essential to helping people achieve a better work-life balance. It can lead to employees being happier, healthier and more productive. Having the ability to vary the time, hours and place of work is also key to the functioning of the UK’s flexible labour market. Improving access to flexible working is therefore good for employees and good for business. That is why we have committed to making flexible working the default, unless it is not reasonably feasible.
I reassure members of the Committee that my team has fully engaged with members of the Security Service, particularly on amendment 132 and not just the write-around, which is quite important. I am, of course, looking forward to this year’s Mid Buckinghamshire pantomime—I assume the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire will play the role of a secret service special agent.
To return to the clause, the Government accept that employers must be allowed to make decisions about what is and is not reasonably feasible so that they can ensure that business operations are able to run effectively. We are therefore retaining the existing legal framework, which allows employers to reject flexible working requests on one of eight specified business grounds. The Bill makes it more likely that requests will be accepted and that flexible working will become the default. It contains the three following measures. First, it creates a new requirement that employers may refuse a flexible working request only if it is reasonable to do so on the basis of at least one of the eight specified business grounds.
Secondly, the Bill requires employers to state the ground or grounds for refusing requests and explain why they consider it reasonable to do so. Under the current framework, an employer must only notify the employee of the decision; there is no requirement for an employer to explain the basis of a decision, which can mean a lack of clarity and transparency for the employee if their application is refused. While these measures do not remove the employer’s ability to make a decision on whether a flexible working request is reasonable, they do require the employer to explain and justify that decision and, in turn, the measures open up that decision for scrutiny by an employment tribunal.
Finally, the current legislation is silent on how to meet the requirement to consult when rejecting a request. We think it is important to provide employers and employees with greater clarity around the process if the employer intends to reject a request, so we are inserting a new power for the Secretary of State to make regulations setting out the steps that employers must take when consulting with the employee before deciding to refuse a flexible working application. We do not want to create bureaucracy for the sake of it. To ensure we get the balance right, we will work with stakeholders and undertake a full public consultation in partnership with business, trade unions and third sector bodies. The consultation will consider what the process should be, and that will ensure we get the balance right before we lay regulations.
Taken together, these measures are designed to encourage the acceptance of more requests, to improve clarity on decisions, to encourage more careful consideration of requests and to encourage constructive dialogue between employers and employees. We believe that this will help to make flexible working the default in a sensible and pragmatic way.
There is strong evidence to support our approach. Research by the equal parenting project, for example, found that 75% of UK managers believe that flexible working increases productivity and that 62.5% believe that it boosts motivation. Yet, according to the flexible jobs index 2023, although nine in 10 people want to work flexibly, only six in 10 employees are currently working flexibly and only three in 10 jobs are advertised with flexible working.
Uma Kumaran (Stratford and Bow) (Lab)
I will stop with the Bond jokes for now, but “Never Say Never Again”—Members know that laughter is one of the best medicines, certainly for our mental health and for the mental health of workers. Research from the Centre for Mental Health cites strong evidence that Government policies to boost workplace rights, such as on flexible working and job security, can positively impact workers’ mental health.
Flexibility is crucial to the workplace participation of those with long-term chronic health conditions and those with mental health problems, and it is good for workers. In the oral evidence sessions, we heard that good employment conditions support productivity, employers and the economy, and that good flexible working policies generally go down very well with employees: it can help staff to feel engaged in their work and to feel valued by their managers. I am sure Opposition Members want to feel valued, but—
The Chair
Order. The hon. Lady is perfectly entitled to make a speech, but I thought this was going to be an intervention. She can make a speech later. I call the Minister.
Dame Nia Griffith
I thank my hon. Friend for her valuable contribution; she reminds us that flexible working can often be a real help in getting people into work.
The changes in the Bill will support employers and employees to agree solutions that work for both parties and increase the take-up of flexible working. The Opposition amendments, new clause 26 and amendment 132, proposed by the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire, include a requirement for an assessment of the impact of the Bill’s provisions on flexible working to be produced before the provisions can be commenced. The Government resist those amendments. They have already produced a comprehensive set of impact assessments, which was published alongside Second Reading and based on the best available evidence on the potential impact of the Bill’s measures on business, workers and the wider economy.
Our proportionate assessment included labour market and broader macroeconomic analysis considering the impact of these changes on individuals and businesses. It also provided a breakdown of the impacts on employment tribunals, small business and individuals with protected characteristics. We intend to refine that analysis over time, working closely with businesses, trade unions, academics and think-tanks. The analysis published alongside the Bill describes the overall business impact as neutral. Businesses may see benefits in improved productivity, employee loyalty, worker satisfaction, staff retention and the ability to attract a wider range of employees. It is important to remember that businesses can still reject flexible working requests on eight valid business grounds, including the burden of costs.
As is standard practice, the Government will publish an enactment impact assessment once the Bill reaches Royal Assent, in line with the requirements of the better regulation framework. That will account for where the primary legislation in the Bill has been amended in its passage through Parliament in such a way as to change the impacts of the policy on business significantly. That impact assessment will be published alongside the enacted legislation. We will then publish further analysis alongside future consultations, ahead of secondary legislation to meet our better regulation requirements. I therefore ask Opposition Members to withdraw their amendments.
Greg Smith
New clause 26 and amendment 132 are about impact assessments of flexible working. Amid her speculation about the Mid Buckinghamshire pantomime, to which I trust she will be buying a ticket, the Minister talked about impact assessments that have already been made. But we know what the Regulatory Policy Committee has said about those impact assessments:
“there is little evidence presented that employers are rejecting requests”
for flexible working “unreasonably”.
We should remember that the previous Conservative Government, although they want to repeal it, introduced the right to request flexible working from the first day of employment through the Employment Relations (Flexible Working Act) 2023, which came into force in April. The RPC has said that the Government have not considered the effectiveness of the previous Bill—it might be difficult to do so given how recently it has come into force—and that it is therefore
“difficult to assess the justification for the additional measures”
in the Bill. The RPC also says that the Government have not considered the effectiveness of non-regulatory options such as raising awareness of the right to request flexible working. So the Government have not made the case for why this is necessary. I do not believe the Minister gave a clear explanation either. I am sure she will have a second chance to do so in summing up.
The RPC rebukes the Government for failing to take into account the costs this measure will impose on business, namely
“the costs to employers of engaging with more ET cases and hearings taking longer because they will now be considering wider and more subjective factors”
and that the Government’s own impact assessment
“assumes that there are no net costs to employers of accepting requests, on the basis that they would do so only if the benefits at least matched the costs. However, this does not necessarily hold as rational, risk averse employers will also factor in the increased cost/risk of rejecting requests under the proposal, seeking to avoid costly employment tribunals and, especially for SMBs”—
Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)
The hon. Member is talking about costs, but does he not agree that the lack of flexible work locks out far too many women? Some 40% of women who are not currently working say that access to flexible work would mean that they could take paid work. If we are talking about the cost to the economy, does he not agree that guaranteeing flexible working would boost the economy?
Greg Smith
The Opposition are not against flexible working; as I said, we actually legislated for it in the previous Parliament. We can see the benefits of it, as we discussed this morning, for anyone with childcare responsibilities—I count myself and my wife in that; I do not think it is quite a declarable interest—a caring responsibility or a need to have those flexible hours.
We fully recognise and accept the challenges around the nuts and bolts of the details proposed in this legislation, but I gently put it to the hon. Lady that it is our job, as His Majesty’s loyal Opposition, to road-test any legislation that the Government bring forward, which is what we are seeking to do. We are not against flexible working, but we are focused on the potential unintended consequences, the potential cost to business and the potential cost to jobs in the overall workforce, as I argued in a debate on an amendment this morning.
If employers do not have confidence—if they think that something will go wrong or that it will lead to countless days and months in employment tribunals—they may not make those hires in the first place, and then everyone and the whole economy will suffer. Opposition Members cannot stand by and not challenge or test that to ensure that the Government have got it right. To return to what I was saying before the intervention, for SMEs, the opportunity cost of their chief executive officer or another senior director spending time on employment tribunals is also considerable.
New clause 26 in my name and the name of my hon. Friends merely gives the Government an opportunity to do their homework and test whether the provision will work. We do not believe that they should casually pile more regulation on to business without knowing whether these specific measures—the detailed measures in the Bill—are actually needed to achieve their objectives.
We are asking the Government to consult on the impact of the measure and to report on it, and for the House of Commons to approve that report before the measure comes into force. Given the RPC’s verdict on the Bill’s impact assessments, business would find it reassuring if the impact assessment could be done and placed before the House so that we could study it and debate it, and so that Members on both sides of the House—Government Back Benchers and Opposition Back Benchers, as well as those in the smaller parties—can fully understand it. We believe that it is important for the Government to have to come back again for the approval of the House before the measure comes into effect.
Laurence Turner
The hon. Gentleman seems to be looking for statistical evidence about employers unreasonably refusing flexible working requests. I must say that it is a shame that the workplace employment relations study was last carried out in 2011. The Government at the time declined to repeat the exercise; had they not, we might have the information in front of us that he is looking for.
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that there are precedents—blacklisting, for example—in which there were widespread but anecdotal reports that the practice was occurring? It was difficult to prove, and on that basis, the regulations on blacklisting were not enacted. Then, lo and behold, it became apparent years later that the practice was not just widespread but had been carried out on an industrial scale. Had the measures been put in place at the time, many lives would have been left unbroken.
Greg Smith
I will take on the chin the hon. Gentleman’s point about the 2011 dataset, which was published under the coalition Government, led by my noble friend Lord Cameron. The current Government is seeking to make this legislation, however, so the onus is on them—right here, right now—to provide the datasets, evidence, proper analysis and impact assessments for the legislation that they are putting before the House of Commons and, later, the House of Lords in this Session of this Parliament. I hope the hon. Gentleman accepts the good will with which that comment is made—it is not a political attack. It is the duty of any Government at any time, as they seek to legislate on any matter, to provide the impact assessments, the real data and the real-world evidence of why it is necessary to put that legislation in place.
As I said earlier, it is simply a case of asking the Government to do their homework properly, and to provide, not just to Parliament but to businesses and employees up and down the land, the basis for which they are seeking to change our statute book.
Alex McIntyre
I will return briefly to a couple of the shadow Minister’s comments. I take some quantum of solace in the fact that he now seems to be accepting the principle of consultation. Over the past couple of weeks, we have often heard that he would prefer there to be certainty for business in some of the provisions, and now there is some certainty.
Greg Smith
I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point, but my argument throughout our debates on the amendments has been that it is normal practice to consult first, legislate second, but in many parts of the Bill the practice is to legislate first, consult second. That, I gently suggest to him, is probably the wrong way round.
Alex McIntyre
The “cake and eat it” argument is the point I was trying to make. I advised on flexible working requests regularly when in private practice, where individuals and, in particular, employers were asking what their rights were in respect of a request.
The hon. Gentleman raised two points, the first of which was about costs. Again, I point to the exemptions. The burden of additional costs is one of the exemptions by which an employer can say that it is not reasonable to accept a flexible working request. The balance between having rights for employees and making sure that they are not too much of a burden on business is important. The burden of additional costs is already explicitly covered in the legislation.
Secondly, in relation to tribunals, one of the issues with the current system is the lack of explanation provided. Employees often believe the worst, even if that is not always the case. They might make their request, with valid reasons, and if their employer tells them a flat no, with no further explanation, they often believe the worst and bring a tribunal claim.
Providing that explanation at the beginning requires the employer to think about the request. Not every employer is an excellent, flexible employer; some employers think that by offering flexible working, they will somehow lose productivity, whereas lots of studies have shown the opposite. Through that provision, employers will think about the request, engage with the process and the exemptions, think about what that means for their business, and provide a reasoned explanation.
That will not take as long as we might think, because there are only eight exemptions and people know their business very well. When they give that written explanation, it can be relatively short. It does not have to be “War and Peace”—I should have mentioned another James Bond novel—because it is just to give some background. We will then have an explanation that can be used in a tribunal. That will really assist tribunals in dealing with these cases, because there will be a written explanation of why the decision has been taken.
There are loads of cases in which people bring claims of discrimination because their flexible working requests have been rejected. Those can take up lots of time, when there has been just a misunderstanding between the employer and the employee. By introducing the requirement to provide an explanation, and for the employer to think through the reasonableness of it, there might hopefully be fewer claims in the employment tribunal.
Dame Nia Griffith
Let me make a couple of quick points to sum up. The Opposition are trying to say that most businesses already do this, but this is not about the principle of introducing flexible working; it is about making the process straightforward, clear and consistent across businesses. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester said, by ensuring that clarity, it may well reduce the number of cases that get taken to tribunal.
If most businesses are already doing this, why do we want to legislate? Well, we do not want those businesses to be penalised for doing the right thing. We want everybody to be offered the opportunity of flexible working within the reasonableness of their working situation, and with the opportunity for employers to refuse on the eight specified grounds. That will spread best practice not only in it being offered in all places of employment, but in the way that any request for flexible working is dealt with. That is an explanation of the context.
As we have clearly said, our impact assessment has provided an initial analysis of the impacts that can follow, but we will update and define them as we further develop the policy. In fact, part of the clause is specifically about the Secretary of State having the power to provide further detail. We are confident that as most businesses already participate in this process, make the appropriate responses to their employees and understand the system, it will be not a huge new burden to them in any way. I remind Committee members yet again that dealing appropriately with requests for flexible working can considerably help recruitment and retention for businesses. On that note, we reject the amendments tabled by the Opposition.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 7 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 8
Statutory sick pay: removal of waiting period
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss Government new clause 5—Statutory sick pay in Northern Ireland: removal of waiting period.
Justin Madders
Clause 8 provides for the removal of the waiting period from the statutory sick pay system, meaning that all eligible employees are able to access statutory sick pay from the first day of sickness absence. The current system of waiting until the fourth day of sickness before SSP is paid means that many people are forced to make the difficult choice between going into work when they are unwell or receiving no income. That is bad for individuals but also bad for business.
Removing the waiting period will support employees in taking the time off they need to recover from illness and reduce the spread of infection. Under the current rules, the system encourages workers to drag themselves into work when they are unwell. The TUC gave an example of workers in a mental health hospital in Blackpool who had to go on strike because they did not have access to day one sick pay and could not afford to take the day off. Those NHS workers felt that they were being forced to go into work. Obviously, they work in a clinical environment, so they were also putting patients at risk.
Greg Smith
I will not take long. I understand the principle that the Minister has outlined and accept his arguments about workplace sickness and the evidence that the Committee has heard, but I want to reflect for a moment on the challenge that he raised about the potential—I emphasise the word “potential”—for abuse of day one sick pay.
The Government need to put in place safeguards, rather than just saying, “It’s up to businesses to manage their own practices.” Of course it is up to businesses to manage their own practices for the vast majority of things, but if a clear and unambiguous case of abusing day one provisions is found, we need protections for businesses as they seek to deal with those staff members. I have no doubt that the vast majority will not seek to abuse them, but there is always that scope, as in any walk of life.
I will ask the Minister for some clarity about new clause 5. On one level, it is perfectly sensible to make sure that there is a united policy approach to this issue across the whole of our United Kingdom, but why has it taken a new clause in the Bill for the Government to remember that Northern Ireland is part of our country? I sense the hon. Member for Dundee Central potentially tingling at the mention of our United Kingdom, but I thought that one thing that could unite the Conservative and Labour parties was that we are both Unionist parties—we both believe in keeping the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland together.
I hope that the answer is that, like many other things in relation to this rushed, 100-day Bill, the reference to Northern Ireland was simply left out. I think the Committee needs an explanation, however, as to why, rather than a reference to Northern Ireland being put straightforwardly in the first version of the Bill, a new clause was needed to show that the Government remember that Northern Ireland is part of our great United Kingdom.
Alison Hume
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Christopher.
We in this place enjoy the employment rights that come with our job, which is to serve our constituents to the best of our ability. When we are unwell, we can take time off but we are still paid. Before I arrived here, I spent a considerable number of years working as a freelancer while bringing up my family; I believe that is now called being a worker in the gig economy. I understand all too well the pressure for people to work when they are unwell, as they juggle work around caring responsibilities, as I had to for my disabled son, and worry about money, as our family worried about how we would pay the rent and the other bills if I did not work.
At present, large numbers of workers either rely on statutory sick pay or receive nothing at all if they are absent from work due to illness. Those workers are more likely to be low paid than others. We also heard in the evidence sessions last week that women are currently more likely to miss out on statutory sick pay than men, because they do not earn enough to meet the threshold or have not been in their jobs for long enough. It is estimated that 1.1 million workers earn less than £123 a week and most of them are women who are not eligible for statutory sick pay at all.
In practice, as we heard in the evidence sessions last week and as Minister just referred to, that means that people drag themselves into work despite the fact that they are ill. As it stands, our sick pay system pushes far too many people to go to work when they are ill. Working while in poor health is more common among those from marginalised ethnic groups, people in lower-quality jobs and workers lacking formal qualifications.
Under the Bill, hundreds of thousands of people will qualify for sick pay from the first day that they are ill. That change and other changes will help to increase productivity, reduce prolonged illness due to exacerbating existing conditions, and lead to better public health outcomes. Lower-paid workers will no longer have to face the unpalatable choice between coming to work and risking spreading infection, or struggling to put food on the table and to pay bills. Those are very real concerns that, as I mentioned, I have faced.
In conclusion, I believe that the Bill will transform the world of work for millions of people across the country. If I may say so, it is a privilege to have played a small part in scrutinising it.
Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)
It is good to see you in your place, Sir Christopher. I will speak to an amendment on this issue shortly, but I will briefly say that everyone in this room, at some point in their working life, will be ill. It is not something that we would choose or desire, and most of us want to get back to work as soon as possible. The problem is that it happens, and when we are off ill we still have bills to pay, families to keep and mortgages or rents to pay. The level of statutory sick pay is frankly woeful in this country—in fact, for those hon. Members who do not know, it is the worst in the developed world. We should all be ashamed of that and we need to really think about it.
I welcome the changes to ensure that everybody gets statutory sick pay, but I find it disgraceful that we have not even touched on its level: it is £116 a week, or £6,000 a year. At some point in our lives, all of us have worked in very low-paid jobs. We have all done that, particularly in the early years. We would never imagine that somebody could live on £6,000 a year. Not everybody is expected to be off for a year, but some are, due to prolonged illnesses.
I will talk about this issue more on my amendment, but before I go into it in detail, I really want to hear from the Minister what changes the Government look to make so that we are no longer the sickest country in the world for being unreasonable, unfair and unjust to employees, and to ensure that statutory sick pay, which is about 17% of the average income—it was 35% when it was introduced—will start to restore the proper justice required for employees.
Laurence Turner
The shadow Minister’s comments to the effect that he accepted in practice the arguments on the workplace and presenteeism were welcome. If, through this Committee, we can reach some degree of cross-party consensus on the issue, it would be a real advance and proof of the value of this process. I mean that sincerely.
I turn to the measures. The question of waiting days is as old as the national insurance system. Although many of the incremental changes made in the Bill are welcome, it is time to take a step forward. The case for that step was proven during the pandemic. The Minister quoted USDAW research, and I am obliged to quote GMB research, which found that 90% of care workers could not afford to take time off if they became ill. That meant that during the pandemic, many people were presenting at work either for the duration of their illness or for the waiting period, and we have very good evidence of that. I will quote one example. A study by Dr Laura Shallcross and other authors in The Lancet found that the odds of covid infection in care home residents and staff and of large outbreaks
“were significantly lower in LTCFs”—
long-term care facilities—
“that paid staff statutory sick pay compared with those that did not.”
That was one of the key determinants or predictors of where outbreaks might occur.
To perhaps quote a more human voice, a social worker and member of the GMB said:
“For me, being on a zero-hours contract, I don’t always get work. If I become ill, I don’t get paid. If I get a cold or flu-related illness, I am expected to stay at home without pay, because I may pass the illness on to our service users. It is a very, very stressful life.”
When the Chartered Institute of Payroll Professionals surveyed its members, 47% agreed with the abolition of the waiting days period, so there is support in this area among private sector practitioners. When the Fabian Society, of which I declare I am a member, looked at this question, it found that the cost to business of adopting that measure would be very low—somewhere in the region of £15 per year for each employee.
As matters of cost have been raised in Committee on several occasions, I shall finish by quoting from the 2010 Black review, commissioned by the then incoming Government, which I think is still the best evidence we have of the cost of the statutory sick pay regime. It said:
“Great Britain has a mixed approach to sickness absence. Although employers in theory bear the cost of Statutory Sick Pay (SSP), the cost itself is not very high. Barriers to dismissal are relatively low (although it should be noted that dismissing someone specifically to avoid paying SSP is illegal). Employers are therefore obliged to bear little cost or accountability for sickness absence, albeit many employers choose to pay more in occupational sick pay (OSP) than the statutory obligation.”
There are many cases where occupational sick pay is paid at a rate higher than the SSP rate. That is of course welcome, and accounts for the majority of employers. For those employers who are being brought into paying SSP earlier, as we have heard, the cost is low, but the changes could make a really significant difference to the lives of some of the lowest paid workers in the economy. This measure is extremely welcome.
Uma Kumaran
I would like to highlight a few examples in addition to those mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield.
According to the Nuffield Trust, these changes will greatly benefit social care workers and workers on zero-hours contracts who, as has been highlighted, have inconsistent access to statutory sick pay, let alone occupational sick pay schemes, to cover costs such as rent and bills. As we have heard, and we have seen in our constituencies, many of those workers worked through the pandemic, risking their own lives and risking infection, putting themselves in harm’s way, because they did not have a fallback—they did not have statutory sick pay.
A more generous system of statutory sick pay should be seen not only as a right for workers, but as part of our national defences, including against pandemics. In particular, the changes will benefit low and outsourced workers such as porters, cleaners and housekeepers. I recently visited Newham General hospital in my constituency, where I saw at first hand the impact that porters and cleaning staff are having. I heard from the hospital’s chief executive officer how the hospital is unable to function without those essential staff.
Health Equals found that 28% of employees are reliant on statutory sick pay, one in 10 workers get nothing at all if they are sick and 82% of workers reported that flexible working arrangements allowed them to maintain a good level of personal health and wellbeing. I spoke earlier about mental health provisions. Evidence from Mind has shown us that employees with mental health issues are reliant on SSP. Without access to it, they are forced into debt, increasing the strain on their mental health.
The Centre for Progressive Change highlighted a recent study that shows that the cost of presenteeism for the private sector for mental health alone is around £23 billion a year to our economy, which is more than the cost of absenteeism, which is around £5 billion a year. The Institute of Public Policy Research has shown that workers in the UK are among the least likely to take sick days and that the presenteeism culture costs our economy £25 billion annually, due to the impact on productivity. We are speaking about workers today, but highlighting the impact on business and our economy helps to demonstrate why these measures are so important.
I will finish with one final statistic. The Centre for Progressive Change highlighted modelling by WPI Economics that shows that the implementation of an increased SSP rate, alongside other changes put forward in the Bill, such as the removal of waiting days and lower earnings limits, would deliver substantial economic benefits to the UK, including net gains of up to £800 million for businesses. That is £1.7 billion for the Treasury and £2.1 billion for the wider economy. Those are not small sums of money. Those would have a huge impact on our economy, through measures that put workers at the heart.
Justin Madders
We have had a good debate. Most Members have spoken positively about the need for this change. Obviously, this was a measure brought in temporarily by the previous Government, during covid. They recognised the particular issue at the time.
Before I turn to the shadow Minister’s comments, I wish him the best of luck in the Mid-Buckinghamshire pantomime. I hope he does not become the George Lazenby of the Conservative party as a result. He raised two perfectly reasonable questions. The first was on Northern Ireland. I can assure him that it was not an oversight. It has been introduced as an amendment because, as this is a transferred power to Northern Ireland, we need their consent before it can be included. I think he will understand that putting it in without getting that agreement might have been counterproductive.
On the second point that the shadow Minister made, about abuse of the provision, of course employers already have the power to deal with employees whom they feel are falsely taking time off sick. Whether that is day four or day one, those powers are already there.
My hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby made a very powerful speech to highlight the impact on particular groups. The evidence we heard from the Women’s Budget Group last week was particularly important in that respect. Other Members who spoke, my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham Northfield and for Stratford and Bow, raised a whole plethora of examples with pieces of evidence in support of the policy. I think it is one that is generally supported.
To deal with the point made by the hon. Member for Dundee Central about the level of statutory sick pay, he may not have seen my opining on SSP at the evidence session last week, or the famous comments from the former Health Secretary about it not being enough to live on. I recognise that. Unfortunately, however, I have to give him the stock answer, which is that the actual level is set by the Department for Work and Pensions. He made a fair point about people on long-term sick, because there is a huge interplay between people on long-term sick and the benefits system, but it is in the Department’s gift to set the rate and to look at how it interplays with accessibility to other benefits, which of course depends on people’s individual circumstances.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 8 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 9
Statutory sick pay: lower earnings limit etc
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 159, in clause 9, page 26, line 19, leave out paragraph (b).
Chris Law
I have already touched on the impact that illness has in our lives. Some of us have family members who have been long-term sick. If they have been in employment, £6,000 a year as an annual amount is clearly not going to be enough. I am glad that the Minister has raised the issue and addressed it, and I hope that the DWP can consider those levels. We are still the sickest country in the developed world, and I hope that that will change under this Government.
I will leave my comments on that for the moment, apart from one, which is about the TUC. I am sure that those on the Government Benches will be well aware of this. Previously, the TUC campaigned for an increase in the weekly level of sick pay to at least £320 per week. That is something to consider. I advocate statutory sick pay being based on the national living wage in respect of each hour during which the worker would have worked, but for sickness.
My amendment, however, is small and one that I hope will get cross-party support, largely because it is so modest and seeks to protect the lowest paid workers. I therefore hope to get to a conclusion today. This is not about a hammer to crack a nut, but about a small change that would help the most vulnerable and low-paid workers in our societies.
According to the Centre for Progressive Change, the wording of the Bill will make up to 1.3 million employees worse off. The Bill’s wording specifies that employees should be paid either SSP or a prescribed percentage of their usual pay, whichever is lower. However, that creates a group of workers who will receive even less in sick pay under the new arrangements than they do now. After 14 years of austerity, I am sure that the new Government do not want that to get even worse.
That is because although that group of workers might be earning above their lower earnings limit, reducing their earnings in line with the prescribed percentage would result in a weekly sick pay amount that is lower than statutory sick pay. For example, an employee earning £125 a week will currently get sick pay of £116.75. However, they would only receive £100 for the prescribed percentage of 80% or, worse, £75 for a prescribed percentage of 60%. The lower the replacement rate, the more employees will be affected, with a quarter of a million employees losing out on the 80% rate and 1.3 million employees losing out at the 60% rate.
The amendment would allow for those earning less than statutory sick pay to have their full earnings replaced. Frankly, that is the bare minimum that this Government and this Bill should be doing. That should be a starting point for statutory sick pay, increasing to the point where it is in line with the national living wage.
Employees earning less than statutory sick pay are by definition low earners. The evidence is clear that households with low incomes spend the vast majority of their earnings on essentials, such as rent and food. Cutting the incomes of those employees, even by a small percentage, risks them being unable to afford essential costs, pushing working families into hardship and deepening poverty. The changes in income may be especially difficult to bear during times of ill health, when the ability of households to adapt to budget losses is inevitably reduced.
An example of modelling that has been mentioned already is by WPI Economics. It shows that the direct cost to businesses of providing full earnings replacement would be small, calculated at £125 million per year across the entire UK economy. That is equivalent to £15 per employee per year. Reducing the earnings replacement rate below 100% as proposed would save businesses a small fraction of that already small amount, providing trivial cost savings for businesses. Furthermore, modelling shows that full earnings replacement would generate economic gains to businesses, the Treasury and the wider economy. With direct business benefits expected to be £1.1 billion, businesses would see aggregate net gains of around £1 billion every year from providing 100% earnings replacement.
I reiterate that the amendment makes a small change that should be regarded as the bare minimum. Further reform and increases to the sick pay system need to be implemented. As was mentioned earlier, we learned during the covid pandemic that employees coming into work when unwell can have a detrimental impact on public health and the economy. Those who come into physical contact with many people at work are often the least able to afford to self-isolate without pay or to have access to employer-provided sick pay, and are more likely to engage in presenteeism.
The UK’s current sick pay system contributes to economic stagnation, exacerbates the spread of infectious disease, makes long-term sickness absence more likely and drives people out of the taxpaying workforce. Everything that the Committee has discussed so far, across all parties, is about getting people into the workplace. The increased ill health adds a significant extra cost to the NHS, adds many more patients to waiting lists and increases the UK benefits bill. Workers themselves face financial hardship. There is no upside to the current system.
A meaningful increase to statutory sick pay would immediately turn the situation around. SSP reform would enable people to more proactively manage their health conditions, remain linked to their employers and stay off benefits when they fall ill. Modelling by WPI Economics shows that implementation of an increased SSP rate alongside the other changes put forward in the Bill would deliver substantial economic benefits for the UK, including net gains of up to £800 million for businesses, £1.7 billion for the Treasury and £2.1 billion for the wider economy—all upsides.
The onus is therefore on the Government to either: substantially increase the basic rate of statutory sick pay—although I have heard already that it is the DWP that needs to consider that—benchmarking it to the national living wage rate for normal working hours; use the Bill to amend existing primary legislation to give the Secretary of State additional powers, via secondary legislation, to change how the statutory sick pay rate is calculated; or, at the least, hold a statutory consultation with a timeline to establish what the new benchmark rate for SSP should be.
In the meantime, 100% replacement of earnings for employees earning below statutory sick pay is an easily affordable policy. It brings substantial net benefits to UK businesses, the Treasury and the wider economy. At the same time, it would avoid making over 1 million employees even worse off than they are today when forced to take time off sick. It would reduce hardship among employees with the lowest pay.
Justin Madders
I am grateful to the hon. Member for that helpful run-through of some of the issues that we are actively considering. He will be aware that a consultation on the issue closed only yesterday, so I would not want to pre-empt the outcome by accepting the amendment today. We understand the various arguments he has advanced that the level should be higher. He will not be surprised to hear that contrary arguments are put forward by some groups around having an incentive to take sick days when they are not needed.
Some of the modelling figures that the hon. Gentleman has come up with do not quite fit with the ones we have on where people would lose out at certain rates, but that will be considered in the round when we formally respond to the consultation. We hope to do so early in the new year, because we wish to put this into the Bill before it finishes its progress. It is something we are actively considering at the moment. I should be grateful if he would withdraw the amendment, so that we can take full account of the consultation that we have just completed.
Chris Law
I have listened with great interest to the Minister. I thank him for his comments and for the consultation that concluded yesterday. It would be helpful to hear today what the conclusion of the consultation is. I have made it crystal clear that none of us present want to see those at the lowest end of earnings worse off than they currently are. The Bill has been brought forward in good faith and good will, I am sure, by the new incoming Government to improve the lives of everyone, most of all those at the most vulnerable end. I have spoken to employers and employees quite widely about this, and the feeling I hear constantly is that this is a no-brainer. Delaying would be very difficult.
Justin Madders
I understand the point the hon. Member is making, but he will understand that when a Government Department—in this case the Department for Work and Pensions—undertakes a formal consultation, it is obliged to consider all responses before coming to a conclusion. That is why it is premature to agree to his amendment.
Chris Law
I thank the Minister for his intervention, but this is not a DWP issue. We are not talking about the level of SSP. We are talking about a sentence in the Bill that puts in a threshold that will make people on the lowest incomes worse off. That is an issue for the Minister for Employment to address rather than DWP. The level of SSP more widely has been discussed, and that may be an issue for DWP to consider. I think there will be disagreement over what that level should be. I have already quoted the TUC’s £320 a week, and I have suggested the national living wage. I look forward to that consultation, but this amendment seeks to strike a sentence out, nothing more.
Justin Madders
The very issue that the hon. Member is putting forward in his amendment is the issue that the Department for Work and Pensions is consulting on at the moment, which is why it would be premature to make a decision at this stage.
Chris Law
I need to ask for your advice, Sir Christopher, because at this point I would press the amendment to a vote but I want to be charitable and open to understanding what we are expecting from this consultation and when we would be able to bring this issue back—perhaps even during this Committee.
The Chair
One of the options open to the hon. Gentleman is to withdraw the amendment today but with a view to coming back to it on Report. Whether he wishes to do that or put the matter to a vote today is a matter for him.
Chris Law
Thank you for that advice, Sir Christopher. Based on that, I would consider coming back to this on Report, given the fact that I have not seen the consultation and I would like to work in the spirit that we have done so far in this room to try to bring about the best for all. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government new clause 6—Statutory sick pay in Northern Ireland: lower earnings limit etc.
Government amendment 107.
Justin Madders
Clause 9 provides for the removal of the requirement for an employee to earn at or above the lower earnings limit to be eligible for SSP. This requirement means that currently up to 1.3 million people, primarily women, are not entitled to receive SSP from their employer. This group are some of the lowest-paid in society, meaning that they and their families are most at risk of financial hardship if they cannot work. The clause ensures that all eligible employees can access statutory sick pay and the peace of mind it brings when they need to take time off due to illness.
However, we do not want to create a situation where anyone is entitled to receive more through SSP than they would otherwise earn. The clause therefore provides that an employee will be entitled to a certain percentage of their average weekly earnings or the current flat rate of SSP, whichever is lower. The clause therefore includes a power for the Secretary of State to determine that percentage rate by secondary legislation. However, it is our intention that the percentage rate is enshrined in primary legislation. I hope that gives the hon. Member for Dundee Central some comfort. We therefore published a consultation, which closed on 4 December, asking respondents what that percentage rate should be. We will now take time to carefully consider the responses we have received, before tabling an amendment to the Bill.
The changes that we are bringing in through the Bill will mean that up to 1.3 million low-paid employees will now be entitled to statutory sick pay and all eligible employees will be paid from the first day of sickness absence irrespective of their income, which will of course benefit millions of employees.
It is important to highlight that many employers choose to go further and provide more financial support to their employees during a sickness absence, with around 60% of all eligible employees being entitled to contractual sick pay. Those who need additional financial support while off sick are able to claim additional benefits through the welfare system, depending on their individual circumstances.
New clause 6 extends to Northern Ireland the benefits of strengthening statutory sick pay by removing the requirement to earn at least the lower earnings limit and creating a new percentage rate. These measures will ensure that all eligible employees have access to statutory sick pay irrespective of their income level, with the peace of mind that this brings when they need to take time off work due to sickness. The clause includes a power for the Minister for Communities to determine that percentage rate by secondary legislation.
Statutory sick pay is, as we have discussed, a transferred matter in relation to Northern Ireland. However, Northern Ireland has historically maintained parity with Great Britain on social security matters, including statutory sick pay. The Minister for Communities, Gordon Lyons MLA, has agreed to ask Westminster to legislate on the Northern Ireland Assembly’s behalf and to seek a legislative consent motion for the proposed changes in order to maintain parity in relation to statutory sick pay.
Finally, amendment 107 is consequential on new clauses 5 and 6; it limits the extent of the new clauses to Northern Ireland only.
Greg Smith
I shall be brief. On the Northern Ireland issues, I accept the Minister’s earlier explanation.
I have one straightforward question. The Minister says he has consulted and will consider the responses around the percentage rate going forward, and has said he will seek to amend the Bill to lock the percentage rate into the face of the Bill. The question remains when that amendment is likely to come. I appreciate it takes time to go through responses; it is unlikely to be done overnight, and potentially with Christmas coming up that will get in the way of any chance of the matter’s being considered by this Bill Committee. Therefore, is the Minister envisaging such an amendment on Report? Does he anticipate that it may come forward when the legislation is in the House of Lords? At what point will we see the detail? I do welcome the Minister’s commitment to get it into primary legislation, because that is important and is consistent with some of the things that I have been arguing for in relation to other amendments, but in order for Parliament to take a considered decision, it is important that we know when the amendment is likely to come—later in Committee, on Report in the House of Commons, or in the other place.
Justin Madders
That is a reasonable question. It is another Department’s consultation so there are only so many levers I can pull, but I envisage that the amendment will be tabled at Report stage at the latest. I hope that is sufficiently clear.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 9 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Anna McMorrin.)
Employment Rights Bill (Ninth sitting)
Tuesday 10th December 2024
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Employment Rights Act 2025 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 10 December 2024 - (10 Dec 2024)
The Chair
Would everyone please ensure that all electronic devices are turned off or switched to silent mode? We will now continue line-by-line consideration of the Bill. The grouping and selection list for today’s sitting is available in the room and on the parliamentary website. I remind Members about the rules on the declaration of interests, as set out in the code of conduct.
Clause 10
Policy about allocating tips etc: consultation and review
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Justin Madders)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this morning, Mr Mundell. As is customary, I refer to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my membership of the GMB and Unite trade unions.
As Members will be aware, clause 10 introduces new requirements on tipping, namely the requirements for employers to consult workers about the allocation of the tips they have earned, and to review their tipping policy. These new requirements will build on the measures introduced by the previous Government in the Employment (Allocation of Tips) Act 2023. The Act came fully into effect on 1 October this year and ensured that an estimated £200 million-worth of tips each year are no longer retained by employers.
The Act is accompanied by a statutory code of practice on the fair and transparent distribution of tips. Although the Act requires employers to allocate tips fairly to workers, the existing statutory code of practice only encourages consultation with workers in deciding that allocation. The Government were clear in their commitment to going further—indeed, I took part in a debate earlier this year in which I said that the legislation did not go far enough. We will therefore make it mandatory for employers to consult workers in developing or updating their tipping policies, including how tips are allocated.
The clause will support worker participation in the allocation and distribution of tips that they have earned, by mandating that employers consult workers during the development or revision of their written tipping policies. It will also mandate that employers review their tipping policy and maintain records of the consultation they have carried out, as well as giving workers the right to request and review records related to the tipping policy consultation. The consultation will be required to take place at the formative stage, before the policy is finalised or updated, and should be carried out, where possible, by engaging with representatives of recognised trade unions or other chosen representatives. If neither are available, the consultation will be required to be with workers likely to be affected.
We will continue to engage with unions and worker representatives in hospitality and other impacted industries to ensure that the measures in the Bill and in the statutory guidance deliver fully on our aims. Following Royal Assent, we will consult widely and properly with stakeholders to determine what changes should be made to the existing statutory code of practice. We are determined to ensure that guidance is as helpful as possible, ensuring that tips are allocated fairly and that worker consultation is carried out properly.
These measures will be enforced via the employment tribunal system. If an employer fails to consult their workers properly or to distribute tips in a fair and transparent manner, workers will be able to bring a claim to an employment tribunal. The tribunal will be able to order an employer to compensate workers up to £5,000 for financial loss. I think that Members can see what we are trying to achieve with the clause, and I therefore commend it to the Committee.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship once more, Mr Mundell. The Minister mentioned that the clause builds on private Member’s legislation passed in the last Parliament, and it would be remiss of me not to put on record that the transformation in some employers’ attitudes to their employees and to the retention and fair distribution of tips was in large part down to the former Conservative Member for Watford, Dean Russell, who piloted the original legislation through the House. There were one or two little bumps along the road as he came into ministerial office and then out again in—what was the number?—43 days, but many Conservative colleagues really pushed for the legislation. It is one of those great unfairnesses that, for years, incredibly hard-working people in the hospitality sector and others had an expectation that they would receive the generosity of their customers’ tips at the end of the meal, the round of drinks or whatever but, for various reasons, did not get their fair share. The legislation the Minister referred to righted that historic wrong, and clause 10, which seeks to strengthen that, is very welcome.
Where I gently suggest to the Minister that there needs to be a little more thought and clarity is settings where there is no union to consult. That might be a small business such as a restaurant or pub, where the people who work there are not affiliated with any union or body that could be consulted on their behalf. Will he say something about how those smaller businesses—smaller restaurant or pub settings—will get dialogue going with their employees so that the business has a fair and equitable, and clear and unambiguous policy to ensure that the tips reach those workers?
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I just emphasise what the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire stated in respect of smaller settings. In my constituency there are lots of restaurants and small hotels without the network of support for workers that a trade union would offer. It would be useful if Ministers were alive to the circumstances of those smaller settings. I also wonder whether the Minister is reflecting on what guidance he might issue on the question of what is equitable that could be reflected if people end up going to a tribunal.
Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)
I draw attention to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my membership of the GMB and Unite trade unions. I noticed last week that the Prime Minister made a James Bond joke, and I wondered whether he was following the Committee’s proceedings in real time. There is a valid question here: when James Bond buys a vodka martini, what happens to the tips? Hopefully, thanks to this Bill and the legislation passed last year, we will have a more equitable solution.
I want quickly to raise two issues. The “Make Work Pay” document published earlier this year stated:
“Labour will strengthen the law to ensure hospitality workers receive their tips in full and workers decide how tips are allocated.”
I would be interested in the Minister’s views on whether this measure meets that very welcome commitment. Whether tips that would have been received during shifts that are cancelled fall under the definition of reasonable compensation is presumably a question to be addressed in the future.
In respect of the points raised by the hon. Members for Torbay and for Mid Buckinghamshire about consultation with groups of workers who are not represented by a trade union, I suggest that the kinds of businesses they mentioned should have at least a degree of familiarity with the principles of that, since they are established and well understood in the context of redundancy situations and in other areas.
Justin Madders
First, I will acknowledge, as did the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire, the work in this area by previous Members of this place, including the former Member for Ynys Môn. I think it was seven years after the announcement that there was to be legislation that we finally got action, but it is welcome. I note the shadow Minister’s comment that the legislation has transformed attitudes, and that is what we are trying to do with this Bill in general: transform the workplace so that workers have better security and a better voice.
The shadow Minister raised some important questions, as did the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Torbay, about what this measure means for smaller businesses where there may not be a trade union. Of course, that is an argument for greater organisation in the workplace so that employers can consult collectively with the workforce. Those smaller employers—the Great British café, for example—would not always have an easy route to consult with their workforce, but in that kind of informal setting, where there is only a handful of employees, it should be fairly straightforward. Everyone will know their role and what goes on, and the existing code of practice deals with the guidance for smaller employers in that sense.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield asked whether this measure meets our commitments under “Make Work Pay”, and I believe it does. It is a significant step in continuing the welcome, transformational moves that we have seen on tips, and it gives workers an absolute right to be consulted, which I think is important. There is evidence, such as the research by the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, that certain sections of the workforce, including agency workers and people working in certain parts of a business, feel that they do not have a voice. This provision will give them that voice and the real teeth they need to ensure that tips are fairly distributed. As the shadow Minister said, this is all about them. It is about ensuring that everyone who contributes to the service that we all enjoy gets those tips, which the customer clearly wants to ensure are spread among the workforce. On that note, I commend the clause to the Committee.
The Chair
It is good to hear the Great British café will be covered by these provisions.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 10 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 11
Parental leave: removal of qualifying period of employment
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause 12 stand part.
New clause 16—Publication of information about parental leave policies: regulations—
“(1) The Secretary of State must make regulations to require any employer with more than 250 employees to publish information on the internet about the employer’s policies on parental leave and pay for parental leave.
(2) Regulations under subsection (1) must be published within one year of this Act being passed.
(3) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative regulation procedure.”
This new clause would require companies with more than 250 employees to publish information about their parental leave and pay policies.
New clause 17—Entitlement to paternity leave—
“(1) The Employment Rights Act 1996 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 80A (entitlement to paternity leave: birth)—
(a) in subsection (3), for ‘two’ substitute ‘six’,
(b) in subsection (4), for ‘56 days’ substitute ‘52 weeks’.
(3) In section 80B (entitlement to paternity leave: adoption)—
(a) in subsection (3), for ‘two’ substitute ‘six’,
(b) in subsection (4), for ‘56 days’ substitute ‘52 weeks’.”
This new clause sets out an entitlement to paternity leave.
The Minister for Equalities (Dame Nia Griffith)
Clauses 11 and 12 enable employed parents to give notice of their intention to take parental leave or paternity leave from their first day in a new job. Clause 11 does that for parental leave by amending section 76 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 to remove the power for the Secretary of State to make regulations relating to the duration for which an employee must be employed before being entitled to be absent from work on parental leave. Clause 12 works in a similar manner for paternity leave, amending sections 80A and 80B of the Employment Rights Act 1996 to remove the power for the Secretary to make regulations relating to the duration for which an employee must be employed before being entitled to take paternity leave.
Currently, parents must complete one year of continuous service to qualify for parental leave, and 26 weeks of continuous service to qualify for paternity leave. Clause 11 will make an additional 1.5 million parents each year eligible for parental leave, while clause 12 will bring an additional 32,300 fathers and partners a year into scope for paternity leave. Clauses 11 and 12 will make it easier for employees to move jobs, which may enable them to secure wage increases without losing their ability to take parental leave or paternity leave. Removing deterrents to changing jobs is important, because research by the Office for National Statistics and the Resolution Foundation shows that people who move jobs are likely to get wage increases.
There is also a benefit from our changes to employers, who will gain access to a larger pool of applicants for vacancies, as parents will be more likely to apply for new jobs because they will not lose their access to those leave entitlements. We have engaged with stakeholders who represent the interests of parents, and they have said that they welcome the removal of continuity of service for parental and paternity leave. Making those entitlements available from day one also brings parental and paternity leave into line with other entitlements, such as maternity and adoption leave, creating a clearer and fairer system.
New clause 16 would commit the Government to introducing regulations that require organisations employing more than 250 people to publish information about their parental leave and pay policies. The hon. Member for Torbay is right to highlight the significance of publishing parental leave policies. It is certainly true that parental leave and pay policies are not perks on a par with gym memberships; they are critical policies that allow people to manage their lives. As well as being hugely important at a personal level, parental leave and pay policies are critical for addressing wider social and economic issues.
The Bill already does a lot to support working families. It reforms the right to request flexible working to make it the default. It puts in place legislation that makes it unlawful to dismiss pregnant women, mothers on maternity leave and mothers who return to work for a six-month period after they return, except in very specific circumstances. It also requires large employers to produce equality action plans. That is why at this point we believe that not requiring publication of parental policies in the Bill is the correct approach. It strikes the right balance between doing more to help working families and being manageable for employers to respond and adapt to.
New clause 17 would increase the length of paternity leave from two weeks to six weeks and also seeks to introduce the ability to take paternity leave at any time in the first year following birth or adoption. The Government value the vital role that fathers and partners play in caring for children and supporting their partners. We recognise that parental leave and pay entitlements, such as paternity leave and pay, play a key role in their ability to do that. That is why we are taking the first step of making paternity and parental leave day one rights.
Recent changes to paternity leave and pay, which took effect on 6 April 2024, allow parents to take their leave and pay in two non-consecutive weeks; to take their leave and pay at any point in the first year after the birth or adoption of their child, rather than only within the first eight weeks; and to give shorter notice for each period of leave. That means that parents are now able to take their paternity leave at any point in the first year following their child’s birth or adoption. While I very much support the intent behind this element of the new clause tabled by the hon. Member for Torbay, it is already in place and so is not required.
If fathers or partners wish to take a longer period of leave and pay, shared parental leave and pay is an option they can consider. Up to 50 weeks of leave and up to 37 weeks of pay can be “created” for parents to share from maternity entitlements that the mother does not intend to use. Parents can use the scheme to take leave together for up to six months or to intersperse periods of leave with periods of work.
We know that more needs to be done to ensure that the parental leave system provides the best possible support for working families. That is why we have committed to a review of the parental leave system. The review will be conducted separately to the Bill and work is already under way across Government on planning for its delivery. I therefore commend clauses 11 and 12 to the Committee and invite the hon. Member for Torbay not to move new clauses 16 and 17.
The Chair
Before I call the shadow Minister, I should tell the Committee that there may be a fire alarm this morning. We will be advised on what to do if that happens.
Greg Smith
Planned fire alarms are always quite disturbing, but never mind. I will broadly address the subject we are debating, before making specific comments on the new clauses tabled by the Liberal Democrats. I do not have a direct interest to declare, but I have had paternity leave three times in my life. I value its provision and the importance of ensuring that fathers and partners are there to support mothers in the early days of a new child arriving in the world. Paternity leave is incredibly important, at any point when it arrives. For my second child, I had only been an MP for four weeks after the 2019 general election, when I disappeared for two weeks. That was vital to support my wife, who had valiantly gone through a general election with me while she was eight months pregnant. Of course, she was not pounding the streets in the way most of us were at that point, but I just wanted to give that personal reflection on how important paternity leave is.
Greg Smith
I will just finish this thought; the hon. Lady knows that I am not shy about taking interventions. Every business, even if it has only one or two employees, will know what the plan is if one of its employees comes to it and says that their wife, partner or whatever is pregnant and that they will require at some point in the near future two weeks of paternity leave. On the grounds that virtually every business that I know has that plan—has that understanding of what it will do in offering the statutory requirement for paternity leave and the way it will remunerate it or not, as the case may be—I am struggling to understand why it should be only those companies with more than 250 employees that are subject to the requirement.
Sarah Gibson
The reason for leaving it at 250 employees, despite a thought among Opposition Members that it should be extended to 500, is that, currently, small and medium-sized businesses are classified as having up to 249 employees. Larger businesses, which will undoubtedly have the infrastructure, should be able to publish the information. The new clause would prevent an onerous burden on very small businesses from having to publish the information. It does not imply that they would have lesser standards; it is merely that they would not be obliged to publish the information.
Greg Smith
I understand the point that the hon. Lady makes. I am the last person to want to put a greater burden or unnecessary burden on any form of business. All I gently suggest is that this probably is not that great a burden on a business, on the grounds that it will already know what it is going to do when an employee comes and asks for paternity leave, maternity leave or whatever. That is particularly the case given that much of the rules and regulations is already set in statute and, when this Bill undoubtedly achieves Royal Assent at some point, will be further enshrined in statute. There are many other regulations that businesses have to comply with when publishing on their website—I am thinking of privacy notices and various GDPR regulations and so on—just as all the members of this Committee and Members of this House have to do on our own websites. I do not think anyone would try to define any of us as large businesses or huge employers, and I do not think that there are any hon. or right hon. Members left who do not have a website. Perhaps one or two do not—
Greg Smith
He is a fine television superstar these days.
All of us will have published these statements on our websites, because that is straightforwardly set out in statute—straightforwardly set out in law. I am at a loss to understand why it would be a burden for a business of any size to do that, but I am mindful that we do not want to overburden businesses. I accept the explanation given by the hon. Member for Chippenham.
Turning to new clause 17, I would have loved to have six weeks of paternity leave when my three children were born. When my first child was born, I was still self-employed. It was before my election to this place, so the time I took off in 2016 was entirely unpaid because I just had to forgo client work, but it was important to do that.
I am slightly concerned that, as desirable as six weeks would be, it is too great a burden for businesses automatically to have to shoulder. Some good and generous employers may well find a way of offering it in one way or another, paid or otherwise. However, to go beyond the current entitlement of two weeks, which can be split up, as the Minister mentioned, seems to be too big an ask for some businesses, desirable though it may be for fathers to be able be there with their new child in the most precious early days of life to support the mother and the child. I gently invite Liberal Democrat Members to reflect on whether six weeks is realistic for every business.
Steve Darling
As a state, we need to reflect on what makes up our society. Often, it is family units. Whether that is the quintessential family of two parents and two children or something similar, supporting the family unit is absolutely essential. I suggest that the two new clauses are about supporting families. New clause 17 allows both partners to engage. Both my lads are now grown up. It is not just about the link with the child; it is about supporting the partnership of the couple—whatever form that couple happens to be—in bringing up the child. Extending leave entitlements would strengthen that bond. The impact of broken families on youngsters can be very profound, and we are strengthening families through these proposals. We will not push the new clauses to a vote, but we stand by them and believe in them wholeheartedly.
The Chair
Just for information, new clauses 16 and 17 would not be voted on at this point. That will come later in the consideration of the Bill.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I would like to ask the Minister if he could—
Sir Ashley Fox
Sorry. I ask her whether she could advise on what analysis the Government have done on the likely cost to small businesses of making maternity-paternity shared parental leave a day one right. Although I agree that these are important rights for parents, I wonder what analysis has been done. I am concerned for small businesses, such as those with only one or two employees. If they were to take on a new employee, they could immediately find that they have to grant leave and pay, as well as find a substitute worker. I fully accept the importance of these rights, but is the Minister satisfied that it is appropriate to impose those burdens on small businesses, particularly given the other burdens in the Bill, the national insurance charges in the Budget and all other manner of taxes and impositions that the Government are introducing?
Dame Nia Griffith
Let me address that last point first. We have had engagement with stakeholders who represent families, such as Pregnant Then Screwed and Maternity Action, which has shown that they welcome the removal of continuity of service for paternity leave. We can all understand the benefits that that brings in terms of people being able to apply for new jobs and move to better-paid jobs. While the change will have a cost to businesses, it is estimated to be relatively small, at £6.2 million a year, and we believe that the positive impact on families will be much larger. This clause will make 10,000 more fathers and partners eligible for paternity leave, including those with low job security, who are most likely not to meet the current qualifying requirements. I remind the Committee that it is often those people in the most transitory jobs who have the most precarious financial positions and the least opportunity to spend time with their families.
I will address the comments made by the Liberal Democrat Front-Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Torbay. We are making immediate changes to paternity leave through this Bill. We will make paternity leave available from day one in a new job and enable paternity leave to be taken after shared parental leave. The flexibility that this will give rise to will enable employees to move towards better-paid employment without the fear of losing their right to protected time away to be with their families. We have also committed to review the entire parental leave system to ensure that it best supports families. As I mentioned earlier, that is already in progress across the Government.
I will make a small technical point. The effect of new clause 17 is that fathers and partners who are eligible for paternity leave would be entitled to six weeks of leave, adding four weeks to the existing two weeks offered by the current paternity leave entitlement. The new clause would not affect the entitlement window in which fathers and partners need to take their paternity leave, as this was extended from 56 days to 52 weeks in April 2024. However, the change to enable paternity leave to be taken over 52 weeks was made in secondary legislation. The new clause would make this change in primary legislation, which would mean that it would not be possible to make any future changes to the period in which a parent could take parental leave in secondary legislation. On that note, I commend clauses 11 and 12 to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 11 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 13
Ability to take paternity leave following shared parental leave
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Dame Nia Griffith
The point of clause 13 is to give employed fathers, partners and secondary adopters, including those who have their children through a surrogacy arrangement, the ability to take paternity leave and pay after taking shared parental leave and pay. The clause amends the Employment Rights Act 1996 by removing the limitation that prevents fathers and partners from taking paternity leave and pay after shared parental leave and pay. In April 2024, changes were made to paternity leave and pay, enabling it to be taken at any time in the first year following a child’s birth or adoption. Before then, parents had eight weeks to take their paternity leave and pay. That change means that parents are now more likely to take their paternity leave and pay after their shared parental leave and pay, as they now have more time to take their paternity leave and pay. Removing that restriction creates more flexibility for parents and means that parents who choose to take their shared parental leave and pay first will not then lose their ability to take their entitlement to paternity leave and pay.
Currently, if shared parental leave and pay is taken, parents lose any remaining paternity leave and pay entitlements they have not yet used. Removing that restriction creates a more supportive framework for families by allowing greater flexibility in how parents structure their leave, and ensures that they will not inadvertently lose access to the leave and pay they are entitled to.
Greg Smith
Certainly there is no objection from the Opposition to the principle of flexibility in ensuring people can have that choice and ability to dictate when leave is taken, particularly in the case of paternity leave. I can think of many examples, including colleagues from the previous Parliament. I acted as the proxy vote for one of them while they were on paternity leave. They pushed that back slightly—the obscurities of this place—to ensure that their paternity leave did not marry up with recess. However, there will be many other reasons and flexibilities that people require away from the eccentricities of working in this place.
I ask the Minister to reflect on whether, within that framework of flexibility, which in its own right is a good thing, there needs to be any secondary guidance or advice to businesses on what might turn out to be some very rare but foreseeable circumstances where employees or individuals push the boundaries a bit too far with their employers. and on what to do in those extreme cases. That is not to detract in any way, shape or form from the principle of flexibility, but I ask whether there is a requirement for guidance notes or Government advice, however it is formed, to give employers a bit of a safety net if, in one or two cases, those boundaries be pushed a bit too far.
Sarah Gibson
Given the Liberal Democrat new clauses we discussed earlier, it is clear that we welcome any flexibility that encourages paternity leave and allows parents to share the leave in an equal and welcoming way. Therefore, we welcome this clause.
Dame Nia Griffith
In response to the point made by the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire, there are clearly defined time limits, and I am sure that most employers and employees will manage to work this out. I just point out gently that the impact assessment on these provisions received a green rating, so some work has been done on this. I remind Members that we are undertaking a wider review as well in respect of paternity and parental leave.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 13 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 14
Bereavement leave
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Dame Nia Griffith
Clause 14 establishes a new day one right to bereavement leave. The loss of a loved one is a deeply personal experience, and a sad reality that almost all of us will experience. When that happens, the grief that comes with a loss will impact us all in different ways. Some individuals may need time and space away from other demands, including work, to begin to process their loss. Others may prefer to keep working to maintain a sense of familiarity while adjusting to a new normal. Thankfully, for those who need it, the majority of employers respond compassionately to requests for time away from work, and recognise the key role they can play in supporting their employees during this time. In the absence, however, of a statutory right, not all employees may be afforded the time off they need to grieve. We estimate that this would benefit at least 900,000 workers each year. That is a significant proportion of the working population who will be able to access bereavement leave from day one of employment.
Currently, the only bereavement entitlement in legislation is parental bereavement leave, which provides two weeks of leave for parents who experience the devastating loss of their child, from 24 completed weeks of pregnancy until the child reaches the age of 18. That is set out in sections 80EA to 80EE of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and in the Parental Bereavement Leave Regulations 2020. Subsections (2) and (3) of clause 14 amend those sections of the 1996 Act, so that the duty on the Secretary of State to lay regulations establishing parental bereavement leave is widened to require regulations providing for bereavement leave for other loved ones as well.
The amendments in subsection (3) ensure that the regulations, in the case of the new bereavement entitlement, must set out the following: first, the eligibility of the new entitlement by definition of the employee’s relationship to the deceased; secondly, the length of leave, which must be a minimum of one week; thirdly, when the leave must be taken, which must be before the end of at least 56 days after the person’s death; and finally, how the leave is to be taken, such as in one block or two blocks, or whatever is appropriate.
Should an employee suffer multiple bereavements, the clause sets out that they are entitled to leave in respect of each person who has passed away. The approach to regulations mirrors that taken when establishing parental bereavement leave and allows similar provisions to be included in the new regulations. Due to the sensitive and personal nature of bereavement, we will consult stakeholders on the details to be set out in regulations to ensure that the entitlement is constructed with the needs of employees and employers at the forefront.
Subsections (4) to (11) make amendments to other provisions of the 1996 Act to enable the regulations to provide important protections for employees who take bereavement leave, such as protection against detriment, protection of contractual rights, and protection for treating a dismissal that takes place for a reason relating to bereavement leave as unfair.
Subsections (12) to (13) make consequential amendments to His Majesty’s Treasury legislation to provide for how persons on bereavement leave are to be taken into account when assessing an employee’s “committed time” or the number of employees for the purpose of certain initiatives or schemes, in the same way as other family-related entitlements. Subsection (14) makes consequential amendments to the Parental Bereavement (Leave and Pay) Act 2018 to remove provisions that no longer have any effect following the amendments made by clause 14 of this Bill.
Greg Smith
I am grateful to the Minister for her explanation of clause 14. It is quite clear on a purely human level that bereavement can strike any family and any individual, often with zero notice or ability to plan, and it is therefore a basic tenet of humanity that we would all expect employers to be sensitive, generous and sympathetic to any employee who finds themselves in that position. For the record, it is certainly my experience that the vast majority of businesses and employers show compassion, sensitivity and generosity to ensure that anybody who is bereaved has the time, space and freedom to be able to grieve, plan for things such as funerals and start the very hard process of not just saying goodbye to that loved one, but putting various affairs in order, such as registering the death. People have to go through a high burden of bureaucracy when they find themselves in that position.
The core principle of the proposals is fundamentally a good one, and does not warrant opposition. However, there is an area that I think needs a little more debate and potentially some refinement. The Minister spoke about the need to consult and to get these regulations right, and it is important that we do that. I do not in any way oppose the principle of the proposals, but I gently suggest that perhaps it would have been better to do the consultation first, so that this could have been clearer in the legislation as it goes forward. I repeat, however, that I say that not to distract from the good principle that sits underneath these regulations.
I ask the Minister to reflect further on the point from the evidence session about bereavement leave being available to parents who have lost their child after 24 weeks of pregnancy. There are many people who suffer the loss of a pregnancy before 24 weeks. That is one of the most heartbreaking things for mothers, fathers and wider families, and it happens every single day up and down the land. After all the joy, excitement and future planning that go into any mother’s, father’s and family’s life when they find out that they are expecting a child, the often very sudden news that that pregnancy has not made it comes as a huge shock, often with no notice.
There are things that a family, a mother, a father, will go through when they find out that that pregnancy has not been viable and has sadly ended under 24 weeks, including being taken to a small room and being asked the direct question—which, I assure the Committee makes the ears prick up and the reality of what has just happened come into sharp focus—about whether you wish to attend the burial of that failed pregnancy. That brings into sharp focus that you are actually being asked to say goodbye to your child. That can happen at any point in a pregnancy; it happened to my wife at about 14 weeks in 2018, and I remember vividly sitting in that room, having to fill out what seemed like the “Yellow Pages”-worth of forms, and reflecting that what should have been our second child was not going to be our second child. That takes some getting over, and it often involves surgery for the mother afterwards.
Although we have no formal amendment on this at this stage—I reserve the right to perhaps revisit it on Report—it is worth the Government reflecting on a genuine cross-party basis whether the 24-week period can be substantially reduced to give time to families who are saying goodbye. I do not want to get into the debates about when is a child a child, but it is devastating for families who go through that experience, and if the Government can find a way to ensure that families facing those circumstances can have some breathing space, so that we do not just have the “Back to work tomorrow, please” mentality that persists in this country, it would be a welcome and positive step. That might yet bring the whole House together and ensure that people have, as I say, space and time to reflect on what has just happened—to grieve, come back together again and then hopefully plan for the future.
Sarah Gibson
After that incredibly moving speech by the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire, I cannot help but share the absolute concerns of friends of mine who have also lost children in pregnancy quite early on. I appreciate that that causes devastation, and I would be very happy to support any amendments that are suggested on Report. Perhaps an earlier date for bereavement would be appropriate.
Dame Nia Griffith
I, too, thank the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire for sharing such a personal story with us today. As he says, the loss of a child or a baby at any stage is incredibly upsetting. Parents who suffer a stillbirth may be entitled to parental bereavement leave and pay. Although there is no statutory entitlement for miscarriage before 24 weeks, we expect employers to respond with compassion and understanding and encourage employees to discuss the support that they need with their employer. A woman is protected against discrimination in the workplace due to pregnancy, any illness related to pregnancy or absence of that illness. That includes any illness caused by miscarriage extending to two weeks after the end of the pregnancy. After that, the woman is still protected by the Equality Act 2010 sex discrimination protections if she is treated less favourably because she suffered a miscarriage.
Clause 20 will also allow for regulations to be made about dismissal during a protected period of pregnancy, and the enhanced dismissal protection policy will cover women during their pregnancy. I point out that at the moment the Women and Equalities Committee is looking into that and doing an inquiry. We will study the outcome of that very closely as we take our policies forward.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 14 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 15
Employers to take all reasonable steps to prevent sexual harassment
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 130, in clause 16, page 30, line 24, at end insert—
“(1D) In exercising their duties under this section, an employer must have regard to protecting freedom of expression.
(1E) In subsection (1D), ‘freedom of expression’ is defined in accordance with Schedule 1 of the Human Rights Act 1998.”
This amendment would require employers to have regard to protecting freedom of expression when exercising the Bill’s duty not to permit harassment of their employees.
Amendment 131, in clause 16, page 30, line 24, at end insert—
“(1D) Subsection (1A) shall not apply to—
(a) higher education institutions, or
(b) providers of─
(i) hotels and similar accommodation;
(ii) holiday and other short-stay accommodation;
(iii) restaurants and mobile food service activities; and
(iv) beverage serving activities.”
This amendment would exclude higher education institutions and hospitality providers from the Bill’s duties for employers not to permit harassment of their employees.
Clauses 16 and 17 stand part.
New clause 29—Employer duties on harassment: impact assessment—
“(1) The Secretary of State must carry out an assessment of the likely impact of sections 15 to 18 of this Act on employers.
(2) The assessment must—
(a) report on the extent to which the prevalence of third-party harassment makes the case for the measures in sections 15 to 18;
(b) include an assessment of the impact of sections 15 to 18 on free speech;
(c) include an assessment of the likely costs to employers of sections 15 to 18;
(d) include—
(i) an assessment of which occupations might be at particular risk of third-party harassment through no fault of the employer, and
(ii) proposals for mitigations that can be put in place for employers employing people in such occupations.
(3) The Secretary of State must lay a report setting out the findings of the assessment before each House of Parliament.”
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to assess the impact of the provisions of Clauses 15 to 18.
New clause 39—Duty to prevent violence and harassment in the workplace—
“(1) Section 2 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 is amended as follows.
(2) After subsection (2)(e) insert—
‘(f) the adoption of proactive and preventative measures to protect all persons working in their workplace from violence and harassment, including—
(i) gender-based violence;
(ii) sexual harassment;
(iii) psychological and emotional abuse;
(iv) physical and sexual abuse;
(v) stalking and harassment, including online harassment;
(vi) threats of violence.’
(3) After subsection (3) insert—
‘(3A) It shall be the duty of every employer to prepare, and as often as may be appropriate revise, an assessment to identify potential risks of violence and harassment in the workplace and implement policies and procedures to eliminate these risks so far as is reasonably practicable.
(3B) It shall be the duty of every employer to provide training to all employees on recognising and preventing violence and harassment in the workplace, with a focus on gender-responsive approaches.
(3C) In subsection (3B) a “gender-responsive approach” means taking into account the various needs, interests, and experiences of people of different gender identities, including women and girls, when designing and implementing policies and procedures.
(3D) In this section, “persons working in the workplace” includes—
(a) employees;
(b) full-time, part-time, and temporary workers; and
(c) interns and apprentices.
(3E) In subsection (2)(f) and subsections (3A) and (3B), a reference to the workplace includes remote and hybrid work environments.’”
This new clause will amend the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 to place a duty on employers to protect all those working in their workplace from gender-based violence and harassment.
New clause 40—Expanded duties of the Health and Safety Executive—
“In the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, after section 11 (functions of the Executive) insert—
‘11ZA Duties of the Executive: health and safety framework on violence and harassment
(1) It shall be the duty of the Executive to develop, publish and as often as may be appropriate revise a health and safety framework on violence and harassment in the workplace.
(2) This framework shall include specific provisions relating to—
(a) the prevention of gender-based violence and harassment of those in the workplace including the prevention of physical, emotional, and psychological abuse;
(b) the duty of employers to create safe and inclusive workplaces and the preventative measures they must adopt; and
(c) the use of monitoring and enforcement mechanisms to ensure compliance with the duty of the employer in relation to violence and harassment (see section 2(2)(f)).
(3) The Executive shall work with other relevant bodies, including the Equality and Human Rights Commission and law enforcement agencies, to develop and revise this framework.
11ZB Duties of the Executive: guidance for employers
The Executive shall, in consultation with such other persons as it considers to be relevant, issue guidance for employers about the protection of those facing violence and harassment on the basis of gender in the workplace by—
(a) implementing workplace policies to prevent violence and harassment;
(b) establishing confidential reporting mechanisms to allow victims to report incidents;
(c) conducting risk assessments and ensuring compliance with the health and safety framework (see section 11ZA);
(d) reporting and addressing incidents of violence and harassment; and
(e) supporting victims of violence and harassment, including making accommodations in the workplace to support such victims.’”
This new clause will create a duty on the Health and Safety Executive to develop a health and safety framework on violence and harassment and to issue guidance for employers about the protection of those facing violence and harassment on the basis of gender in the workplace.
Amendment 135, in clause 118, page 105, line 20, at end insert—
“(3A) But no regulations under subsection (3) may be made to bring into force sections 15 to 18 of this Act until the findings set out in the report under section [employer duties on harassment: impact assessment] have been approved by a resolution of the House of Commons on a motion moved by a Minister of the Crown.”
This amendment is linked to NC29.
Dame Nia Griffith
If I may just correct the record, there was not an impact assessment on clause 13—I inadvertently said that there was—because the impact is so small. But there was on clauses 11 and 12, and they received a rating of green.
Dame Nia Griffith
I will now speak to clauses 15 to 17, new clauses 29, 39 and 40, and amendments 130, 131 and 135. Clause 15 will strengthen the new duty on employers to take reasonable steps to prevent sexual harassment of their employees, which came into force on 26 October 2024 under the Equality Act 2010. Clause 15 requires that employers must take all reasonable steps to prevent sexual harassment of their employees. Including “all” emphasises the thorough approach that employers must take to prevent that. At the same time, the requirement remains limited to steps that are “reasonable”. The amended duty will mirror the existing statutory defence for an employer regarding vicarious liability, which requires them to show that they have taken all reasonable steps to prevent harassment.
The concept of “all reasonable steps” has the advantage of being well established and familiar to employers and employment tribunals. This will therefore provide a consistent threshold and decrease uncertainty for all. The Government intend to provide businesses with clear guidance to ensure that they are fully supported in complying with the new legislation.
Clause 16 will introduce an obligation on employers not to permit the harassment of their employees by third parties under section 40 of the Equality Act. As well as employers taking action to prevent sexual harassment, workplaces and working conditions must be free from all forms of harassment. The clause therefore encompasses all three types of harassment set out under section 26 of the Equality Act. As well as sexual harassment, it covers harassment related to a protected characteristic that is covered by the existing harassment provision. It also covers treating someone less favourably because they have either submitted to or rejected sexual harassment, or harassment related to sex or to gender reassignment.
To avoid liability, employers will need to do what is reasonable. What constitutes “all reasonable steps” for third-party harassment will depend on the specific circumstances of the employer. Employers will need to consider the nature of any contact with third parties—for example, the type of third party, the frequency and the environment. In certain sectors, there may be more regular worker interaction with third-party contractors than in others. This amendment to the Equality Act will give much-needed clarity on the rights and responsibilities of employees and employers in these scenarios, and require employers to take action to prevent such harassment from occurring.
The burden of holding perpetrators and employers to account and of driving change is too great to be shouldered alone by employees who have experienced harassment. This measure therefore sends a clear signal to all employers that they must take steps against third-party harassment. That is the right thing to do because tackling misogyny and violence against women and girls is a societal issue in which employers can play a key role. This also means that victims can be confident that they are protected by the law if their employer has not taken all reasonable steps to protect them, and that they are able to take legal action if they so wish. This measure will therefore benefit all employees by making workplaces safer and ensuring that everyone has the same opportunity to succeed at work.
As I said earlier, oral evidence from the Fawcett Society shows that one in five women have been sexually assaulted in the workplace by third parties. These measures could have a positive effect on women, those with disabilities and ethnic minorities across the UK.
Clause 17 introduces a power to make regulations to specify steps that are reasonable for employers to take to prevent sexual harassment. That is to meet the requirements set out in the Equality Act 2010 that employers take all reasonable steps to prevent sexual harassment of their employees. Those are contained in section 40A, the general preventative duty; section 40, as amended by this Bill, to the extent it relates to sexual harassment by third parties; and section 109, employers’ vicarious liability, where that relates to a failure to prevent the sexual harassment. The provisions place broad requirements on employers, but it will be important to ensure that specific steps are taken where the evidence demonstrates that they are proportionate and needed to prevent sexual harassment. The regulations may also require an employer to have regard to specified matters when taking those steps.
The Government have already produced an extensive set of impact assessments, published on Second Reading and based on the best available evidence for the potential impact on business, workers and the wider economy. We intend to refine that analysis over time, working closely with businesses, trade unions, academics, think-tanks and the Regulatory Policy Committee. We will publish an enactment impact assessment once the Bill reaches Royal Assent, in line with the better regulation framework requirements. That will account for where primary legislation in the Bill has been amended in its passage through Parliament in such a way as to change significantly the impacts of the policy on business. That impact assessment will be published alongside the enacted legislation. In addition, we will publish further analysis alongside future consultations ahead of any secondary legislation, to meet our better regulation framework requirements.
No one should fear being sexually assaulted in the workplace, and the measures go further to protect employees. One in five women has been sexually assaulted in the workplace by someone outside their organisation. The measures could have a positive effect on women, those with disabilities, and ethnic minorities across the UK. The amendments and new clauses in this group would not add value, given the extensive impact assessment to which the Government have already committed.
On new clauses 39 and 40, I reassure the Committee that the Government entirely support the importance of ensuring that workers, including women and girls, are protected from workplace violence and harassment. We already have in place a strong and appropriate regulatory regime that provides protection to workers from violence and harassment. Through the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and the statutory provisions made under it, employers already have a duty to protect their workers from health and safety risks, including workplace violence, and they must consider ways in which they can remove or reduce such risk. That legislation applies to everyone, irrespective of whether the victims have protected characteristics—it is a law to protect all workers.
The Health and Safety at Work etc. Act, along with associated legislation, requires employers to reduce the risks of workplace violence. As part of that, the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 require employers first to assess the risks in the workplace, including the potential for violence, and then to take appropriate action to reduce those risks. The Health and Safety Executive and local authorities, which are responsible for enforcing the 1974 Act, carry out proactive and reactive work to ensure that employers are complying with their duties under the Act to assess the risks and are implementing appropriate control measures to protect their workers, and others affected by their work, from workplace violence.
The Health and Safety Executive has also published a range of readily available guidance on its website to assist employers in complying with their legal obligations. The right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) has tabled new clause 40, asking the HSE to publish a health and safety framework on violence and harassment in the workplace, including violence against women and girls in the workplace, but employers already have such duties under the 1999 regulations, which require them to have suitable and sufficient arrangements in place to manage health and safety in the workplace, including violence and aggression.
Harassment in the workplace could be covered by the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act, but the HSE does not act where a more appropriate regulator has specific responsibility, or where there is more directly applicable legislation. Police already have powers to prosecute harassment offences under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, and the Equality and Human Rights Commission can take action under the Equality Act 2010.
Greg Smith
There is quite a lot in this grouping, and I will try to go through it in a sensible order. I will start with new clause 29 and amendment 135. The Regulatory Policy Committee has said that the Government have not managed to demonstrate sufficiently the need for the clauses in the Bill that require employers to prevent harassment of their employees by third parties, nor that the measures are sensible—those are the RPC’s words, not mine—and it has rated the impact assessment on this as red.
I want to be absolutely crystal clear from the outset, across all the clauses, amendments and new clauses that we are debating, that harassment is wrong; that the sort of sexual harassment that the Minister spoke about is absolutely, categorically unacceptable; and that whatever it takes in the law, and from an enforcement perspective, to stamp harassment out must happen. Such harassment is simply unacceptable in our country and society. The comments that I am about to make are not in any way, shape or form critical of action against harassment, therefore; they are about trying to best understand how the Bill and the amendments that have been tabled would work, and the difference they would realistically make to people’s lives, including by protecting them from harassment or other unacceptable behaviour.
With those ground rules set, if I may put it in that manner, the Opposition are concerned, and have doubts about, the need for and the operability of the provisions in clauses 15 to 18. I repeat that that is not about the principle of stopping harassment, but about the operability of the proposals that we are considering. We must question whether the benefits of these clauses will be outweighed by the burden on employers and, in certain respects, by the chilling impact on free speech.
New clause 29 would require the Secretary of State to
“report on the extent to which the prevalence of third-party harassment makes the case for the measures in sections 15 to 18”.
Within that report, the Secretary of State must include
“an assessment of the impact of sections 15 to 18 on free speech…an assessment of the likely costs to employers…an assessment of which occupations might be at particular risk of third-party harassment through no fault of the employer, and…proposals for mitigations that can be put in place for employers employing people in such occupations.”
Amendment 135 quite reasonably provides that clauses 15 to 18 will not come into effect until—not never, but until—the House of Commons has approved the report required under new clause 29.
We then come to the two new clauses tabled by the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd, the leader of Plaid Cymru. I share the Minister’s concerns about the new clauses. I do not think they are necessary, I do not think that they particularly add to the spirit of what the Government are trying to achieve in the Bill and I do not think they pass the Opposition’s tests of operability. The official Opposition will therefore not be supporting them.
Amendment 130 would require employers to have regard to protecting freedom of expression when exercising the Bill’s duty not to permit harassment of their employees. I do not believe any business wants its employees to be harassed. No business owner that I know wants their staff, or any human being, to face harassment at all, in whatever setting. However, the amendment is designed to show the impossibility of the position in which the provisions on third-party harassment will put employers. It is a probing amendment, in the sense that we are not trying to create additional burdens for businesses by giving them another duty. It has been tabled so that we can talk about how unrealistic it is to expect employers to be able to enforce all the provisions in the Bill and, inherent to that, so that we can make the challenge that there may be more appropriate and operable pieces of legislation that already sit in statute or that may yet still need to be debated and passed through Parliament to prevent that.
The amendment is about how an employer can balance the right to free expression with the duties explicitly in the Bill. I do not believe that, in the moment, it will always be clear whether someone’s behaviour, say, in a pub falls on the right or wrong side of the line—it is a subjective test. Leaving that aside, there are situations where it will be frankly impossible for employers to abide by the law that the Government are seeking to make. I am interested in the Minister’s reflections on that.
Laurence Turner
The hon. Gentleman says that there will be situations where it is not just difficult, but impossible for an employer to abide by the Bill. Can he give some examples of the situations he has in mind?
Greg Smith
I am building up to my wider point. To skip ahead, there will be circumstances where, even within the reasonableness test—I understand that test—something so unexpected and unforeseeable happens that the employer could not in any way have planned a protection for their employees around that. Despite that, the employer might find themselves challenged in a tribunal or, worse, some form of criminal investigation about why they did not take reasonable steps against a totally unexpected and unplanned-for eventuality. I accept that, in most cases, there are practical steps that could be put in place to prevent harassment of any sort, but there will be times where that reasonableness test could fall over and someone could find themselves in a very tricky spot, unable to account for why they did not prepare for the totally unexpected.
Jon Pearce (High Peak) (Lab)
I refer the Committee to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my membership of the GMB. The hon. Gentleman is making the point that it would be impossible for an employer to reasonably avoid something so extreme and out of the ordinary, but that would actually fall directly in the test, because the tribunal would look at whether it was reasonable for the employer to have put in arrangements, procedures or preparations to avoid a likely, foreseeable scenario. His concerns are completely misplaced, because no employer could reasonably avoid a situation that was impossible to avoid.
To go back to the fundamentals, as the hon. Gentleman said, we and employers should be taking all appropriate and reasonable steps, because 40% of women in the workplace suffer sexual harassment. These measures are reasonable in and of themselves, so I put it to him that he is worrying about something that is covered by the test.
Greg Smith
In many respects it is my job to be worried, to properly kick the tyres and to understand the operability of what the Government are trying to achieve. I certainly take the hon. Gentleman’s point on sexual harassment, and there is very clear criminal law in place that is probably more appropriate to bring perpetrators of such heinous crimes properly to justice. My concerns about the reasonableness test are less about that which can and should be pursued through criminal legislation; they are more about other forms of very subjectively tested harassment, as well as some points that I hope to make about freedom of speech. Hopefully, the hon. Gentleman will reflect on and understand those concerns when I get to that point.
Michael Wheeler (Worsley and Eccles) (Lab)
I refer the Committee to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my membership of trade unions. It seems that my thoughts align with those of my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak on the reasonableness of completely unforeseeable and unexpected things, but I would go a slight step further on what we are looking for from employers.
Even in circumstances in which something is so completely unexpected and unforeseeable that it might be reasonable for preparatory measures not to be in place, the duty would also address how employers respond. It is about having systems in place to react to incidents when they happen, rather than foreseeing every possible eventuality of the completely unexpected and unforeseeable. We can have supportive measures in place to prevent harassment from continuing or from happening again, and to support the individual.
Greg Smith
I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point. I broadly agree, but my challenge to him is that reasonableness can be interpreted in many different ways. There will always been an appeals process or something similar, but I worry that unless the legislation is clearer, some good-willed employers who are entirely honest and decent in how they try to protect their staff could, in some circumstances, be on a very sticky wicket trying to defend themselves against something that they never foresaw or dreamed of. They may have been a little too innocent, but they will find themselves in a difficult spot. That is where safeguards need to be locked into the legislation in respect of what is a very subjective test.
I was about to come on to an example. I will preface it by saying that absolutely nobody should be abused in the workplace and absolutely nobody should face any form of harassment in the workplace. However, let us think for a moment about how some of the Bill’s provisions would operate in an NHS accident and emergency department. In any A&E up and down the land, our wonderful doctors and nurses sometimes put themselves in harm’s way, particularly late at night. Perhaps they have a patient who is clearly inebriated but has injured themselves. I am not excusing it for one second, but it can and does happen. Let us say that an incredibly drunk patient, who may have fallen and broken their hand, verbally abuses—not sexually harasses—the doctor or nurse treating them. The doctor or nurse does not deserve that, and that behaviour should not be happening, but I would wager that it happens most Friday or Saturday nights somewhere. It is unacceptable, but it does happen. What should happen in that circumstance?
Greg Smith
Let me just finish this point. I am trying to deal with a real-life scenario that should not be happening, but does. What does the doctor or nurse do, under the Bill? Do they refuse to treat the patient? Some would argue that perhaps they should, but the reality is that that is not what they are there for. They are there to heal, treat and support that patient who has got into a stupid predicament.
Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)
Will the shadow Minister give way?
Greg Smith
I will just finish this point. Both hon. Ladies know that I will give way.
Where would the test come? What should the NHS, as the employer, have done to prevent that situation? What is the overall outcome in that scenario? Where does the reasonableness test fall? I repeat that I am not excusing the behaviour; I am putting it forward as a test to the provisions in the Bill, as a situation in which the employer—ultimately the national health service or perhaps the Health Secretary—would find themselves.
Sarah Gibson
I appreciate the shadow Minister’s giving way. I will make an effort not to intervene every time he stands up.
There is a very serious point here that anyone who has ever been in a situation in which they have felt intimidated will understand. An employee in higher education may be intimidated by students who are irritated, angry or frustrated about their results. In my case, they came to my office because they felt that they should not have failed. I have found myself in a small room—the kind of room in which this House would not allow MPs to hold a surgery—with no external access and no security guards on the door to intervene.
Such situations can be hugely difficult. Although the employer is not always in a position to pre-empt the situation, taking reasonable steps surely means providing an option for everybody to have an emergency phone number—that is what was available to me in my university job—or, at A&E, to have security staff intervene when somebody arrives quite clearly inebriated, in the same way that our security staff do at our surgeries. They will immediately foresee the problem and will make sure that the person is accompanied and is not left alone with a member of staff. Those are the sort of reasonable preparations that we would expect; I would be surprised if any employer were not happy to carry them out. I therefore see no reason why that should not be made clear in the legislation.
Greg Smith
I hope that the hon. Lady is right, but part of the test that the amendment sets for the Government is whether it will work. Is it clear? Will it put the protections in place that everybody wants to see? There is a question mark over whether they will work.
The NHS A&E environment is an example with which we are probably all familiar from our postbags. Constituents write to us about situations that they have witnessed or been in themselves, particularly on a busy Friday or Saturday night or in the Christmas season when there are lots of parties and lots of people probably having far too much to drink and sometimes getting themselves into unacceptable situations. There might not be the staff to double up; the patient might be abusive to all of them. It is unacceptable, horrible and wrong, but it is sometimes the reality. Where does that leave the senior doctor or nurse on duty, the chief executive of the trust, and ultimately the Secretary of State or the permanent secretary to the Department of Health and Social Care? Where does the test actually leave them, and what more can be done to make the legislation work?
The hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby has been waiting patiently to come in.
Alison Hume
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I thank the hon. Member for giving way. I refer the Committee to my declaration of interests and my membership of Unison and the Writers’ Guild of Great Britain.
The NHS has zero-tolerance policies, in common with the police service and any other service that deals with these difficult situations. They are good employers that have things in place. The shadow Minister spoke about employers not thinking about situations and being innocent. I draw his attention to their responsibility to employees who were innocent, but have lost their innocence as a result of unwanted sexual harassment or worse.
Greg Smith
I do not disagree with a word that the hon. Lady says. The NHS, like every employer, is right to take a zero-tolerance attitude to any form of harassment against its employees, customers, patients or whoever else happens to be on its premises at any time.
I accept the hon. Lady’s point about innocence. My A&E example was not so much about sexual harassment or worse criminality; it is all horrendous criminality, in my view, but there are other criminal laws that can and should be used to bring perpetrators to justice in that space. My example was more about abusive behaviour in the form of verbal harassment from a patient who is drunk or high on drugs. It is still horrible, it is still wrong and it still needs action, but what happens? The zero-tolerance policy, all of a sudden, becomes a poster on the wall rather than real, live action there and then, as that drunk patient makes unacceptable remarks of whatever nature to the nurse or doctor. The test is whether the words in the Bill before us—as opposed to other, potentially even more stringent or stronger legislation that is already on the statute book or that may yet need to be passed—will have a better effect.
Alison Hume
I think the Bill will do that, because it will strengthen the employers’ responsibility to take all reasonable steps.
Greg Smith
I hope that the hon. Lady is right. What my colleagues and I seek, through our amendment, is to test that. I do not think that anyone will criticise any Member of this House, on either side, for trying to properly road-test any legislation that comes before us and check whether it will have the effect that the Government seek.
Amendment 131 is topical, given the intervention that the hon. Member for Chippenham made about higher education. It would exclude higher education institutions and hospitality providers from some of the duties in the Bill, not around criminal behaviour—it would not exclude them from legislation that should rightly be used to challenge sexual harassment, for example—but around free speech. Employers may end up being overly cautious with respect to protecting free speech, as they will be worried about claims being brought under this legislation. That would lead to free speech debate and challenge being eroded. In the case of higher education, those are the very institutions at which free speech, challenge and rigorous and robust debate should frankly be taking place, and where wrong and unacceptable ideas can be knocked down robustly and firmly through the medium of intellectual debate.
Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. On the point about the hospitality and pubs sector, on which I held a debate in Westminster Hall a few weeks ago, there is real concern about this part of legislation, in particular about freedom of expression and freedom of speech. Does my hon. Friend agree that one consequence of the legislation might be that industry take actions beyond those intended? For example, people might self-censor beyond what could be seen as an off-colour or offensive joke, because they are scared that they could be held liable later for not protecting their employees. My hon. Friend gave an example, but another one is a comedy club, which would be conscious of and concerned about who they invite to entertain because of the perception that some of their staff could be offended, and the reasonableness of how that could be interpreted in the context of harassment. Does my hon. Friend agree that this is a concerning unintended consequence of the legislation?
Greg Smith
My hon. Friend is right that there needs to be greater clarity about that which is already covered in criminal law—sexual harassment, direct racial abuse or abuse to someone on the basis of their sexuality, which clearly has to be actioned under criminal law and it must be ensured that the perpetrators are brought to justice—compared with satire or cutting jokes. Those are things that do not stray into the criminal, but perhaps some people might be offended by them, for whatever reason.
There are quite a lot of comedians openly talking about whether comedy is in fact becoming a thing of the past in this country. They are finding themselves unable to tell jokes that, while not going into the criminal, do risk offending some people. If that ends up shutting down comedy clubs or open-mic nights in pubs, it would be an unintended consequence that I cannot imagine the Government would want to bring about.
Alex McIntyre
I refer to my membership of the GMB union and the Community trade union. I shall come on to some of the nonsense we are hearing around free speech. I ask a direct question, seeing as we seem to be equating jokes with harassment: does the shadow Minister know the definition of harassment under the Equality Act and would he share that with the Committee so that we may understand what we are talking about here?
Greg Smith
What I am trying to test is the point at which the reasonability point would trigger. Is this the right Bill—the right set of clauses—to deal with the problems the hon. Member has outlined? There is a clear difference between that which should be treated under criminal law—and rightly stamped down on hard and forcibly—and the unintended consequence that will force sectors such as higher education or hospitality to become so risk averse that they shut down some of their activities. Yes, those activities, whether some form of comedy or whatever, could potentially be offensive to some people, but they are not criminal.
Alex McIntyre
I am afraid the shadow Minister does not know the definition under the Equality Act. If he did, he would know that the conduct is required to either violate someone’s dignity or create
“an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment”.
That conduct has to be related to someone’s protected characteristic: sex, race, gender or their sexuality. We are talking about very serious circumstances. They fall short of the criminal definition of harassment, but they are within the Equality Act definition.
There is already a test within the current law to avoid some of the free speech arguments the shadow Minister is making. He is seeking to trivialise the experience of many people in those industries who face unacceptable harassment in the workplace.
Greg Smith
I must take issue with the hon. Gentleman. I am not trying to trivialise anything. I have been clear from the outset about how seriously we should take sexual harassment, racial abuse and abuse on the basis of someone’s sexuality, and that I believe the full force of the right laws should be used against any perpetrator of that hideous, evil and unacceptable behaviour. I take issue with his comment that I am trying to trivialise anything. I am trying to ensure that the provisions in the Bill will actually work, and will not have unintended consequences that some might call trivial—which some might be offended by but which do not cross what most people in society would deem some of those lines.
In the definition he just gave, the hon. Gentleman mentioned the issue of undermining someone’s dignity. I am reminded of the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders dinner a couple of weeks ago. I cannot remember whether the Minister was there, but the Secretary of State for Business and Trade was. Quite a famous comedian was on stage after the speeches, and their act was essentially to pick on people on various tables to find out which motor manufacturer they worked for and then, I would suggest, be quite brutal with them. He did perhaps undermine their dignity. It was not on the basis of sexuality, race or anything like that, but it was quite a brutal act. Everybody was laughing away, but what if someone in the audience was offended by that and took issue with it? Does that then put the organisers of the dinner—the chief executive of the SMMT—in the spotlight, under the provisions of the Bill? That is the point I think all members of this Committee and, ultimately, all Members of the House, have to be satisfied with before anybody allows this to become statute.
Alex McIntyre
I think the shadow Minister has already answered this question. What protected characteristic were any of those jokes related to? This is the point. It is not to stop people being comedians. If someone sits in the front row of a Ross Noble gig, they are bound to get picked on. If the joke relates to a protected characteristic, that is where it crosses the line into harassment. The example that the shadow Minister has just given is a good example of where this would not be triggered, because none of the jokes related to a protected characteristic.
Greg Smith
I hope that the hon. Gentleman is right, but that is not how the Bill is worded. The Bill allows the reasonability test to be applied over the top of the Equality Act definition he has brought to the attention of the Committee. I gently ask him to reflect on that point and just check, because I do not think he would want this unintended consequence to be followed through into legislation. It would undermine the very serious things we spoke about earlier and, dare I say, trivialise them.
Uma Kumaran (Stratford and Bow) (Lab)
I refer Members to my declaration of interests, and remind them that I am a member of the GMB. It is timely that we are discussing this, as today is Human Rights Day. In 1998, the Labour Government brought the Human Rights Act into domestic law. Freedom of speech is indeed a human right, but that does not mean someone has the freedom to incite hatred, discriminate or attack people with a protected characteristic. In this fictional comedy club we are talking about, what are the things that people are mentioning? Can the shadow Minister give us a specific example of a joke that he thinks the Bill would put in jeopardy of undermining or putting at risk the CEO of said organisation?
Greg Smith
I think I have been clear that every law available should be used—potentially, more could be passed—to properly prosecute, challenge, shut down and stop anyone inciting hatred on the basis of race, religion, sexuality or whatever it might be. I cannot find any better set of words to make my revulsion at those crimes clearer, and I show my absolute support for any enforcement agency or Government of any political persuasion that brings forward workable laws to clamp down on those unacceptable criminal behaviours, full stop.
Greg Smith
I will just finish this point, then I will be delighted to give way to my hon. Friend.
The point I am trying to make is that bits of legislation that we are asked to consider sometimes have unintended consequences, and that there is a risk of someone being offended by something that does not pass the reasonability test in this Bill. Outside the well-defined areas that go into the criminal, part of free speech is the right to offend on certain levels.
Greg Smith
I will give way in a second.
Many comedians—Jimmy Carr is an example—talk frequently at the moment about comedy being shut down. It is not criminal; it is not racial hatred or hatred on the basis of religion, sexuality or anything like that. It is beyond those points.
Uma Kumaran
We all enjoy comedy in this House, but this is a very serious subject. Article 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998, on the exercise of the freedoms that the shadow Minister is talking about, carries with it duties and responsibilities. It states that the freedoms
“may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of”
a number of things. In this fictional comedy club or this fictional speech, all the things that you are saying may—
Uma Kumaran
I apologise, Mr Mundell. All the things that the shadow Minister has referred to are already enshrined in various laws in this country, so what is the fictional scenario that he thinks this Bill jeopardises?
Greg Smith
The hon. Lady is right to bring the Committee’s attention to that which is already laid down in statute. I think that perhaps where the misunderstanding is coming in—the Opposition are trying to test this—is whether the new reasonability test will deliver perverse results in a tribunal. Probably nobody sitting in this room would expect that to happen, but it could supersede that which is already set down and create a new precedent.
Nick Timothy
I should probably make reference to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests: I am an unpaid trustee at the Index on Censorship, which may be relevant to this debate.
I do not think anybody here is a free speech absolutist. My hon. Friend is trying to test scenarios, but he is in no way talking about issues such as incitement of hatred, which are already criminal matters. We are talking about the codification of things that may be subjective in the light of the law of unintended consequences.
To bring some colour to the conversation, I thought I would make reference to a recent Independent Press Standards Organisation ruling. I cannot imagine that that was ever the kind of ruling that was intended at the time that IPSO was created. Gareth Roberts, who sometimes writes for The Spectator, was writing about a third party who had, in turn, written about issues relating to gender, and referred to them as
“a man who claims to be a woman”.
That person then complained to IPSO, which ruled that it was not wrong as a statement of fact, but still upheld the complaint on account of its being a prejudicial or pejorative reference to that person. I do not think that that is the kind of thing that was ever intended when IPSO was created, but it is the type of example that we may be talking about right now. I would love to know what my hon. Friend thinks about that.
Greg Smith
My hon. Friend highlights an issue that would come down to a subjective test, so “reasonableness” could mean something very different in different tribunal settings and to different individuals casting judgment on any such complaint. That goes to the absolute nub of what we are asking the Government to reflect on. Is the test strong enough? Is it workable? Is it operable? Will it actually produce perverse outcomes?
Alex McIntyre
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, in the example that the hon. Member for West Suffolk just cited, IPSO found that there was no harassment, and therefore there was a finding under clause 12(i) of the editors’ code of practice, rather than clause 3?
Greg Smith
I am not certain that is quite the point that my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk was making. However, in the interest of fairness, I will commit to properly looking up that case, which I had not come across until my hon. Friend mentioned it a couple of moments ago.
Laurence Turner
We are back to talking about perverse outcomes and unintended consequences, which are important things to consider. However, is that not what we are looking at in amendment 131? In in my view, it confuses sectors with functions. The hon. Gentleman says that he and his colleagues have selected these particular cases or sectors because they relate to freedom of speech. However, if we take the example of universities and higher education, a higher education institution contracts services of all sorts, many of them not relating to freedom of speech—for example, security and refuse services—but if the amendment were made and if it failed to conduct even basic vetting on a contractor, it would be exempt from these provisions if an incident of sexual harassment occurred. However, if exactly the same circumstances were to be repeated by a community hall or a church that would fall under the scope of the legislation. Is there not a problem in the drafting of the amendment? On that basis alone, it should not be accepted.
Greg Smith
I understand the point the hon. Gentleman is making. However, in the examples he gave he has shown exactly why there is a need to ask the Government to doubly rethink the way in which the original Bill is drafted to ensure that some of those areas are covered off so that the reasonability test is clearer and people do not find themselves on that proverbial sticky wicket for innocent reasons. We tabled the amendment—we fully accept it does not cover everything and every eventuality—because it is our job as the Opposition to highlight cases which in turn highlight areas where the Bill may be deficient and where it needs a little surgery to ensure that it achieves what the Government are trying to achieve, rather than creating many loopholes and perverse outcomes. I have probably spoken for long enough on this group of amendments.
Nick Timothy
Will my hon. Friend give way just one more time? I have an excellent example that I would like to share.
Greg Smith
How can I say no to the offer of an excellent example from my hon. Friend?
Nick Timothy
It has just been drawn to my attention that the Health Secretary is the subject of an official complaint to the Labour party for his jokes about the former Transport Secretary at The Spectator party last week because his comments were considered “bullying and uncomradely” according to the complaint. That may be another example of this kind of subjective test.
Greg Smith
I thank my hon. Friend for that. It may well be such an example. I must admit I resisted the urge to attend The Spectator awards last week. I am told the Health Secretary did make what many considered a very funny speech. However, it is clear that some deem it uncomradely. Who knows? Had this legislation already been enacted the Labour party itself might have found itself on that sticky wicket. On that note, I ask the Minister to reflect on the provisions in this Bill in that regard and check that the Government really do have this right.
Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Anna McMorrin.)
Employment Rights Bill (Tenth sitting)
Tuesday 10th December 2024
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Employment Rights Act 2025 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 10 December 2024 - (10 Dec 2024)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 14 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
I remind the Committee that with this we are considering the following:
Amendment 130, in clause 16, page 30, line 24, at end insert—
“(1D) In exercising their duties under this section, an employer must have regard to protecting freedom of expression.
(1E) In subsection (1D), ‘freedom of expression’ is defined in accordance with Schedule 1 of the Human Rights Act 1998.”
This amendment would require employers to have regard to protecting freedom of expression when exercising the Bill’s duty not to permit harassment of their employees.
Amendment 131, in clause 16, page 30, line 24, at end insert—
“(1D) Subsection (1A) shall not apply to—
(a) higher education institutions, or
(b) providers of─
(i) hotels and similar accommodation;
(ii) holiday and other short-stay accommodation;
(iii) restaurants and mobile food service activities; and
(iv) beverage serving activities.”
This amendment would exclude higher education institutions and hospitality providers from the Bill’s duties for employers not to permit harassment of their employees.
Clauses 16 and 17 stand part.
New clause 29—Employer duties on harassment: impact assessment—
“(1) The Secretary of State must carry out an assessment of the likely impact of sections 15 to 18 of this Act on employers.
(2) The assessment must—
(a) report on the extent to which the prevalence of third-party harassment makes the case for the measures in sections 15 to 18;
(b) include an assessment of the impact of sections 15 to 18 on free speech;
(c) include an assessment of the likely costs to employers of sections 15 to 18;
(d) include—
(i) an assessment of which occupations might be at particular risk of third-party harassment through no fault of the employer, and
(ii) proposals for mitigations that can be put in place for employers employing people in such occupations.
(3) The Secretary of State must lay a report setting out the findings of the assessment before each House of Parliament.”
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to assess the impact of the provisions of Clauses 15 to 18.
New clause 39—Duty to prevent violence and harassment in the workplace—
“(1) Section 2 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 is amended as follows.
(2) After subsection (2)(e) insert—
‘(f) the adoption of proactive and preventative measures to protect all persons working in their workplace from violence and harassment, including—
(i) gender-based violence;
(ii) sexual harassment;
(iii) psychological and emotional abuse;
(iv) physical and sexual abuse;
(v) stalking and harassment, including online harassment;
(vi) threats of violence.’
(3) After subsection (3) insert—
‘(3A) It shall be the duty of every employer to prepare, and as often as may be appropriate revise, an assessment to identify potential risks of violence and harassment in the workplace and implement policies and procedures to eliminate these risks so far as is reasonably practicable.
(3B) It shall be the duty of every employer to provide training to all employees on recognising and preventing violence and harassment in the workplace, with a focus on gender-responsive approaches.
(3C) In subsection (3B) a “gender-responsive approach” means taking into account the various needs, interests, and experiences of people of different gender identities, including women and girls, when designing and implementing policies and procedures.
(3D) In this section, “persons working in the workplace” includes—
(a) employees;
(b) full-time, part-time, and temporary workers; and
(c) interns and apprentices.
(3E) In subsection (2)(f) and subsections (3A) and (3B), a reference to the workplace includes remote and hybrid work environments.’”
This new clause will amend the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 to place a duty on employers to protect all those working in their workplace from gender-based violence and harassment.
New clause 40—Expanded duties of the Health and Safety Executive—
“In the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, after section 11 (functions of the Executive) insert—
‘11ZA Duties of the Executive: health and safety framework on violence and harassment
(1) It shall be the duty of the Executive to develop, publish and as often as may be appropriate revise a health and safety framework on violence and harassment in the workplace.
(2) This framework shall include specific provisions relating to—
(a) the prevention of gender-based violence and harassment of those in the workplace including the prevention of physical, emotional, and psychological abuse;
(b) the duty of employers to create safe and inclusive workplaces and the preventative measures they must adopt; and
(c) the use of monitoring and enforcement mechanisms to ensure compliance with the duty of the employer in relation to violence and harassment (see section 2(2)(f)).
(3) The Executive shall work with other relevant bodies, including the Equality and Human Rights Commission and law enforcement agencies, to develop and revise this framework.
11ZB Duties of the Executive: guidance for employers
The Executive shall, in consultation with such other persons as it considers to be relevant, issue guidance for employers about the protection of those facing violence and harassment on the basis of gender in the workplace by—
(a) implementing workplace policies to prevent violence and harassment;
(b) establishing confidential reporting mechanisms to allow victims to report incidents;
(c) conducting risk assessments and ensuring compliance with the health and safety framework (see section 11ZA);
(d) reporting and addressing incidents of violence and harassment; and
(e) supporting victims of violence and harassment, including making accommodations in the workplace to support such victims.’”
This new clause will create a duty on the Health and Safety Executive to develop a health and safety framework on violence and harassment and to issue guidance for employers about the protection of those facing violence and harassment on the basis of gender in the workplace.
Amendment 135, in clause 118, page 105, line 20, at end insert—
“(3A) But no regulations under subsection (3) may be made to bring into force sections 15 to 18 of this Act until the findings set out in the report under section [employer duties on harassment: impact assessment] have been approved by a resolution of the House of Commons on a motion moved by a Minister of the Crown.”
This amendment is linked to NC29.
Alex McIntyre (Gloucester) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship this afternoon, Mr Stringer. I welcome the Bill, and this clause is a really important part of it. We are introducing the clause to improve the workplace treatment of individuals who suffer harassment. Before the lunch break, we heard an interesting interpretation of the legislation, but sadly, it was not correct in all places, and I would like to go through some points made by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire. As part of that, I will reflect from the beginning that the Fawcett Society has found that 40% of women have experienced workplace harassment, and women who are marginalised for other reasons, such as race or disability, face an increased risk of and different forms of harassment, including sexual harassment in the workplace.
This clause is a vital part of the legislation, because we know—we heard this in evidence a few weeks ago—that harassment does not always come from a fellow employee or an employer. Quite often, it can come from third parties, particularly in some of the sectors that the Opposition seek to exclude with their amendment. We heard particularly from UKHospitality about the impact of third-party harassment in the hospitality sector, and I have shared my experience of being harassed in the workplace while working in the hospitality sector as a 15-year-old. This is really important. My example was only one—frankly, there will be thousands of examples—and I know that my experience as a young man will be very different from the experiences of women working in hospitality up and down the country.
As we enter the Christmas party season, we will see a massive increase in workplace harassment—not just sexual harassment, but other forms of harassment. This is perhaps where we got into some confusion this morning. There are different types of harassment, and the type that we talked about in particular this morning was harassment under the Equality Act 2010. That has a very specific definition, which will not be changed by the proposed legislation, despite what the shadow Minister said. A different test will be applied to that definition in terms of when it might come into play, but the definition of harassment will not change. Therefore, for something to be harassment, it must be unwanted conduct relating to somebody’s protected characteristic and create an offensive environment, or one that degrades, humiliates or embarrasses individuals.
The hon. Member for West Suffolk tried to introduce a few examples around the free speech argument, but those did not support the argument that he tried to make. The Independent Press Standards Organisation found that there was no harassment in the Gareth Roberts case. It found that there was a lower form of conduct in relation to clause 12(i) of the IPSO code of practice, but there was no harassment.
Nick Timothy
I have absolutely no intention of correcting the record, because the record will be correct. I think the hon. Member misunderstands my point, which was not to say that in that case the conduct was an example of harassment; I am fully aware that the IPSO ruling said that it was not harassment. My point was about the laws of unintended consequences. When IPSO was established, I do not think anybody thought that there would be cases such as this, where a journalist would be penalised by IPSO for saying something that IPSO acknowledges was a statement of fact on the grounds that it may be offensive.
Alex McIntyre
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention, but the fact is that in these circumstances, the definition in the Equality Act is clear. There is already an abundance of case law on what constitutes harassment, particularly in relation to the Equality Act, the different types of protected characteristics and the actions required to reach that threshold. The threshold is not just that there is unwanted conduct or that it relates to a protected characteristic; it is about the environment that is created. There is an abundance of case law on that point.
The second example was about my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary, but again it missed the point entirely. We all enjoy comedy, which is a staple of our culture. Jokes are fine unless they start to become unwanted and are aimed at protected characteristics, such as someone’s gender, gender identity or sexual orientation. The other point that that example missed—we spoke at length about comedy clubs, and I hate to raise them again—is that the Bill is not about punters at a comedy club being offended by what they hear on stage; it is about protecting the employees. For somebody to trigger this legislation, the comedian would have to make a joke directed at one of the employee’s protected characteristics. If the club employs a member of bar staff who has a protected characteristic and the comedian on stage consistently and absolutely humiliates them because of it, one might expect the employer to take some reasonable steps, such as not booking that comedian again, so that the individual is not consistently humiliated on a regular basis because of one of their protected characteristics. That is what the Bill is intended to do.
We are not saying that employers are required to stop all harassment in the workplace; that would not be possible. As the shadow Minister rightly said, there will be cases when somebody comes into a bar during a Christmas party, inebriated, having enjoyed far too much free wine, and says something that is offensive and horrifically wrong, and with which we all across this House would disagree. The Bill requires employers to have policies in place to deal with that. We cannot legislate for the unknown. We cannot legislate for serious circumstances that we cannot predict or for every individual who walks into a bar, but we can have policies in place to deal with those things.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
Surely one of the unintended consequences of this proposal is that small businesses risk lawsuits from employees who perceive that they have been harassed, perhaps by a third party. The inevitable lawsuit then follows, and it is not so much the offence for the employer that is the problem; it is the legal fees, the time, the effort and the distraction. What I find most concerning about this proposal is that the Minister says that the impact assessment will follow. Our amendment says that this provision should not be introduced before an impact assessment has been carried out. Does the hon. Member for Gloucester not think, given the doubt and uncertainties about the effect of this Bill, that it would be more sensible to have the impact assessment first before exposing small businesses to unintended consequences?
Alex McIntyre
If the hon. Gentleman is inviting me to agree that there should be a two-tier system, whereby employees at small businesses are entitled to be harassed by third parties but employees at larger businesses are not, I have to disagree.
Alex McIntyre
Well, a great deal of things are protected under law. Employees who work for businesses of all sizes are entitled to protection from harassment under the law, and I do not think that we in this House disagree with that principle.
I come back to the reasonableness test. A small business can have a claim brought against it for a whole host of reasons under employment legislation. Claims can be brought for discrimination or for whistleblowing, and that comes at a cost to employers. There is a separate discussion to be had about how to ensure that employment tribunals work for businesses of all sizes, but the point that we are debating is about harassment in the workplace under the Equality Act.
One of the key points that we must keep coming back to is that it does not really matter to the victim whether they are harassed by a third party, a fellow employee or their employer; the impact on them is exactly the same. Disregarding people who work for small businesses and not giving them the protections that are afforded to everybody else is just not acceptable.
Sir Ashley Fox
It clearly does make a great deal of difference to both the employee and the employer where the harassment comes from. If an employer is harassing an employee, they are directly responsible for those actions and they should rightly be held accountable. If the harassment comes from a third party—the drunk person who comes into the pub or into A&E—there is surely a complete difference. The hon. Member is asking for the employer to be responsible for that unless they take all reasonable steps. This clause then exposes that businessman—that small employer—to legal action on something he cannot control.
Alex McIntyre
I thank the hon. Member for setting out the difference. The difference is the “all reasonable steps” test. If an employer harasses someone in the workplace, there is no “all reasonable steps” test that they can take; for a third party, there is.
In tribunals, “reasonable” takes into account, for example, the circumstances of the case, the size of the business, the sector it operates in, the policies it has in place and the training it provides for employees. These points of reasonableness are taken into consideration in tribunals every single day in other areas. For example, there is already a test in section 109 of the Equality Act that deals with a defence that employers have. They cannot be held liable for the actions of their employees if they have taken all reasonable steps to train their employees to avoid issues such as discrimination in the workplace.
Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)
The hon. Member mentions reasonable steps being taken by small businesses. Does he accept that an impact assessment on the consequences of bringing in this kind of legislation for these businesses should be conducted up front, so that businesses can at least understand how much time and money it will cost them and how much additional bureaucracy it will create for them?
Alex McIntyre
The Minister will answer about what the Government are doing on impact assessments, but the impact on small businesses is that they have to think a little bit about harassment in their industry. That will vary from business to business. Some small businesses are not public facing. The impact in a small café will be different from that in a small office, because of interactions with the general public, but I do not think it is unreasonable to ask a small café or a small bar to think about what they can put in place to deal with someone coming in and abusing or harassing staff.
Again, if somebody comes in and is abusive, these provisions will not necessarily be triggered, because the abuse and unwanted conduct has to be related to their protected characteristic. I know from closing up a number of Christmas parties when I worked in hospitality that people get a bit out of hand. That was not harassment under the Equality Act; it was because people were drunk and disorderly, which is a separate antisocial behaviour issue. There are different channels to deal with that. We are talking here about specific cases where there is abuse of people because of a protected characteristic. Those are very narrow circumstances where people have to think about what kind of policies they have in place.
The hon. Member for Chippenham spoke about how MPs would not operate in similar circumstances. We would not, for example, be alone with individuals in a private room. It is appropriate to have policies in place where we try to think about some of the circumstances.
This proposal does not use the word “requires”, and it does not say that every single step has to be taken—it mentions “all reasonable steps”. That is part of the tribunal, and there will be guidance to set out some examples of things that employers can do to take reasonable steps. It is really important that we do not create a two-tier system where we say that small employers do not have to deal with these issues, because actually it is often in small and medium-sized enterprises that some of this bad behaviour takes place.
I gave an example last week. I went to my boss and said, “I have just been groped by a midwife and was told, ‘I’m going to show you a thing or two’”. When I said that I was only 15 years old, my boss said I should enjoy it: “You are a bloke. Go back in there. Toughen up.” That is not acceptable. Actually, a reasonable step in those circumstances would be the manager saying, “Alex, why don’t you go and work in another part of the business for the rest of the week? Work on the bar this evening, rather than in the function.” It is about having a policy that deals with those kinds of incidents in the workplace. There are different steps that businesses can take.
Let me move on to the argument around free speech, which the Minister talked about at great length. I have set out how some of his arguments do not apply in this instance as this provision is about specific incidents of harassment under the Equality Act. A point that the shadow Minister might have raised that would perhaps have been more legitimate is cases where two protected characteristics are in play. A lot of the free speech cases that have made the press have engaged with two. For example, in some cases someone has expressed their religion, but that might be opposed to someone expressing their sexual orientation; or people have expressed protected views on gender-critical theory, but others have a protected characteristic of a different gender identity.
Those are difficult cases, which can go all the way to the Supreme Court. What is important to note, however—this is where the shadow Minister could have gone, to give us a stronger discussion—is that if we are at the stage where the Supreme Court has to give an opinion on these things, no tribunal in the land will say, “Well, an employer should reasonably have seen that and therefore taken reasonable steps to avoid such scenarios happening.” No, this is the exact example of where tribunals will take “reasonable steps” and say, “What is reasonable in these circumstances for these employers?”
Having represented the NHS for a number of years as an employment lawyer, I should point out that the A&E example that was given unfortunately did not make any sense. First, the NHS operates a zero-tolerance approach. In several instances, policies are in place where individuals can withdraw their support for someone if they are being abused in the workplace. Scenarios and planning are in place to make sure that everyone is looked after, without people being subjected to harassment in the workplace.
To sum up, “all reasonable steps” does not mean that an employer has a duty to stop something altogether. We have to be sensible. There is no point scaremongering so that individuals think this will have a broader impact, closing all comedy clubs and stopping people making jokes in the workplace. That is not the case. This is about specific examples of harassment under the Equality Act—that has to be unwanted conduct related to a protected characteristic, creating an offensive, hostile, degrading or humiliating environment. These are specific examples. It is important that we extend this to third parties, given all the evidence we have heard, and I encourage everyone in the Committee to support the legislation.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
It is a privilege to serve under you, Mr Stringer. Broadly, I welcome—[Interruption.]
Steve Darling
My reflection on the Opposition amendments is that on this occasion my colleagues may be in danger of throwing the champagne out with the cork. The reality is that the challenges for people who face harassment in the workplace are very serious. As Government Members have highlighted, the comedy club example is relatively bogus, as the Bill would actually affect protection for employees rather than for punters.
On Friday, I am due to visit Torquay Girls’ grammar school in my constituency. I invite the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire to join me and hear directly from young women there about their experiences in the workplace. Strangely enough, apart from universities, the sectors that Opposition amendment 131 would exclude from clause 16 are almost all in the hospitality industry, in which those young women would be working. When I visited the school some time ago, one student shared with me how they dreaded a certain day of the week because they knew that a certain individual would be in, who would make them feel physically sick because of their approach to them, and the sexual harassment that occurred within the workplace.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
As much as I would love to join the hon. Gentleman in Torbay and it sounds like a delightful day out, I have a pretty full diary. I was not making a point against trying to stop sexual harassment; I was very clear that we need to use every power, every law and every mechanism available to clamp down hard on anybody who engages in the sexual harassment of anybody. My point was about the unintended consequences, including to free speech. By no definition, in my world, does sexual harassment count as free speech; that is something totally different. I invite the hon. Gentleman to reflect on my arguments, which were not in any way, shape or form about trying to remove powers to deal with sexual harassment.
Steve Darling
I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman and I will have to agree to differ on that point. I am sure that the Government’s proposals will support those who are facing sexual harassment from third parties. As colleagues on the Committee have highlighted, the reality is that the legislation is about taking all reasonable steps. It is not saying that when somebody walks in and abuses an employee it is an immediate red line. The reality is that the employer needs to have taken all reasonable steps. I am very comfortable with the proposals. The Liberal Democrats will vote against the amendment.
Jon Pearce (High Peak) (Lab)
I promise to keep my comments brief. Clause 15 will amend section 40A of the Equality Act 2010 to provide that an employer must take all reasonable steps to prevent the sexual harassment of employees in the course of their employment.
The concept of “all reasonable steps” has been part of the Equality Act 2010 since its inception, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester referred to. Section 109 of the Act provides a defence for the employer in respect of the discriminatory acts of the employee. It is about vicarious liability: in effect, if the employer can show that it has taken all reasonable steps, it will not be liable for the acts of the employee.
Exactly the same “all reasonable steps” test is being applied here. In my experience as an employment lawyer, employment tribunals are very well-versed in it and have a huge amount of experience with it. It would be a matter of fact for them to determine. It is important to understand that it will be, and always has been, a proportionate test that looks at the size and resources of the employer and the context of the employment situation.
There will inevitably be guidance from the Equality and Human Rights Commission on how employers should take all reasonable steps and what those steps might be, but it will be fact-specific. It may well include steps to mitigate, such as some form of risk assessment, policies, training or means by which an employee who is at risk of or has suffered third-party harassment can report it and action can be taken. All those things are fairly standard. They happen already as a result of the vicarious liability element of the Equality Act; the clause would just extend them to third parties.
All third-party harassment cases and issues arise from a case called Burton v. De Vere Hotels, in which Bernard Manning made racist comments to a waitress at a De Vere hotel and the waitress brought a claim. Both the original employment tribunal and the employment appeal tribunal held that it was harassment, but it was overturned on appeal because the right did not extend to protection from third-party harassment. That was the start of the process of trying to protect employees in such circumstances.
The employment tribunal and the employment appeal tribunal said that the employer knew what was likely to be in Bernard Manning’s act—we can all imagine what might be in Bernard Manning’s act—but did not take the necessary steps to protect the employee in the circumstances. These are exactly the scenarios that the shadow Minister raised, in which we would expect the employer to consider very carefully who was staffing the event, what policies should be in place and how any issues should be managed—including, for example, by warning Bernard Manning that he might not wish to make racist remarks to members of staff.
When we talk about risk assessments, we must remember that the biggest risk is that third-party harassment will continue. That is the most fundamental issue. I emphasise a point that the shadow Minister will find relevant: a 2023 Buckinghamshire healthcare NHS trust staff survey showed that there had been nearly 400 incidents of sexual harassment by third parties. Many of those incidents will have affected his constituents. It is vital that we make this legislation, because employee representatives at the trust have said that one thing that would help is a protection against third-party harassment. If we do not include this provision in the Bill, we will continue to leave his constituents exposed. I encourage the shadow Minister, who I genuinely believe cares about harassment, seriously to reconsider his opposition to the clause.
Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Stringer. I rise to speak in support of new clauses 39 and 40, which stand in the name of the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts).
The new clauses follow the publication of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 (Amendment) Bill, a presentation Bill that the right hon. Member introduced in co-operation with the Suzy Lamplugh Trust and Rights of Women. They would address a critical gap in workplace safety by mandating proactive employer responsibilities to prevent all forms of violence and harassment, including gender-based violence.
The Health and Safety Executive does not currently accept domestic abuse within its remit. That might come as a surprise to some Members, but the reason is that domestic abuse and other forms of gender-based violence are not explicitly covered in the 1974 Act, even though the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 underlines the fact that employers owe their employees a duty of care that covers protection from domestic abuse.
Discrimination law inadequately protects workers from gender-based violence beyond sexual harassment, especially when such violence is not physical. The UK’s ratification in 2022 of the International Labour Organisation’s convention 190 means that the UK should take a comprehensive approach that addresses all forms and threats of gender-based violence in the workplace, psychological and emotional abuse, physical abuse and stalking, including with respect to people commuting to and from the workplace.
New clauses 39 and 40 would address those issues. They would go further than the Bill’s provisions on protection from harassment, because new clause 39 would introduce clear, actionable duties for employers to safeguard employees from gender-based harm through risk assessments, policy development and training. New clause 40 would mandate that the Health and Safety Executive create an enforceable framework that holds employers accountable and fosters inclusive, violence-free work environments for workers.
I understand that this may have been the Minister’s first opportunity to hear these points. I hope he will consider them, perhaps on Report.
Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)
Prior to entering this place, I spent 25 years working in the television production industry, both as a writer and as a producer. I co-own an independent production company—I refer the Committee to my declaration of interests—that has made children’s drama for the BBC, including the hit science fiction series “The Sparticle Mystery”, in which a cut-price British version of the large hadron collider at CERN sends all the adults into a parallel universe, a situation with which I have had some sympathy since arriving as a new Member. I mention that not to burnish my CV in the hope of a writing credit on the next James Bond film, but to make a point about clause 15.
The television industry is full of creative, inventive and hard-working people who wish to make the most of their talents and contribute to making the programmes with which the UK is a world leader and for which it is rightly admired. Unfortunately, the nature of a fast-moving and pressurised industry based on freelancers is that it is left open to abusive practices. Freelancers move between productions, often with no HR departments, with no formal recruitment processes and with a lack of the checks and balances that we all want to see in good workplaces. It is also an industry in which the talent is protected, which has led to a culture of exceptionalism in which appalling behaviour has been allowed to continue for years.
This is not just about sexual harassment and inappropriate behaviour. It is also about power, or rather the imbalance of it. When I was in the green room at the start of a production, someone came up to me—I was on my own with him—and put his arm around me. He said, “Make me a cup of coffee, love.” I said, “Make your own, and then start looking for a new job,” because I was the executive producer on the show. Unfortunately, far too many women endure sexually explicit comments, inappropriate touching and offensive jokes as part of their everyday experience at work.
A few years ago, a survey found that 39% of women working in film and television had been subjected to sexual harassment at work; freelancers, members of the LGBTQ+ community and disabled people are also most at risk. Women are too scared to speak out: they fear that if they do, they will simply not work in the industry again. It is hardly surprising that last year two thirds of women aged between 25 and 59 thought about leaving the industry.
I say to the shadow Minister that clauses 15 to 17 will mean that companies have to proactively take all reasonable steps to close the vacuum of responsibility that currently exists between senior and middle management. They will need to ensure that staff have the training to call out challenging behaviour, support colleagues and prevent future abuse rather than focusing solely on damage limitation, as sadly we have seen time and again.
Anneliese Midgley (Knowsley) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I refer the Committee to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my membership of the GMB and Unite.
I want to bring this debate into reality—after all, the Bill seeks to affect real people’s lives and make their life at work better—and talk about my personal experience as a young woman. I was working a couple of jobs to get by, one of them as a silver service waitress on a zero-hours contract and minimum wage. The employer hired only young women, and we worked mostly at high-profile sporting events. To be sexually harassed was seen as normal. We were told to expect it, and we were told that we were expected to accept it—it was part of the job. The employer would also over-hire, so too many of us would turn up and many of us would be sent away, because it was decided that our face or figure did not fit the event that day. Those of us who got to the service were groped, propositioned, reprimanded if we talked back, and threatened with the sack. Travelling home from work together, we would feel completely humiliated and degraded, and we would exchange tales of what had happened to us that day. We took solace in the fact that we were not alone.
That behaviour is not something we should accept, but we know it still happens. That is why this part of the Bill is so important. No one should go to work dreading being harassed. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester pointed out, the Fawcett Society has said that
“40% of women experience sexual harassment throughout their career.”
The Bill is intended to prevent workers from being subject to that vile behaviour, and it will ensure that people can get on with their jobs without being filled with fear, dread or humiliation, or feeling unsafe and degraded.
Michael Wheeler (Worsley and Eccles) (Lab)
I did so this morning, but I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a member of the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers, as it pertains to some what I will say.
First, I want to take us right back to the beginning of the debate, if we can remember that long ago. The shadow Minister referenced the Regulatory Policy Committee’s assessment, in particular on the need for clauses 15 and 16. I strongly welcome what the Bill is doing in this space, in particular on third-party harassment. I do not profess to be an expert in the procedures and mechanisms of the RPC, but if we look broadly at society and at surveys and analysis of the state of work and what workers go through in this country, I think there is ample proper evidence of the need for these clauses.
I draw the Committee’s attention to this year’s “Freedom from Fear” survey released by USDAW, which surveyed retail workers in this country. It is an annual survey and the figures were released as part of Respect for Shopworkers Week in November. It featured responses from 4,000 participants, and the interim results showed that 69% of respondents—69% of a sample of 4,000 retail workers—had been verbally abused while at work, not by colleagues but by customers: a third party. Forty-five per cent had been threatened at work while simply going about their job. That is just one survey of one sample of one sector in our country that demonstrates the need for clauses 15 and 16.
On Opposition amendment 131, I must admit that I was slightly confused, but I was listening closely and I gathered that its thrust was primarily around free speech. We have talked a lot about unintended consequences in this Committee. I suggest that, whether it is intended or unintended, the consequence of the amendment, which would remove two entire sectors from the scope of the Bill, would be far too broad given the protections that are needed. That is particularly the case in the hospitality sector, and we have heard my hon Friends’ experiences of that sector. I question whether the amendment is at all proportionate, considering the overall aims of the Bill, as well as the experiences and evidence that we have heard from my hon. Friends and witnesses.
Sir Ashley Fox
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the fact that the Government have not undertaken an impact assessment on these measures makes it very difficult to know whether the amendment is proportionate, and that in fact our amendment 135, which states that these provisions should not take effect until after the impact assessment has taken place, is an entirely sensible proposition?
If I may make a second point, Mr Stringer, on the issue of harassment at higher and further education colleges, one can quite imagine a situation where students put forward a point of view—perhaps on gender critical subjects, on which a lecturer or employee has particular strong views and students have other strong views—that could easily result in a charge of harassment by a third party. That is not what should be happening at our higher education establishments. We should encourage free speech. We should encourage students to express themselves forcefully but respectfully, and we should not see that resulting in what I would regard as spurious legal cases.
Michael Wheeler
As I said, I listened closely to the points that Opposition Members made. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester, I will allow the Minister to come back on the specifics of impact assessments. The point I am trying to make is that we are all looking at the same Bill and the same information. We might desire more information at this point, but we are exercising our judgment. Regardless of the specifics of any impact assessment, I think it is patently obvious that it is a disproportionate response to the concerns raised by Opposition Members to exclude entire sectors from the protections that we are discussing.
On hospitality, we heard in oral evidence from the trade union Unite—of which I am not a member—that it had surveyed its hospitality workers and found that 56% of them had considered leaving the sector entirely as a result of the sexual harassment they were experiencing. We have heard throughout the debate about the desire to support businesses. We heard from UKHospitality about struggles with retention and how measures in the Bill, outside of this one, will aid with that. I hope we can all agree that, beyond edge cases that might raise concerns, the significant protections for workers that we are discussing would be not only good for those workers, but fundamentally good for business.
The Minister for Equalities (Dame Nia Griffith)
We have had a full and thorough debate, and I thank my hon. Friends—in particular my learned hon. Friends the Members for High Peak and for Gloucester—for making many valuable arguments, and everybody for contributing their personal experiences.
I remind the Committee that clause 15 requires employers to take all reasonable steps to prevent sexual harassment of their employees. Including “all” emphasises the thorough approach that employers must take; at the same time, the requirement remains limited to steps that are “reasonable”. The concept of “all reasonable steps” has the advantage of being well established and familiar to employers and employment tribunals. That is a really important point, because the clause clarifies and makes things easier and more straightforward, rather than complicated and burdensome, which is the implication of some of the amendments.
I thank the hon. Member for Dundee Central for speaking to new clauses 39 and 40 tabled by the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd. I pay tribute to the right hon. Lady for her work on violence against women and on stalking, and indeed to the work of her predecessor on stalking. I reassure the hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Lady that the Government entirely support the importance of ensuring that workers, including women and girls, are protected from workplace violence and harassment. There is already in place a strong and appropriate regulatory regime that provides protection to workers from violence and harassment. If the hon. Gentleman so desires, I will ask the Health and Safety Executive to write to him on that point.
Dame Nia Griffith
I will ensure that that happens.
The hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire questioned the necessity of this new legislation, so let me explain again. Often, harassment legislation, including the criminal law, allows an individual to take legal action against a perpetrator. However, that does not go far enough in tackling the wider issues and root causes. The burden of holding perpetrators to account and driving change is too great to be shouldered purely by employees who have experienced harassment. This measure therefore sends a clear signal to all employers that they must take all reasonable steps to prevent sexual harassment.
I think the hon. Member is also concerned that the clauses that we are discussing risk being unworkable or burdensome. It is important to remember that they simply require employers to do what is reasonable for their specific circumstances. That means that employers will not be penalised for failing to take unworkable or impractical steps. The clauses will not require employers to foresee the wholly unforeseeable or to police all customers’ private conversations. On one hand, the hon. Member acknowledges that good businesses already accept the need to take all reasonable steps to prevent sexual harassment, but on the other, he wants to make exceptions for a large number of businesses.
Greg Smith
I would be very happy to discuss with the Minister and her colleagues in Government the specific points I made about sectors such as higher education and concerns about the no-platforming of perfectly moderate speakers such as Tony Blair. Would she be willing to engage in that dialogue on safeguards in higher education around no-platforming, so that free speech can be protected?
Dame Nia Griffith
Free speech is absolutely a cornerstone of British values, but I remind the hon. Member that harassment is not free speech. They are two different things. The Bill concerns employer liability for workplace harassment, which is a serious issue, not to be underplayed. As with all cases of harassment under the Equality Act 2010, courts and tribunals will continue to be required to balance rights on the facts of a particular case, including the right to freedom of expression. Harassment is a serious matter that involves being subjected to unwanted conduct of various types that, as set out in the Equality Act,
“has the purpose or effect of violating”
the employee’s
“dignity, or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment”
for the employee. Those who seek to harass people at work will not be tolerated.
The hon. Member raised a number of potential scenarios relating to potentially offensive or upsetting speech. It is important to note that in employment tribunal claims for harassment, if certain conduct has a humiliating or degrading effect on the recipient but that was not its intended purpose, the tribunal must consider whether it was reasonable for the conduct to have had that effect. It is not a purely subjective test based on the view of the recipient. The reasonableness and the facts of the individual situation must be considered. On that note, I ask the Committee to accept the clauses unamended.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 15 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 16
Harassment by third parties
Sarah Gibson (Chippenham) (LD)
I beg to move amendment 163, in clause 18, page 31, line 24, at end insert—
“(4) In section 14K, in subsection (1), after paragraph (cb) insert—
‘(cc) works or worked as a self-employed contractor;
(cd) works or worked as a sub-postmaster;
(ce) is member of the judiciary, non-executive director or a trustee, including a pension trustee;
(cf) is a trade union representatives;
(cg) has applied for a vacant role as an external applicant and makes a protected disclosure about information obtained during the application process;’”.
This amendment extends protections for whistleblowers to other categories.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 41—Whistleblowers: protected disclosures—
“In Part X of the Employment Rights Act 1996, for section 103A, substitute―
‘Protected disclosure.
An employee who is dismissed shall be regarded for the purposes of this Part as unfairly dismissed if the reason (or one of the reasons) for the dismissal is that the employee made a protected disclosure.’”
This new clause would slightly extend the circumstances in which an employee is considered as unfairly dismissed after making a protected disclosure.
Sarah Gibson
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. Before I make my case, I must make a small correction: the reference to section 14K in the text of amendment 163 should be to section 43K. My apologies for the error.
The Liberal Democrats tabled amendment 163 because although we strongly welcome the Bill’s proposals on whistleblowing, we do not feel that it goes far enough to support all workers: it is not extended to additional workers. We feel that whistleblowing protections should be extended to all those in the workplace who may see wrongdoing and may suffer for raising public interests and concerns. After our long debate about harassment, we must all agree that harassment can often be brought to light only by whistleblowers, so this part of the legislation is incredibly important. As the definition of “worker” in section 43K of the Employment Rights Act 1996 is already slightly different for whistleblowers than for other areas of employment law, there is a sound public policy reason to extend it even further.
In our diverse and complex labour market, many people who wish to blow the whistle do not necessarily qualify as a worker and are therefore not protected either by the existing legislation or under the Bill. The Secretary of State already has the power to make these changes through secondary legislation, but until the Government act on that, we are pushing for Parliament to extend protections to workers such as contractors.
In the modern economy, the boundaries between a self-employed contractor and a worker have never been more blurred. Many people classified as self-employed workers are inside a company, yet do not enjoy whistleblowing rights. That is true in my constituency of Chippenham, where a large number of people working in the care industry are technically subcontracted to the employer for whom they are working. In a large part of Corsham, many people work for the Government in one form or another, through the military or Ministry of Defence, but they are often either self-employed or subcontracted and therefore not entitled to these protections.
This issue is part of a wider problem with our modern economy, particularly the gig economy. It is welcome that the Government have made fighting the insecurities created by bogus self-employment a core plank of their employment reforms, but adopting this amendment would immediately plug the gap in workplace rights and protections for those who are self-employed.
I want to highlight a few cases. If the sub-postmasters, who were effectively contractors, had been afforded whistleblower rights, they might have been able to raise their concerns about the Horizon IT system much faster, and some of the issues would have been resolved faster.
Non-executives and trustees are subject to duties and liabilities under laws such as the Companies Act 2006 and the Trustee Act 2000, but they are not covered by whistleblower legal protections. Not only is blowing the whistle without protection a risk to someone’s employment, but for trustees of charities it could cause reputational damage, yet the law on that is currently unclear.
I do not need to remind Labour Members that the role of trade unions in the workplace is recognised in the Bill. A whistleblower is likely to go to their trade union representative for advice on whistleblowing, but if I have understood correctly, when representatives raise that concern to the employer on behalf of a colleague, there is currently no protection. The amendment would be an important extension to the clause.
If someone is rejected for a job because they blew the whistle in a previous role, they are unlikely to have a remedy in an employment tribunal against a prospective employer for the loss of that job opportunity. That puts them at a significant disadvantage. It leads to whistleblowers being blacklisted and unable to work in the sector in which they have raised concerns. The law is inconsistent; job applicants must not be discriminated against under equality law, and job applicants in the NHS do have whistleblowing protections.
The amendment would ensure that job applicants receive the whistleblowing protections that they deserve, and that extend whistleblowing rights to people working in various other forms who are not strictly considered to be workers. I ask the Committee to support our amendment.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Justin Madders)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Stringer. As always, I draw the Committee’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my membership of the GMB and Unite trade unions.
I thank the hon. Member for Chippenham for raising these important issues, which we need to explore. She is coming from a good place. We all know that whistleblowers play an important role in shining a light on wrongdoing. The fear, and often the reality, of retaliation is a barrier to people coming forward with concerns.
Before I turn to the substance of amendment 163, I will recap the existing protections for whistleblowers. Workers have the right not to be subject to detriment on the grounds of making a protected disclosure and not to be dismissed for making a protected disclosure: that would be treated as an automatically unfair reason for dismissal. These are day one rights for workers and employees who have recourse to an employment tribunal. The standard employment law definition of “worker” has been extended in recent years to whistleblowing protections. It includes a range of employment relationships, such as agency workers, individuals undertaking training or work experience, certain self-employed staff in the NHS, police officers and student nurses and midwives.
Amendment 163, as the hon. Lady says, would extend the scope of whistleblowing protections to a huge range of other groups, including the self-employed, contractors, office holders including members of the judiciary, non-executive directors, trustees—including personal trustees—and trade union representatives and job applicants, as well as those who acquire information during a recruitment process.
I can see the hon. Lady’s intentions and what she is trying to achieve. However, there are questions that the amendment does not address, particularly given how our current employment law framework is structured, because a lot of the people it covers are not in an employment relationship or a worker relationship. The remedies are based on detrimental treatment and on dismissal, but a lot of those to whom she seeks to extend protection are people who by definition cannot be dismissed, because they are not employees or workers.
It is quite a job to understand exactly where to take the issue of people who acquire information during a recruitment process, which is the final limb of the amendment, paragraph (cg). That is potentially extremely broad in application. In legislation like this, it would be difficult to pin down exactly who it would apply to. Would it apply to someone casually undertaking a job search on the internet? Where do we draw the line?
On the point about job applicants, I take the point that blowing the whistle can have a huge impact on a person’s career prospects. I have represented many people who have found that to be an issue, and there are already blacklisting laws for certain types of protection. However, the tribunal can award compensation and take into account the difficulty that an individual might have in finding suitable employment at a similar level as a result of having blown the whistle. There is a wider question about how we treat people who blow the whistle, which is not necessarily going to be resolved by the amendment.
I agree that we should protect those who speak up and that we should ensure that our legal framework takes account of modern working relationships. I recognise that, particularly for trade unions, there is a benefit to having these groups within scope, and there are issues here that I think bear further scrutiny. Because of the plethora of unintended consequences and knock-on effects, some of which I have touched on, we cannot accept the amendment as drafted, but I assure the hon. Lady that I intend to meet Protect next month to discuss the issues on which it is campaigning. We are aware of the long-overdue requirement to look at whistleblowing law. The previous Government undertook a small exercise and we need to understand its findings, but we will be taking into account some of the issues that the hon. Lady has raised.
We cannot pretend that such an amendment would not bring very large numbers of additional people into scope, so we would want to work with stakeholders to understand what that would mean for them. It is also possible to imagine people becoming professional whistleblowers by having something that they could rely on in perpetuity; again, we have to balance that against the need to ensure that people are properly protected. I am happy to work with colleagues across the House to ensure that if we introduce any legislation in this area, we get it right and recognise modern relationships. The hon. Lady is also right to refer to worker status: we are keen to look at that in our “Next Steps” document, because we know that a whole range of issues arise.
Sarah Gibson
We are happy not to press either amendment 163 or new clause 41, but I ask the Minister to meet us before Report so that we can introduce some, if not all, of the measures in them, and particularly those in amendment 163. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Dame Nia Griffith
Clause 18 will strengthen the protections for whistleblowers by making it explicit that sexual harassment can be the basis for a protected whistleblowing disclosure. It will do so by amending part 4A of the Employment Rights Act 1996, adding sexual harassment to the list of relevant failures about which a worker can blow the whistle.
For context, to qualify for whistleblowing protection, a worker needs to have a reasonable belief that their disclosure tends to show one of the relevant failures and that the disclosure is in the public interest. A worker who blows the whistle by making a protected disclosure has the right not to suffer a detriment or, if they are an employee, not to be unfairly dismissed.
This measure will provide welcome clarity that sexual harassment can form the subject of a qualifying disclosure. This is because, as a result of the measure, a worker will not need to identify an existing legal obligation, criminal offence or breach of health and safety in order to make a qualifying disclosure about sexual harassment.
We anticipate that the measure will have wider benefits, including enabling more workers to use whistleblowing routes to speak up about sexual harassment, and sending a clear signal to employers that workers who make disclosures must be treated fairly. Workers will have legal recourse if their employer subjects them to detriment for speaking up.
This is one of the steps that we are taking to tackle sexual harassment at work. According to data from the Office for National Statistics, more than a quarter of those who have experienced sexual harassment in England and Wales said they had experienced it at their place of work. That must change. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 18 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 19
Right not to be unfairly dismissed: removal of qualifying period, etc
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Justin Madders
I will not speak for long on clause 19, because it is a fairly straightforward clause and there are more detailed clauses and amendments that may generate further debate. Clause 19 introduces schedule 2, which will repeal section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, thereby removing the two-year qualifying period for protection against unfair dismissal.
An estimated 9 million employees have been working for their employer for less than two years and therefore have very limited protection against unfair dismissal. By removing the qualifying period, the Government will make basic protection against unfair dismissal a day one right for all employees, ensuring a baseline of security and predictability. It is about tackling insecurity. Unless there are automatically unfair grounds, an employer can lawfully sack a worker just by giving them their statutory or contractual notice pay and telling them not to come back to work. There is no entitlement to a fair process, nor even a right to a written statement explaining why they have been sacked.
Think about what you can do with two years in your life, Mr Stringer—well, maybe we should not think too much about it. Someone can make an awful lot of commitments, including financial commitments. They can get married, buy a house, start a family and take out loans of all descriptions, but they have no protection at work and nothing to stop them being arbitrarily dismissed in that two-year period. We think that that is wrong: it creates a great deal of insecurity in the workplace, and it has to change.
Our changes will not prevent fair dismissal. We will ensure that businesses can hire with confidence. We will ensure that employers can operate contractual probation periods, which are separate from the new statutory probationary periods. During the statutory probationary periods, employers will have a lighter-touch standard to meet when they need to dismiss an employee who is not suitable for the job.
Our changes will ensure that newly hired workers are not arbitrarily dismissed. We believe that that will help to drive up standards in the workplace. It will ensure that there is greater fairness and greater understanding between employees and businesses. It will drive up standards, quality and security—all things that we believe will improve our economy. We do not intend to bring in these measures in until autumn 2026 at the earliest. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Greg Smith
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I accept the Minister’s point that clause 19 essentially just introduces schedule 2. Several amendments in my name and in the name of my hon. Friends will explore schedule 2 in detail over the coming days and potentially even weeks.
However, as we discuss clause 19, I think it is important gently to challenge what is actually quite a big leap, from two years down to day one. It is incumbent on the Government to come up with a rationale and a reason for such a considerable change. This is not a taper or a gradual decrease from two years to a year or six months; we can have a debate about what the right number is.
It is clear that the Government wish to move down from two years, but what we heard in our public evidence sessions shows the very real risk that introducing these day one rights for all employees will mean that employers are reticent, are more risk-averse and do not hire as readily, freely or easily as we might want in order to create jobs in our economy. I remind the Minister what Jane Gratton of the British Chambers of Commerce said about her members:
“Members say that there would be a reduced hiring appetite were this legislation to come in, and that they would be less likely to recruit new employees due to the risk and difficulty, particularly under the day one rights”.––[Official Report, Employment Rights Public Bill Committee, 26 November 2024; c. 8, Q2.]
She went on to argue for a nine-month probationary period—a period to which it would potentially be feasible to reduce this timeframe.
Whenever a new law comes in and makes a significant change, be it to business, regulation or whatever sector, I gently ask the Minister to reflect on the time period. Is it really necessary to make such a giant leap in one go? Even if in years to come the Government get what they want in terms of day one rights, would it not be better to face this now, listen to industry, listen to the evidence that this very Committee heard a couple of weeks ago and be more measured, proportionate and risk-averse as to what these measures might end up doing to the overall jobs market in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland? If the Government did that, it would help with some of the stark and staggering business confidence numbers in the economy at the moment. Businesses are worried about where the future lies, and real people out there looking for work are worried that jobs might not be as readily available after the Bill comes into effect.
Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
I declare an interest as a member of a trade union. We have seen a change in the labour market over recent decades. Previously, people used to stay in work for much longer; currently, the average tenure is 4.5 years—there has been a slight increase, because it has been bang on four years for the past five or six years. That means that people nowadays spend half their time in a job without any rights, because of the two-year threshold. The proposals in this legislation are updating the labour market to the realities of today’s jobs. People spending half their time without rights leads to a lack of confidence and security. The way to address business confidence and worker security is by bringing these rights in from day one, as this legislation proposes; sticking with the status quo is what leaves people more insecure.
The Chair
Order. I remind hon. Members that they can catch my eye to make significant points in the debate. Interventions should be short and to the point.
Greg Smith
Thank you, Mr. Stringer. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his points. He is right that the labour market has changed significantly in recent decades. In fact, it is constantly evolving and has been since time immemorial, and certainly since the industrial revolution, although I suspect I will be trying the Committee’s patience if we go through all that history—the hon. Member for Birmingham Northfield might be keen to do so, but that is perhaps one for the bar some time, rather than the Committee.
Michael Wheeler
I thank the shadow Minister for giving way, and I will keep my intervention short, Mr Stringer. We are hearing a lot of grandiose threats when it comes to the economy, and I would like to drag us back to the specifics. This measure is not a ban on dismissal; it is not even a protection from dismissal. It is a protection from unfair dismissal, so it is quite narrow. It still allows for dismissal, disciplinary procedures and all of that. Does the shadow Minister have a timeframe in which he thinks it would be acceptable for workers to be unfairly dismissed?
Greg Smith
The hon. Gentleman is right about the unfair dismissal point. Nobody wants to see anybody unfairly dismissed, but it is impossible to see each measure in the Bill in its own silo or its own column; each is part of the cumulative impact of many measures reverting to day one rights. So, too, is the measure before us, and the Committee has heard direct evidence from representatives of real businesses out there that it could have a damaging effect.
I am not arguing against the principle of what the Government are trying to do here—to protect workers against unfair dismissal. I am trying to test the waters on the operability of the Bill, and on the unintended consequence that it may have in terms of overall numbers in the job market and the rate at which companies out there make new hires, or indeed choose not to. It is a worthwhile exercise for the Committee to really test these things to see how this measure will work out in practice.
Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)
Throughout these proceedings, we have talked a lot about evidence bases and the likely impact of particular measures on business. The clause might be short and to the point—I do take the points made by the shadow Minister that we will come on to more detailed discussions, and it is right to debate the general principles here—but it does have precedents. In terms of the dilemma or decision over whether the qualifying period should be two years, one year or, as in the Bill, day one—but with that important provision for a probationary period—the issue has been road-tested.
The period was set at two years for many years. Then it was reduced to one year in the late 1990s, and economic growth continued. When the qualifying period was raised from one year to two years in 2012, the impact analysis that the then Government produced said that one year was easily sufficient in the overwhelming number of cases. On this aspect of the Bill, the businesses I have spoken to in my constituency and in the general Birmingham area have told me that, in almost all roles, employers are not still talking about whether someone is suitable for the job 12 months in; it is usually apparent within weeks. That circumstance is still covered by the initial period of employment provided for in the Bill.
According to the impact assessment, the estimated saving to business across the entire the economy, after the familiarisation cost period, was relatively small—I believe it was around £2 million to £3 million in 2011 prices, so probably somewhere around double that today. I think my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles used the word “grandiose”. We are really not talking about that, but about a relatively small number of cases that could fall under that initial period of employment provision.
Let me return to an argument that has been made previously in the Committee, but that is relevant here. One undesirable effect of that change in the qualifying period was that because a worker who faced detriment and unfair treatment in the workplace had no recourse to an unfair dismissal claim through the employment tribunal system until they reached their two years, they found themselves relying on equalities arguments instead—a day one right in law as it stands. The effect—another perverse outcome—has been to overload that part of the employment tribunal system.
This change is sensible. It will help with the undesirable effects in the court system as it stands. The Chartered Management Institute, which we heard evidence from, surveyed its members and found that 83% of managers agreed that improvements in family-friendly policies and day one rights, including in respect of unfair dismissal, would positively impact workplace productivity.
In some of the related provisions in the Bill, particularly around the initial period of employment, there is promise that we will see a light-touch regime, and we are all looking to see what the details will be. I know that the Government are due to come back on that.
Chris Murray
I promise that I will make a short intervention this time, Mr Stringer. The statistics show that one in 10 workers never spend more than a year in a job, so they are particularly affected by the lack of provision on day one. At any one time, one in five workers are within the first two years of their employment. Does my hon. Friend agree that we are talking about a group of people who need the security of these rights to improve their productivity, but who are currently completely excluded from them?
Laurence Turner
My hon. Friend makes an important and relevant point. The people who are most adversely affected are those who have the least and who are on the lowest incomes in the economy, and the social care sector is a good example of that. In the city of Birmingham, the average turnover rate for care workers is around 30% every year. An enormous number of people are concentrated in particular sectors. One of the difficulties in Committee is that we use overall, aggregate numbers when weighing the impact of policies, but they are felt particularly in certain sectors—that is a common point of agreement among Members on both sides. If we get this change right, the benefits will be felt most keenly in the parts of the economy, and by the people, that need these protections most.
Again, it is worth reflecting on what we heard in the evidence sessions. We heard from Professor Bogg, from the University of Bristol, that
“if you look at the OECD countries, we are the fifth least regulated on dismissal protection out of 38 countries, and we are the third least regulated on hiring on temporary contracts”,
and that the change
“just pushes the UK back into the mainstream of other…OECD countries with employment regulation that works effectively.”––[Official Report, Employment Rights Public Bill Committee, 28 November 2024; c. 143, Q147.]
There can be a lot of sound and fury about the individual measures that we are debating, but I want to reinforce the point that all the evidence we have had, whether that is written evidence from interested parties, evidence the Committee has heard or historical evidence—maybe not going quite back to the industrial revolution, but at least over the past 30 years of changes in the qualifying period—shows that the effect on the overall economy will be sensible and limited. However, it will be the lowest-income workers, whose living standards, rights and dignity of work we all want to improve, who will benefit most. The clause is extremely welcome, and I commend it to the Committee.
Sir Ashley Fox
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Stringer. I do not believe that unfair dismissal should be a day one right. I think this is a fundamental error by the Government. It is interesting that during the previous Labour Governments, under Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, the qualifying period was one year. There was a reason for that: by reducing it—by making it a day one right—we introduce an aspect of procedural unfairness to all small businesses. Small businesses might decide after a week that they do not want to keep someone in employment. They might not follow the letter of the law, and it might be procedurally unfair because not every t was crossed and not every i was dotted, and that will lead to an unfair dismissal case.
Sir Ashley Fox
Let me just make this point. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Buckinghamshire asked what the rationale was behind the day one qualifying period. I think the answer is that it is a demand from the trade unions; it is one of a long list of demands from the trade unions. This Bill is payback for the trade unions’ support for the Labour party. Those demands continue to come in, and we know that because the Bill is not even properly written. It is half-written—
Sir Ashley Fox
No. It is half-written and, with each week that goes by, we have more amendments as more demands come in.
My concern is that small businesses are less likely to employ people, because of these costs. Take a look at the Government’s impact assessment: table A7 says that these day one unfair dismissal rights will cost businesses £372 million. That will fall disproportionately on small businesses. They will be afraid of legal action; they will be wary of the costs. It will make them less likely to take people on—to employ that marginal employee. The cumulative effect of this proposal, taken with the many other proposals in the Bill, is to make our labour market less flexible, which is precisely what the trade unions want. They do not want a flexible labour market. This measure will make our economy more like France’s and will, in the long term, lead to higher unemployment. I think that is a great pity.
We are told that there will be a probationary period, but that it will be set out in regulations. This is another reason to think that the Bill is half-baked: the Government have not decided what should be a reasonable period. I suggest that two years is reasonable; if not, then the one year under Blair and Brown certainly seemed to work. However, the Government will find that introducing more and more day one rights will lead to higher unemployment. We all know that every period of Labour government ends with unemployment higher than when it began, and I suspect that this Bill will help to maintain that record.
Jon Pearce
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. Protection from unfair dismissal is already a day one right in respect of certain carve-outs from the two-year qualifying period, including for dismissal relating to a protected disclosure—whistleblowing—refusal to allow somebody to undertake jury service, or refusal to allow somebody to take family leave. That protection, and the principle of unfair dismissal, is already in statute as a day one right.
Let us look at other day one rights, which are worth exploring a bit further. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield said, employees have a whole raft of day one rights, including most of the discrimination acts under the Equality Act and protections for whistleblowing. I want to continue my hon. Friend’s argument in order to try to give employees reassurance, which I think will come with guidance and the statutory probation period.
Certainty on this issue would help many employers. What I found in practice was that there would be a probation period in the contractual relationship, but smaller employers that I advised often did not have a policy; they just had a shortened notice period—often a month, rather than the three months after the probation period. There would be no structure in place. All too often, I found that many of those employers got themselves into difficulty because they believed that they did not have to follow any process whatsoever, due to the two-year qualifying period.
More often than not, those employers were dismissing people for reasons of capability: the employee had not got up to the necessary standard, and there was an issue with their work. In those circumstances, the employer often did not have much of a structure or procedure in place, and would eventually get to the point at which it would, in effect, give up and decide that the employee was never going to get to the standard that it wanted within the probationary period. The employer would dismiss people without any process or meeting—even without speaking to the employee at all—and without taking any evidence.
All too often in the cases that I dealt with, it would come to light that there was a reason for an employee’s lack of capability, which related to an impairment. Many of those impairments were protected under the Equality Act, and those employees had protections against discrimination on the basis of disability. They had a right to reasonable adjustments that the employer had not considered because it did not ask the question, and which had not been implemented. In those circumstances, the employer is exposed to uncapped discrimination claims, which are very serious and very difficult to respond to, because no process has been followed.
It is really important that we seek to reassure small, medium and large employers that having a light-touch, clear structure will mean that no employer falls into that trap again, and that we will save a lot of employers unnecessary litigation.
Laurence Turner
Does my hon. Friend agree that, in those cases where someone has ended up taking the equalities route because that is the only route available to them, it can be particularly reputationally damaging to the employer? Does he also agree that, because by the nature of those claims—particularly where they relate to disability discrimination—the system requires the claimants to stress an impairment of some kind, that process is also distressing for the claimant in a way that is wholly unnecessary? Making these changes would at least avoid those circumstances for both employer and employee.
Jon Pearce
I absolutely agree. Often, in those circumstances, it is extremely distressing for the employee, who, had the reasonable adjustment been in place to assist them with disability or to enable them to get to the required standard, would still be employed. They have to face the extra hurdle of declaring their particular impairment to the world.
Reputationally, these claims can often be hugely damaging for employers that had never intended to discriminate and would never have discriminated against an employee, but for the lack of process. As I say, there is nothing new in day one rights—protection from unfair dismissal is already, in certain circumstances, a day one right; Equality Act claims are a day one right; whistleblowing is a day one right—but the Bill will help employers not to fall foul of those day one rights that already exist and give a far clearer structure to the employment sphere. With those reassurances and with guidance, there is nothing for employers to fear from this legislation.
Anneliese Midgley
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. About a year ago, one of my constituents in Knowsley was told that she needed IVF. She went to her employer to let them know that she was going to start treatment, and a few days later she was sacked. She was a few weeks short of having worked two years for her employer. She had previously passed probation and had no previous complaints or warnings on her work. Hon. Members will be happy to know that she did get pregnant and she had that baby a month ago, but while trying to get pregnant and in the early stages of her pregnancy she could not find another steady job. No employer wanted to take her on and being unemployed obviously caused immense stress.
My constituent did not qualify for maternity pay. She has worked hard all her life; she has studied and has a doctorate. She is now with a small baby on a statutory maternity allowance of £184 and is still not in a job. One in nine women are forced out of the labour market every year due to pregnancy and maternity discrimination. The two-year period in which someone can be dismissed was used unfairly against my constituent. The Bill will protect women across the UK, allowing them the right to a secure job and a family. I am sure we can all agree that the current situation for workers is unacceptable.
Alex McIntyre
I start by aligning myself with the very good arguments that my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak made from his professional experience. I saw many of the same circumstances in my professional career.
There are a couple of points that I want to add. To the extent that there are people who want to bring claims in bad faith, there are already avenues for them to do so. If they wanted to bring a claim against their employer vexatiously they could, as my hon. Friend said, bring a claim under the Equality Act or on the basis of whistleblowing. Part of the concern here is some of the—quite frankly—scaremongering going on about what some of these processes might entail. If the hon. Member for Bridgwater would like to intervene and say exactly which part of the capability process he thinks small businesses will be concerned by, and would be disproportionate for a small business to undertake, I will happily take that intervention.
Most employers—and nearly every MP in this room is a new employer, although there are some returning colleagues—get an idea pretty quickly whether someone is going to be a fit or not. If there are concerns about their performance, there is a very straightforward process that can be followed. It is not particularly onerous. There is often a disproportionate concern about what that process might look like. Part of the issue, as my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak said, is that, by not following a simple process, employers end up tying themselves in more knots and potentially discriminating against individuals because they have not followed what could have been a fair process from the start. That is the point that the Bill seeks to address.
The Bill will not prevent individuals from being dismissed for fair reasons, which include capability, performance and redundancy. We are saying that a fair process should be followed. We have already made provision for the fact that there will be a slightly different process, and rightly so, for individuals in their probation period. It is important that we recognise that and do not scaremonger, because that will put businesses off employing, when there is a simple procedure that they can follow.
Justin Madders
We seem to have lost a few colleagues during the votes; hopefully, they are coming back. It seems a while since they were made, but I will pick up on comments and questions of—[Interruption.]
Justin Madders
Let me sum up the debate. The shadow Minister asked some questions, and there were other contributions to the debate, which I hope to come on to. I think that the shadow Minister’s general position was that he accepted that there should be a reduction in the qualifying period. I am not entirely clear whether that was the case, but certainly his colleague, the hon. Member for Bridgwater, threw out a number of proposals. The question that the shadow Minister asked was, “Why day one?” I will come to that shortly, but I think the other main thrust of his argument was that we are not listening to businesses. Of course we are, and that is why we came up with the concept of a statutory probationary period.
For the information of the Committee, about 140 stakeholders have engaged with us about the Bill since we came into office in July. One of the many issues that have come up is the question of day one rights, and how we balance the risk for employers—giving them the confidence to hire but ensuring that we deliver our policy aim of giving people more certainty and security at work. That is where the statutory probationary period comes in. We believe that that will help businesses focus on their hiring practices, but it should also increase the dialogue between employer and employee in those early days of the employment relationship.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester said that an employer can work out pretty quickly whether someone will be suitable for the workplace. At this point, I quote Professor Dominic Regan, an eminent professor of employment law, who used to quip somewhat tongue in cheek that he could decide whether he liked someone within 10 minutes of meeting them on a train. That was his way of arguing that the two-year time limit for unfair dismissal was set far too high. It is certainly a sentiment that I agree with, although we will not be going as far as to introduce a 10-minutes-on-a-train test.
We are seeking to give employees the security of knowing that they will not be arbitrarily dismissed in the early days of their employment, but to give employers the confidence to hire and the opportunity to use a light-touch process to deal with issues of performance and capability. We believe that will be a positive for employees. Research quoted in the impact assessment suggests that having a job is significant to physical health and personal relationships, as a determinant of one’s wellbeing. The quality of that job and how secure it is are clearly a key part of that.
The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield, and by my hon. Friends the Members for High Peak and for Gloucester, about employees who get dismissed before the qualifying period sometimes looking for a protected characteristic to base a claim on is an interesting one. I do not think that is something that we can model, because we do not know exactly how many claims would have continued anyway, but it is a fair point that when people are dismissed before two years, without any discussion or explanation, they seek answers, and sometimes they might seek those answers by hanging their hat on a statutory peg that may not always fit the case. My hon. Friends all spoke eloquently about how that can be counterproductive not just for the businesses, but for the employees’ general wellbeing.
Business in the Community surveyed 4,000 employees, of whom 66% said that their mental health and wellbeing was affected by their personal job insecurity. In written evidence presented to the Committee, USDAW noted that
“Being dismissed on spurious…grounds, without a fair investigation can have devastating consequences for an employee”
in terms of morale, confidence and living standards. Having worked for employers that had quite a gung-ho approach to employment rights, I welcomed the security of a qualifying period for unfair dismissal. Before that, it really did feel that you were one wrong conversation away from seeing your job go.
Of course, there is significant evidence to suggest that there are advantages for the wider economy. I think there is an acceptance that job insecurity can have a cooling effect on job mobility. The Resolution Foundation noted that the job mobility rate in 2019 was 25% lower than in 2000. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield said, there is an international context to this: the UK is the fifth least regulated of the 38 OECD countries in terms of the dismissal of individual workers. We should look to correct that, and the Bill will go a long way towards doing so.
The shadow Minister asked about the risk to jobs. The impact assessment states:
“There is limited evidence to suggest that protecting employees from unfair dismissal is associated with lower employment rates.”
Evidence from our OECD counterparts across Europe supports that. The Resolution Foundation gave evidence to the effect that the measure is unlikely to have an impact on employment rates. Professor Deakin’s historical context was important. He said that, over the sweep of history in the past 50 years, increased employment protections have not led to increased unemployment. Of course, all Members will be aware of the messages of doom that we heard during the national minimum wage debate about what implementing that measure would mean for employment rates.
History demonstrates that there is nothing to fear in this legislation, and nothing to fear in giving people greater job security from day one. By providing for a statutory probationary period, we are getting the balance right between security at work and giving employers the opportunity to take a chance on new hires. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 19 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Anna McMorrin.)
Employment Rights Bill (Eleventh sitting)
Thursday 12th December 2024
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Employment Rights Act 2025 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 12 December 2024 - (12 Dec 2024)
The Chair
Welcome back. Will everyone please ensure that all electronic devices are turned off or switched to silent mode? We will continue line-by-line consideration of the Bill. The grouping and selection list for today’s sittings is available in the room and on the parliamentary website. I remind Members about the rules on declarations of interests as set out in the code of conduct.
Schedule 2
Right not to be unfairly dismissed: removal of qualifying period, etc
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
I beg to move amendment 156, in schedule 2, page 112, line 19, after (b) insert “, (c)”.
This amendment makes the reason that the employee was redundant a reason in relation to the dismissal of an employee during the initial period of employment.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 157, in schedule 2, page 112, leave out lines 32 to 34.
This amendment removes the provision that may be made by regulations that the dismissal of an employee is to be treated as fair only if the employer has taken any steps specified in the regulations.
Greg Smith
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. This pair of amendments on unfair dismissal stand in my name and those of my hon. Friends from the official Opposition.
Amendment 156 would make the fact that the employee was made redundant a reason in relation to the dismissal of an employee during the initial period of employment. The Bill stipulates that the modified protections against unfair dismissal in relation to the initial period of employment mean that an employee can be dismissed for the reasons listed in section 98(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, which include
“the capability or qualifications of the employee for performing work of the kind which he was employed by the employer to do…the conduct of the employee”
or
“that the employee could not continue to work in the position which he held without contravention (either on his part or on that of his employer) of a duty or restriction imposed by or under an enactment.”
The 1996 Act also includes a fourth reason,
“that the employee was redundant”,
which is not replicated in the Bill. This is a probing amendment—we do not intend to press it to a Division—to try to tease out from the Government a little more detail and to establish why that fourth reason is omitted from the Bill.
Amendment 157 is also a probing amendment. We want to understand what steps will be specified in regulations that an employer must follow in order for the dismissal of an employee to be treated as fair. That will come back to the test of subjective reasoning rather than specific guidelines or regulations in the Bill. It is only right that the Committee and businesses out there in the real world can fully understand the scope with which the Government are defining “fair” or “unfair”. Inherent to that is the question, why is it not in the Bill? Why is it not as clear as day in the words printed in this quite substantial tome? I know that the Government want to table more amendments, so perhaps those could be a little more specific. Critical to amendment 157 is the question how burdensome the Government intend this measure to be and how proportionate that burden will be on businesses in relation to the problem that the Minister thinks the Bill in its current form—its current vagueness—will solve.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Justin Madders)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Vaz. I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my membership of the GMB and Unite trade unions.
The shadow Minister has posed some questions that underlie amendment 156, which seeks to include redundancy as one of the reasons for dismissal to which the lighter-touch standards will apply during the statutory probationary period. As he has rightly identified, the Bill sets out that the reasons for dismissal to which the lighter-touch standards may apply are the statutory grounds of capability, conduct, illegality and some other substantial reason.
It is important to note that those four areas relate to the individual employee, which is why redundancy is not included. Redundancy can affect entire workforces, whereas the other areas are included because of the overlap between the potentially fair reasons for dismissal in the legislation, particularly suitability for work, and the sorts of issues that might come up in a probationary period. A redundancy situation would not ordinarily come up within a probationary period, because it would be about the wider business condition rather than the individual employee’s performance or suitability for the job. I hope that explains why redundancy has not been included.
I turn to the shadow Minister’s more general points. We are trying to strike a fair balance between strengthening employee protections against unfair dismissal and maintaining businesses’ ability to hire, assess and dismiss new employees. The Government are committed to ensuring that businesses retain the confidence to do so. We do not wish the new procedures to undermine existing fair dismissal processes for redundancy, which already provide a robust, straightforward and fair process for employees facing redundancy.
We will work closely with ACAS, in consultation with businesses and trade unions, to ensure that there is clear, straightforward and easy-to-follow guidance on how to carry out a redundancy process under the new measures. It will be an easily accessible process. One of our concerns about including redundancy is that if an employer decided to make a significant number of their workforce redundant, it would be an additional administrative job for them to identify which employees they did not need to include within a redundancy process because they were part of a statutory probationary period, and which would be subject to the wider process. That would lead to unintended consequences and possibly risk of discrimination claims.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
Can the Minister give me an assurance on how microbusinesses will be affected by the change? A very small business might choose to take on one person, and there might be nothing wrong with that person, but within a couple of months the business might realise that it is not working from an economic point of view. The employee would then be effectively redundant, because that small business cannot sustain their employment. Can the Minister assure me that if that small business cannot dismiss that person for the reason of redundancy during the probationary period, there will not be a separate, complex redundancy process to follow?
Justin Madders
The hon. Member may be conflating two slightly different issues. I say to him very clearly that existing laws on redundancy will not be changed as a result of the Bill. We expect employers to follow the same processes, regardless of the length of service of the employee. In that situation, I do not imagine that there would be a particularly lengthy process if it involved only one individual and a small employer. There would not need to be a pool for selection, for example, or selection criteria. We would expect the employer to comply with the law in those circumstances.
Amendment 157 questions whether regulations should be able to set steps that an employer must follow for a dismissal to be considered fair when prescribing lighter-touch standards to apply during the statutory probationary period. We have set out clearly our intention to have a light-touch process, and we know that around 9 million employees will benefit from that. The intention behind setting out those steps in regulations is to ensure that we take account of further consultation, which we will undertake not just with employers but with trade unions and civil society, to ensure that we have the right balance of process and fairness in a statutory probationary period. We will be developing that in due course. As is often the case with the ACAS code of practice on disciplinary and grievance procedures, there are already lots of examples of really practical guidance out there, which we intend to replicate. I invite the shadow Minister to withdraw the amendment.
Greg Smith
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Greg Smith
I beg to move amendment 155, in schedule 2, page 112, line 23, after “period” insert
“of no less than six months”.
This amendment makes the initial period of employment at least six months in length.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 5, in schedule 2, page 112, line 23, leave out from “period” to the end of line 24 and insert
“of not less than 3 months and not more than 9 months from the day on which the employee starts work.”.
This amendment will ensure that the initial period of employment is between 3 and 9 months.
Greg Smith
Amendment 155 would make the initial period of employment six months, to align with a standard probationary period. The Government have admitted that they do not have robust data on instances of dismissal for those under two years of employment; in other words, we do not know if there is even a problem with unfair dismissal that the Bill is seeking to solve. Without knowing the problem, how can the Government identify a solution or even know that one is necessary? This is a flimsy basis for enacting a measure that the Government estimate will cost businesses in excess of £40 million a year overall.
Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. I draw attention to my declarations in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and to my membership of the GMB and Unite trade unions.
Before we move past the hon. Gentleman’s point about information, which we have talked about a lot, is the core problem not that there is a wider issue with UK labour market statistics? We heard during the evidence sessions from the Resolution Foundation, which said:
“The Office for National Statistics’ labour force survey is in the doldrums”.––[Official Report, Employment Rights Public Bill Committee, 28 November 2024; c. 119, Q125.]
This is not a party political point. The ONS’s collection methods, which broadly worked until the pandemic, have not worked subsequently. The statistics body is going through a period of transforming the labour force survey, but the criticisms that the hon. Gentleman makes of the information available to this Government would have held true for the Government between 2020 and 2024. This is a much wider issue. We could look at that problem and say, “We didn’t even really know what the UK unemployment rate was for some time,” and if that was an absolute barrier, all employment legislation would be on hold. It is important that those practical challenges are acknowledged.
Greg Smith
I do not disagree with what the hon. Gentleman says, but where we do disagree is on the conclusions that we draw from that. I would strongly argue that to introduce primary legislation without an adequate evidence base is foolish, whereas he seems to be arguing that it is fine to do that.
I fundamentally agree with the hon. Gentleman that there is often a problem with data collection, particularly on complex things such as overall employment numbers, the number of people in multiple jobs or whatever. He certainly hit the nail on the head about the post-pandemic understanding of the labour market. The pandemic brought about almost a fundamental reset in a lot of working patterns; nobody seems to work quite in the same way as they did before the pandemic. I acknowledge his point, but I suggest that this was actually the time to take a bit of a pause and a step back to think through new measures more carefully, rather than to rush ahead with a Bill in order to publish it within 100 days of the Government’s taking office.
I return to my questions to the Minister. What estimate has he made of the additional cost to business, including salary costs during performance management or disputes, retention costs from tribunal risk aversion, and increased settlements offered to avoid legal claims? Are those costs worth it for a problem that, as we have just discussed, nobody can actually prove exists in the UK market right now?
Sarah Gibson (Chippenham) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. I will speak principally to our amendment 5, but Opposition amendment 155 is also relevant.
We broadly welcome the Government’s intention to clarify some issues around probation. However, we feel that these measures will make it too difficult for small businesses, which we all know are the backbone of our economy, to take staff on. If we are not careful, the Bill, albeit not by design, could be catastrophic for some small businesses.
I would like the Minister to assure me that small and medium-sized enterprises can be confident that they will not be unduly penalised if they need to give notice during a probation period. Our amendment would put a number on the period, albeit that it allows a range. Both amendments aim to find out whether the Government have an idea of the timescale for the probation period.
When I speak to some of my small innovative businesses, especially those in renewable energy, one thing that concerns me is that they are taking staff on who do not have experience in the field. There simply are not enough people with experience, so businesses are taking people on speculatively who they hope to encourage, teach and train on the job. If they realise early on that that is not possible and that the employee is not suitable for the sector, they need to be able to start again and try again without feeling penalised. There is no way they can do this over a 10-minute coffee, as one Government Member suggests, because these people have no experience in the field. They are on a learning curve as much as the employer is. This probation period is vital for both sides to understand whether the sector, which is new to many people, is appropriate.
I am very concerned that the period, which is the only thing we know about, is not defined as a set amount of time to give small businesses confidence that they can continue to take on staff about whom they are concerned. If the timescale cannot be set out in the Bill, I would like some idea from the Minister of when we might hear it.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. I want to unpick another issue on which I would welcome some reassurances from the Minister.
I have spoken to a gentleman from the Torbay Business Forum who supports a charity that works across Devon, particularly by supporting people with learning disabilities into employment. One often finds that it can take a bit longer for people with learning disabilities to find the right place and get a firm contract. What safeguards are there for charitable organisations and not-for-profit companies working in that sector to prevent them from ending up in the difficult position of having people on their books who, sadly, over an extended period of time, they realise are not fit for purpose because of challenges in their lives? There will no longer be the opportunity to offer extended flexibility.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham, I broadly welcome the Bill’s direction of travel, but I would like to see some of the rough edges knocked into shape for Torbay residents.
Justin Madders
I am grateful to Opposition Members for tabling their amendments and asking a series of questions.
The hon. Member for Chippenham seeks to set the boundaries for the statutory probation period at three and nine months. The hon. Member for Torbay seemed to argue for a lengthier period; I do not know whether he was asking for nine months or beyond, but I take his point. The hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire asked us to put six months on the face of the Bill, so there is quite a range of options. We have decided that the best thing to do is work with businesses and consult with them on the detail of the proposal as we move forward. We have expressed a preference for nine months as a result of the engagement that we have undertaken.
As the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire indicated, businesses have said that generally six months is about the right period, but in some circumstances they may need a bit longer to ensure that the person is the right fit. That is why we alighted on the proposal for nine months, but we do not want to tie our hands by putting it on the face of the Bill; we want to continue to work with businesses and trade unions to understand whether that is the right figure. Putting a number in the Bill would be premature, because we will have further conversations. As we develop the light-touch process in our deliberations, that may help people to firm up their views about whether nine months is indeed the right amount of time.
The hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire questioned the evidence base. Of course there can be no evidence base for people being unfairly dismissed under two years’ employment, because there is no right protecting them from unfair dismissal before then, except for those who may seek to hang their hat on an automatically unfair dismissal. As we have discussed at length, people sometimes do that because they have a sense of grievance about the way they have been treated, and they may well have a legitimate claim.
Hon. Members generally accepted that the labour force survey statistics are not particularly helpful, but there is quite a lot of evidence about the impact of job insecurity more generally and the fact that the two-year qualification period creates uncertainty for individuals. Business in the Community surveyed 4,000 employees, of whom 66% say that their mental health and wellbeing is affected by their personal job insecurity. In written evidence to this Committee, the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers notes:
“Being dismissed on spurious conduct or capability grounds, without a fair investigation”—
as can happen at the moment under two years of employment—
“can have devastating consequences for an employee. It can destroy the individual’s morale and confidence and…living standards”.
This is happening to people already, and it is having an impact.
There is also evidence to suggest that there are further advantages for the wider economy. The Resolution Foundation has done some research on the cooling effect of people not moving jobs because they do not have job security. Someone who is considering moving from one job to another may be more likely to take the leap if they have that window of protection, so it is important for individuals as well.
Greg Smith
Where does the Minister think the cost to businesses will be borne? Will it mean lower wages for employees, no Christmas bonuses or perhaps pay rises that are not as great as employees might be expecting? Or will it ultimately get passed on to customers, consumers and purchasers of the services that those businesses provide? Where will the cost actually be borne?
Justin Madders
I thank the shadow Minister for his questions. Those are exactly the same arguments that we had about the minimum wage, and they did not bear examination in the end. Indeed, the Conservative party eventually decided to support the minimum wage too.
The shadow Minister quoted from the evidence of Jane Gratton of the British Chamber of Commerce. She has actually said that she would favour a nine-month probationary period being set out in regulations, which I think is reflective of comments that I have made. It seems a little odd for her evidence to be used in support of an amendment that seeks a six-month period.
We are committed to working with businesses and trade unions to finalise the period in regulations. Setting it out in the Bill would tie our hands somewhat. It would also go against the spirit of what we are trying to achieve, which is working in a tripartite manner. The shadow Minister has sometimes criticised me for rushing a little bit, so he will appreciate that we are taking our time with this measure because we want to get it right. I urge him and the Liberal Democrat spokesperson not to press their amendments.
Greg Smith
As I hope I made clear in my opening remarks, amendment 155 is a probing amendment. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Justin Madders
I beg to move amendment 55, in schedule 2, page 112, line 36, at end insert—
“3A In section 15 of the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013 (power by order to increase or decrease limit of compensatory award), after subsection (5) insert—
‘(5A) The power conferred by subsection (1) includes power to provide that, in the case of the dismissal of an employee that meets the conditions in section 98ZZA(2) and (3) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (dismissal during initial period of employment), the limit imposed for the time being by subsection (1) of section 124 of that Act is a different amount from that otherwise imposed by that subsection.
(5B) Subsections (3), (4)(a) and (5) do not apply for the purposes of specifying the amount of the limit in such a case.’”
This amendment would enable the Secretary of State to specify the maximum amount of the compensatory award available where an employment tribunal finds that an employee has been unfairly dismissed during the initial period of employment provided for by new section 98ZZA of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
Justin Madders
Amendment 55 will expand an existing delegated power to enable the Secretary of State to specify a different maximum compensatory award where an employment tribunal finds that an employee has been unfairly dismissed under the new light-touch standards during the statutory probation period. Amendments 56 and 57 will make consequential changes to the provisions for uprating maximum awards for inflation.
In the event of any successful unfair dismissal claim, an employment tribunal will consider compensation as a remedy. Compensation will usually consist of a basic award and a compensatory award. The tribunal will determine the compensatory award by considering what it thinks is just and equitable, having regard to the financial loss suffered by the claimant that has been caused by the employer’s actions. This will include reference to salary and benefits, including pension, until the claimant finds alternative employment. The maximum compensatory award is currently the lower of 52 weeks’ pay or £115,115.
The Government have listened to concerns that changes to unfair dismissal law could lead to an increase in unfair dismissal claims, even where there is no merit, and to an increased burden on businesses and tribunals in having to deal with those claims. We have heard that uncertainty of outcome makes it hard for businesses to judge how much to invest in either defending or settling a claim. The introduction of a lighter-touch standard for fair dismissal during the statutory probationary period aims to reduce burdens on businesses and to create certainty, but it will not apply to all dismissals during the statutory probation period.
Having listened to those concerns, the Government committed in our “Next Steps to Make Work Pay” document to consulting on what a compensation regime for successful unfair dismissal claims during the statutory probation period should be. Although we want employers to pause and make considered decisions about dismissing employees during probation, the Government do not think that employers should face the full potential liabilities of unfair dismissal remedies when dismissing an employee for reasons related to performance or suitability for the role during the statutory probation period.
To have the option of implementing reform once we have consulted, it is necessary to introduce this delegated power. The power is limited to making changes to the compensatory award for unfair dismissal claims during the statutory probation period only, and only where the new lighter-touch standards apply. The Government recognise the importance of employers being able to assess new hires. We are committed to introducing a statutory probationary period in which there will be lighter-touch standards for an employer to meet in order to dismiss an employee fairly if they are not suitable for the job.
The power will not enable the Secretary of State to make changes to the level of compensation for other day one unfair dismissal rights, such as automatically unfair reasons including maternity-related dismissals, or for “ordinary” unfair dismissals such as redundancy. The power will not enable the Secretary of State to make changes to reinstatement or re-engagement as a remedy available to tribunals for unfair dismissal during statutory probationary periods, nor will it allow changes to be made to the additional compensatory award where an employer does not comply with an order of reinstatement or re-engagement by the tribunal. There may be some concerns that the power could be used to undermine enforcement of the day one right to unfair dismissal, but I assure the Committee that this is not the intention.
The Government are making basic protections against unfair dismissal a day one right for employees. They will be able to enforce their rights and take a claim to the tribunal if they have been unfairly dismissed. It is important, however, that employers are able to assess new hires and see whether they are suitable for the job without facing the full potential liabilities of unfair dismissal remedies during this period.
Greg Smith
I have a straightforward question. We are back once more with our old friend of not having full clarity and having consultation after legislation. The Minister gave a figure, but it is not clear exactly what the Secretary of State might consider specifying as the maximum compensation that can be awarded under this measure.
I acknowledge that there is a consultation to come, but the reason that we need greater clarity relates to the point about business confidence in making new hires, putting new job adverts out, seeing who applies and trying to recruit. If there is a risk that the figure will be disproportionately high, it will make businesses more risk-averse about growing their businesses and thereby growing the economy and creating more jobs in our country. My only substantive question is “Where is the ceiling going to be?”
Sarah Gibson
I share some of the shadow Minister’s concerns. Consultation to find out what most concerns businesses is obviously commendable, but if a large amount of the Bill is left to secondary legislation, a lot of it will not come back before the whole House for scrutiny. Can we be assured that decisions that are not taken before the Bill is passed can at least be considered by a Committee when they are finally made?
Justin Madders
I take on board the comments that the Opposition spokespersons have made, but if we put something in the Bill now, we would be pre-empting the consultation. It is very important to get this right, acknowledging the balance that needs to be struck and the points that have been made. It is worth bearing in mind that this measure will not be implemented until autumn 2026 at the earliest, which is still a considerable time off. The reason we want to take the time between now and then to engage and consult with businesses is to ensure that we get that figure to a spot that gives justice to individuals and certainty to businesses about the potential liability they may face.
Greg Smith
I am grateful to the Minister for that clarification. I understand the point about autumn 2026, but would he acknowledge that the vast majority of businesses are probably already working on their 2026 business plans? They are not just planning for tomorrow, next week and January; they are making medium and long-term plans. Those decisions about creating a new role, filling a vacancy or whatever it might be will already be baked into business planning for 2026, 2027 and maybe through to 2030, so it is not good enough to say, “It’s not coming in until 2026, so don’t worry.” Businesses are already in that planning space.
Justin Madders
I take the shadow Minister’s point, but that presupposes that businesses bake into their business plans compensation for unfairly dismissing their staff, and I do not think any business would want to proceed on that basis. This is about a potential liability that might come in at a future point.
Of course, we all want employers to retain their staff and have a productive working relationship, but if they do not, we want them to comply with the law and dismiss employees fairly. There will be a small number of cases where that does not happen, but I would not expect a business to be able to anticipate what might happen in two or three years’ time with an individual employee and whether a process was followed or not. That is probably not on a business’s desk at this point.
Amendment 55 agreed to.
Amendments made: 56, in schedule 2, page 114, line 20, at beginning insert—
“(1) The Employment Relations Act 1999 is amended as follows.”
See the explanatory statement for amendment 57.
Amendment 57, in schedule 2, page 114, line 23, at end insert—
“(3) In section 34 (indexation of amounts, etc)—
(a) in subsection (1)(c), for “124(1)” substitute “124”;
(b) omit subsection (4);
(c) in subsection (4A), for “124(1)” substitute “124”;
(d) in subsection (4B)—
(i) for “124(1)” substitute “124”;
(ii) after “1996” insert “in relation to cases of any description”;
(iii) for the words from “such a sum” to “that date” substitute “, with effect from a day within 12 months before that date, a sum specified in that section in relation to cases of that description”.”—(Justin Madders.)
This amendment and amendment 56 are consequential on amendment 55.
Question proposed, That the schedule, as amended, be the Second schedule to the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 28—Unfair dismissal: impact assessment—
“(1) The Secretary of State must carry out an assessment of the likely impact of section 19 and Schedule 2 of this Act on—
(a) employers, and
(b) the economy.
(2) The assessment must –
(a) include labour market and broader macroeconomic analysis,
(b) examine the impact of the measures in section 19 and Schedule 2 of this Act on employment, wages and economic output,
(c) consider the likelihood the dismissal measures leading to lower employment, and greater use of temporary contracts, and
(d) examine the likely effect of section 19 and Schedule 2 of this Act on—
(i) productivity,
(ii) wage growth,
(iii) equality of opportunity,
(iv) job security,
(v) economic activity, and
(vi) employment.
(3) The Secretary of State must lay a report setting out the findings of the assessment before each House of Parliament.”
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to assess the impact of the provisions of Clause 19 and Schedule 2.
Amendment 134, in clause 118, page 105, line 20, at end insert—
“(3A) But no regulations under subsection (3) may be made to bring into force section 19 or Schedule 2 of this Act until the findings set out in the report under section [unfair dismissal: impact assessment] have been approved by a resolution of the House of Commons on a motion moved by a Minister of the Crown.”
This amendment is linked to NC28.
Justin Madders
Schedule 2 amends the Employment Rights Act 1996, including the introduction of a statutory probation period. It also removes the qualifying period for the right to written reasons, replacing it with a requirement for the dismissal to have occurred after the statutory probation period ends. By removing the qualifying period, schedule 2 makes basic protection against unfair dismissal a day one right for all employees, ensuring that employees receive a baseline of security and predictability.
By introducing a statutory probation period in legislation, the schedule ensures that employers can continue to assess new hires. It allows the duration of the statutory probation period to be set out in regulation by the Secretary of State, which will follow public consultation.
I will take Members briefly through the elements of schedule 2. Paragraph 1 repeals the two-year qualifying period. Paragraph 2 makes it clear that the right to be unfairly dismissed does not apply to those who have not yet started employment. Paragraph 3 makes provision about dismissal during the initial period of employment, which we have already discussed. It will ensure that the “potentially fair” reasons in section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 will be subject to the light-touch regime where they relate to the employee with the exception of redundancy.
As we have already discussed, the Government intend to consult on the standards, and the schedule repeals the two-year qualifying period. A Government amendment has been made to schedule 2 to include a delegated power to change the maximum compensatory award available during the statutory probation period where the lighter-touch standards apply, as we have just discussed. We will consult on that.
Greg Smith
The Minister tempts me, but I will set out our rationale for new clause 28 and amendment 134. I acknowledge that he has published a series of impact assessments, but the Regulatory Policy Committee has not exactly given the Bill a glowing bill of health, and there are a significant number of red ratings in its assessment. I gently push back and suggest to the Minister that the impact assessments need to be looked at again across the piece, so that we can be absolutely certain that the Bill will do what the Government want it to do.
As the Minister rightly said, new clause 28 would require the Government to report on the impact of the Bill’s provisions on unfair dismissal on employers and the economy. That goes beyond the impact assessments that the Government have already conducted, in the sense that the assessment we are calling for must
“include labour market and broader macroeconomic analysis… examine the impact of the measures in section 19 and Schedule 2 …on employment, wages and economic output…consider the likelihood the dismissal measures leading to lower employment, and greater use of temporary contracts, and…examine the likely effect of section 19 and Schedule 2…on productivity…wage growth…equality of opportunity…job security…economic activity, and”—
last but not least—“employment.”
All that work should have been done before the Government proposed this legislation, so the Opposition think it is only right to try to ensure that the Government present the House with the necessary information before the changes to unfair dismissal come into effect. That is the bedrock of a democracy, and it is only right that all Members of this House and, indeed, the other place can see that information before they permit the Bill to complete its passage and gain Royal Assent.
We heard from several witnesses that the provisions will tip the balance of risk for employers, who will choose to not hire people, rather than take a chance on whether a new hire will work out. We also heard that people on the edge of the labour market represent a riskier proposition for employers and are most likely to be disadvantaged by the changes. I do not believe that any Member of this House—of whatever political party or none—wants to see people on the edge of our labour market denied a second or third chance. They deserve the ability to get on in life if, for whatever reason, they have not been able to get on the job ladder and into gainful employment.
All the evidence indicates that the Bill’s provisions on unfair dismissal will have a chilling effect on business growth. How will the Bill support the Government’s first mission of economic growth, when all the evidence—written and oral—and the reports in the press and from other bodies point to the contrary? Even the Government’s own impact assessment cannot provide reassurance that the measures in the Bill will lead to growth. The new clause would introduce safeguards and provide the clarity and detail that all Members no doubt want on whether clause 19 is even necessary for the intent of schedule 2.
Justin Madders
I will try to put the shadow Minister’s mind at ease. I point out that not just is there an overall impact assessment for the Bill, but there are 24 separate impact assessments for different measures. That shows the amount of work that has been put in. The RPC has approved two thirds of those assessments, and it was looking only at the evidence base, not the policies themselves.
The impact assessment for day one rights covers everything we would expect an impact assessment to look at: the business environment, the wider economic impact, trade implications, wages, labour mobility, productivity, and sectoral and regional impacts. As the evidence base is firmed up, we will continue to refine and develop it. It deals comprehensively with many of the shadow Minister’s concerns, and I invite him not to press his amendments to a vote.
Question put and agreed to.
Schedule 2, as amended, accordingly agreed to.
Clause 20
Dismissal during pregnancy
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Minister for Equalities (Dame Nia Griffith)
Clause 20 amends an existing power in section 49D of the Employment Rights Act 1996, which allows the Secretary of State to make regulations
“about redundancy during, or after, a protected period of pregnancy.”
Regulations made under that power took effect in April, bolstering the protections against redundancy for pregnant women. However, redundancy is just one of five reasons for which an employee can be fairly dismissed. The changes delivered by clause 20 are required so that regulations can be made in regard to dismissal more broadly beyond redundancy, both during and after pregnancy.
The existing provisions for redundancy allow regulations to set out three things. The first is how the protected period of pregnancy is to be calculated. The regulations can provide that the protected period begins after a pregnancy has ended, which means that protection can be extended to a woman who has miscarried but has not yet told her employer that she is pregnant. The second is that employers must offer alternative employment to pregnant women at risk of redundancy. The last is the consequences of a failure to comply with any protections, including stipulating that this will result in the dismissal being treated as unfair. Those provisions for redundancy will all be extended, and therefore made available for dismissals for reasons other than redundancy, through this clause. This approach is necessary to then deliver enhanced dismissal protections in the regulations for pregnant women.
A 2016 Equality and Human Rights Commission survey found that 1% of mothers were dismissed following their pregnancy each year. Analysis by the Department for Business and Trade estimates that that equates to around 4,100 mothers—that is how many women could benefit from the new dismissal protections annually. Using secondary legislation to set out the policy detail is a standard approach in this area of employment law and supports working with stakeholders to further shape the policy before confirming the final approach in the regulations.
Clause 21 amends existing powers that allow the Secretary of State to make regulations concerning dismissal during several kinds of family-related statutory leave. The amended powers will continue to allow for regulation of dismissal during the period when an employee is away from work on maternity leave, adoption leave, shared parental leave, neonatal care leave or bereaved partners paternity leave. The amended powers will also apply to a period after the employee has returned from one of those types of leave.
Additionally, clause 21(5)(b) clarifies that parents looking to take bereaved partners paternity leave who have adopted from overseas or had their children via a surrogacy arrangement can be included in regulations creating protections against redundancy, as well as the new protections against dismissal for other reasons. It also makes it clear that the cohort of parents taking bereaved partners paternity leave can be included in the regulations allowing access to keeping-in-touch days, which allow an employee on statutory leave to be able to do some work for their employer without that leave coming to an end.
Our primary focus with the enhanced dismissal protections is supporting pregnant women and new mothers during and after maternity leave. However, as is the case with clause 20, we want to consult and work closely with stakeholders on whether new parents more generally should be covered by the enhanced dismissal protections. The final policy design will then be reflected in the regulations, as is typical in this area of employment law.
Before I commend the clause to the Committee, I put on record my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, including my membership of USDAW and the National Education Union.
Greg Smith
I think this is one of the least contentious parts of the Bill, and we do not seek to oppose in any way the important protections for pregnant women and new mothers. I note that what the Government are really doing with these clauses is building on the regulations that, as the Minister rightly said, came into force in April off the back of legislation brought forward by the hon. Member for Barnsley North (Dan Jarvis) and my noble Friend Baroness Bertin in the other place.
Again, we have the challenge of consultation after legislation. It is important that the Government move quickly to ensure that the protections for pregnant women and new mothers are not left to drag out as part of that consultation. Although consultation is important, the objective that the Government are trying to meet is quite clear. The desire to build on existing legislation should make it less controversial, and it should make getting it right quickly less of an open-ended question. That will enable pregnant women and people who are trying to conceive and start a family—or to have a second, third or fourth child, or whatever it may be—to plan with the confidence that those protections will be in place. I am not in any way speaking in opposition to this measure; I am just urging the Government not to let the consultation drag on.
Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship again, Ms Vaz. I draw the Committee’s attention to my declaration of interests and my membership of Unison and the Writers’ Guild of Great Britain. I associate myself with the shadow Minister’s comments about the positive results that the legislation will have when it comes into force.
I will speak briefly about the importance of clauses 20 and 21, which will afford considerable extra protections to women who are pushed out of their jobs from the point at which they get pregnant, while they are pregnant, while they are taking maternity leave or just after they return. We heard at our evidence sessions that under the coalition Government, a report was done by the Equality and Human Rights Commission, which found that it was possible that 54,000 women a year lose their jobs in this way. That report was published in 2016. We also heard the Fawcett Society call for a new report because the data is so out of date. I refer to the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield and the shadow Minister about the lack of data.
Nobody can argue with the fact that so many women suffer maternity discrimination, however. From January to September 2023, 832 complaints were brought to employment tribunal for detriment or unfair dismissal as a result of pregnancy, and we know that that is the tip of the iceberg. Back in 2022, there was a high-profile example when Morrisons was told to pay a mother £60,000 for discriminating against her when she returned from maternity leave. Donna Patterson, who returned to work after having her second child, was asked to fulfil the responsibilities of a full-time job, despite only being contracted to work part-time hours.
Ms Patterson was supported by the charity Pregnant Then Screwed, the founder of which, Joeli Brearley, told us that
“the dial has not moved very much”––[Official Report, Employment Rights Public Bill Committee, 26 November 2024; c. 84, Q79.]
in 10 years, so this Bill will mark a significant step forward. When women suffer maternity discrimination, not only does it take them a long time to recover personally, but it damages their careers and their mental health, and it is a big contributor to the gender pay gap. These clauses will tackle maternity and pregnancy discrimination, and it is necessary to do that to avoid having more women leave the workplace.
Dame Nia Griffith
Let me pick up on the point about the consultation. We very much recognise the urgency, so the consultation is expected to take place in 2025—this coming year—after which we will introduce secondary legislation. It has been noted that clauses 20 and 21 build on previous measures that received cross-party support, and I commend them to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 20 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 21 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 22
Dismissal for failing to agree to variation of contract, etc
Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)
I beg to move amendment 160, in clause 22, page 33, leave out lines 11 to 2.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 161, in clause 22, page 33, leave out lines 22 to 40.
Chris Law
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Vaz. Fire and rehire is one of the most contentious issues that we have heard about over the last years, and I will speak to it in some depth.
First, I want to welcome the measures within this Bill, specifically those in clause 22, that tackle fire and rehire by considering a situation to be an unfair dismissal where an employee is dismissed for refusing to accept contractual variation, or where they have been dismissed to enable the employer to employ another employee, or to re-engage a dismissed employee on inferior terms. Over recent years, there have been several egregious examples of fire and rehire from large and very successful companies in the UK. In January 2021, the TUC found that
“nearly 1 in 10 workers…had been told to re-apply for their jobs on worse terms and conditions since the first lockdown in March”—
that is, March 2020. That is 10% of the working population. Notably, almost twice as many black workers faced fire and rehire as white workers.
The SNP completely opposes fire and rehire, which is an appalling and abusive practice, and I am sure that most members of the Committee feel the very same. It must be outlawed. We have long campaigned to ban fire and rehire tactics and ensure that workers are not the victim of bosses looking to cut costs. I pay tribute to my former colleague, Gavin Newlands, who twice brought forward Bills in previous Parliaments to outlaw the practice, which had the support of over 100 MPs and the backing of all major trade unions, including Unite, the British Airline Pilots’ Association and GMB Scotland. I also commend the work of Chris Stephens who, on a regular basis, stood up for workers against the previous Tory Government and called for an immediate end to fire and rehire.
However, there appears to be a loophole, and amendments 160 and 161 seek to remove it. Amendment 160 would delete subsection (4) to proposed new section 104I, which provides an opportunity for fire and rehire to continue where
“the reason for the variation was to eliminate, prevent or significantly reduce, or significantly mitigate the effect of, any financial difficulties which at the time of the dismissal were affecting, or were likely in the immediate future to affect, the employer’s ability to carry on the business as a going concern or otherwise to carry on the activities constituting the business, and…in all the circumstances the employer could not reasonably have avoided the need to make the variation.”
Along with many others, I have reservations about that. If employers can point to their likelihood of financial difficulty, they will deploy fire and rehire tactics.
Let me ask some questions. Does the Minister agree with Martyn Gray, who gave evidence to this Committee just a couple of weeks ago? He is the director of organising at Nautilus International, and he made it clear to the Committee how high the bar should be set when he said:
“Quite simply, if directors can sign off the business as still remaining as a going concern, fire and rehire should not be an option…I would set a really high threshold and then allow for scrutiny from the relevant bodies.”––[Official Report, Employment Rights Public Bill Committee, 26 November 2024; c. 65, Q61.]
Employers’ unions have encountered those who have threatened or implemented fire and rehire to reduce workers’ pay and/or conditions, including companies such as British Airways, Heathrow Airport, Argos, Weetabix, Tesco, Asda and British Gas. All members of the Committee know all those names and are very familiar with them. In fact, more than half of those are in my constituency of Dundee and employ a large number of people.
I want to give an idea of the scale of the profits that those companies have made just this year. Asda made £1.1 billion—we are right in the middle of a cost of living crisis, and that is over £1 billion profit for a retail store. Tesco made £2.3 billion profit, and British Gas’s parent company has said that its profits have fallen to a humble £2.8 billion. Those are just three examples and the others—Heathrow Airport, Argos and Weetabix—are also all in profit. One simple cereal company made £368.8 million. Those are hardly companies in dire financial straits. Can the Minister explain how many of the high-profile fire and rehire cases known since 2010 would fall foul of the requirements within the Bill, and how many would be exempted under this loophole?
I think we all know that although the Bill is well-intended—and we fully support it—if it is not revised, it will fail under that loophole. As Andy Prendergast, the national secretary of GMB, explained in his evidence to this Committee:
“We have seen lots of financial engineering. We see inter-company debt. I think there is a concern long term that we may find cases where companies have engineered a financial position that allows them to do something they otherwise would not. That will have to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis.”––[Official Report, Employment Rights Public Bill Committee, 28 November 2024; c. 131, Q135.]
That is twice this Committee has heard evidence that should make us really think about the purpose of the Bill, which I totally agree with on fire and rehire, to ensure that it is watertight.
Can the Minister outline what changes the Government will make to the Bill and what regulatory regime will be put in place to prevent the provision from being exploited in the manner described? For example, will employers have to evidence the financial difficulties before making any decisions on firing and rehiring, or will they need to be evidenced only if an unfair dismissal claim is brought forward? We can clearly see now who holds all the cards. If it is the latter, and claims of financial difficulties are discovered at a tribunal to be unfounded, will employees who have been affected be reinstated on their original terms? These are important questions we need to ask.
In the absence of the detail and guarantees sought, the amendment seeks to remove the loophole altogether. We cannot allow this aspect of the Bill to pass without cast-iron protections against fire and rehire. We cannot wait and see how it plays out in reality, with people’s jobs and lives at stake.
If the provision is to remain—I can clearly see and many others so far have seen that it is a loophole—it is important that further amendments are proposed, not just to clarify definitions of financial difficulties and processes on establishing their veracity, but to ensure that there are further protections to strengthen an employee’s position in relation to any consultations and negotiations that take place when the employer is in financial difficulty. Does the Minister agree that the employer should take all reasonable steps prior to cutting workers’ wages and altering other terms and conditions? Does he agree that all material information should be provided to each union and that as much time as possible must be made available to consult? Does he agree that the employer must comply with any procedural requirements for varying contracts of employment or collective agreement?
Critically, does the Minister agree that the employer should have reduced the remuneration of partners, directors and managers at least to the extent equivalent to that which applies to the workers subject to variation of contract? After all, if an employer is struggling with his company, we cannot have the managerial class carrying on as if it is not affecting them while others have their contracts reduced and their terms and conditions worsened. Does he agree that the employer should have stopped paying dividends to shareholders, buying back shares, or making loans to partners, directors or shareholders, as soon as the financial difficulties became apparent, and renegotiated, to the greatest extent practicable, loans to third parties?
If the Minister does agree, will he give assurances that he will support such amendments being made to the Bill?
Greg Smith
I will speak briefly to amendments 160 and 161, standing in the name of the hon. Member for Dundee Central and the Scottish National party. These amendments seek to make the fire and rehire provisions more restrictive, saying that employers cannot vary contracts or re-engage staff on different contracts
“to eliminate, prevent or significantly reduce, or significantly mitigate the effect of, any financial difficulties which at the time of the dismissal were affecting, or were likely in the immediate future to affect, the employer’s ability to carry on the business as a going concern or otherwise to carry on the activities constituting the business,”
and remove the ability for the employer to do so if in the circumstances
“the employer could not reasonably have avoided the need to make the variation.”
I appreciate that it is quite a convoluted position, but it is clear to me that the SNP is siding with the trade union position that Martyn Gray set out, which is that
“if directors can sign off the business as still remaining as a going concern, fire and rehire should not be an option.”––[Official Report, Employment Rights Public Bill Committee, 26 November 2024; c. 65, Q61.]
But we heard from almost every witness—
Chris Law
I will re-declare that I have been an employer in the past, as well as an employee, and have employed staff; this is not just a union position. I have talked about companies. I can appreciate small businesses and even microbusinesses being really concerned about such issues, because they would impact them directly.
Typically, small businesses keep a very keen eye on where things are going in the future. If people want a good team in their employ, they make sure that their employees know very well what is going on with such issues. We had this debate earlier. I will list again, just to remind people, the relevant companies: Asda, Tesco, British Gas, Argos, Weetabix and Heathrow Airport. They are big companies, with billion-pound profits, that are taking advantage of the current situation. They have already taken advantage up until now—why will this loophole mean that they will not do it in the future?
Greg Smith
I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point. He likes to point to the profit lines of many of those businesses. Just because a business is making a substantial profit does not necessarily mean that it does not have to go through significant change in businesses practices in meeting market demands, manufacturing processes as technology moves on, or whatever it might be. I am really not seeking to advocate for anybody to be abused in the way he talks about. I am trying to acknowledge that things change in lots of businesses all the time. No one should be unfairly treated as part of that process, but sometimes, even for the very largest companies, significant change happens—as I say, to manufacturing processes or whatever—that requires a fundamental shift in job descriptions.
I am sure that most of those businesses want to keep their workforces on, but if the contract under which the employee was originally employed talks specifically about processes or ways of manufacturing, or uses of particular bits of equipment, that just do not exist anymore because technology has moved on, there is a requirement for contracts to change. Ideally, that will always be done in a consensual, negotiated manner, but the amendments put forward by the hon. Gentleman and the SNP go too far in shutting down that restriction. I agree with his point about small and microbusinesses, which really will struggle, in an ever-changing world with technological advancement and so on, to meet the conditions he is putting down.
Chris Law
We are not talking about technological changes, though, are we? We are not talking about advances that would mean changes to the structure of a business. We are talking about the language that is being used about the likeliness of financial difficulties. To any lawyer, the word “likely”—how long is a piece of string? Someone could argue the case that “likely” means this, while someone else could argue it means that. The language is lax, which is part of the issue.
In terms of financial difficulties, what is a financial difficulty? Does it mean, “We can’t afford the loo roll in the staff toilets so we will fire and rehire,” or something more structural? What I seek from the Minister is assurances that the purpose of the Bill on fire and rehire is very specific: we want to end fire and rehire. Given the current loophole, we have already heard not just from trade unions, by the way, but from businesses—
Greg Smith
Of course there will always be some who look for loopholes, but I gently suggest that the vast majority do not. They are good employers who care for their workforce, because, as we have discussed many times over, no business is anything at all without both parts—the workforce and those who risk their capital and so on to make those jobs happen, and to produce the products and sell the services in the first place.
The intervention from the hon. Member for Dundee Central neatly leads on to where I was going anyway. The Committee heard from almost every witness who was an employer or who represented employers that the dismissal and re-engagement provisions in the Bill were already too restrictive and would lead to staff being laid off. The SNP amendments make those even more restrictive, so it is not hard to work out where those witnesses would have gone on this front. Given that risk of lower employment and higher unemployment, I gently ask the hon. Gentleman to consider how the SNP would actually answer that challenge were the amendment to go through.
Michael Wheeler (Worsley and Eccles) (Lab)
As ever, it is an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. As usual, I draw the Committee’s attention to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, and particularly to my membership of the USDAW and GMB trade unions.
I am sure it will not surprise the hon. Member for Dundee Central to hear that I share some of his concerns about the practice of fire and rehire, and I welcome the significant steps taken in the Bill to outlaw the practice. However, I disagree with his amendment 160. What might be seen by some as a loophole is actually an important safeguard against the perverse potential for the law to mandate redundancy when there might have been other options on the table. I am sure that none of us would want to be party to including that in the Bill.
As I said, I share some of the hon. Gentleman’s concerns, and I hope the Minister will look closely at proposed new section 104I(4) of the 1996 Act, because the words
“likely in the immediate future”
are doing some precariously heavy lifting. However, if the amendment were accepted, the focus on a business being a going concern, which is the most important part of that subsection, would be removed completely. When we are passing legislation that protects jobs and promotes good employment, we absolutely cannot allow the unintended consequence of mandating redundancy when there are other options.
I look forward to the Minister’s comments. I understand the concerns of the hon. Member for Dundee Central, but this is a sledgehammer of an amendment to crack a nut of a possible loophole, with significant potential consequences.
Laurence Turner
Like my hon. Friend, I have intense sympathy with many of the arguments put forward by the hon. Member for Dundee Central, but the “Make Work Pay” document published earlier this year, which was subsequently endorsed in the Labour manifesto, stated:
“It is important that businesses can restructure to remain viable, to preserve their workforce and the company when there is genuinely no alternative, but this must follow a proper process based on dialogue and common understanding between employers and workers.”
We all want to see both parts of that carried through, and I look forward to the Minister’s comments on that. If amendment 160 were accepted, would it not have the effect of invalidating that part of the Government’s manifesto commitment?
Michael Wheeler
It will come as no surprise to my hon. Friend that I agree with him. It is important that we keep our focus on the reality of work and the need to provide workers with protections and good-quality employment. The Bill has been brought forward in the context of “Make Work Pay” and the “Next Steps” document, and I look forward to what I am sure will be illuminating comments from the Minister.
Sarah Gibson
I thank the hon. Member for Dundee Central for tabling the amendment, which has drawn out a potential loophole that I hope the Government will look at carefully. We so often see legislation introduced with good intentions, and then 90% of businesses—especially smaller businesses—comply with it to the letter, because they think that is the right thing to do, but the larger corporations find a way around it.
Justin Madders
I am grateful for the contributions in this debate, which deals with one of the central issues we have been grappling with. On this side of the Committee we certainly want to see fire and rehire consigned to the history books. Equally, we do not, as my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles said, want to see businesses feel they have no option but to make people redundant because they do not feel they can take any other course of action. It is about trying to ensure that that is still available without opening a loophole, as it has been described, for abusive fire and rehire tactics to continue. There is an awful lot in the Bill as it stands that will make it a very high threshold indeed for any employer to want to take that step. There will, of course, be further guidance in regulations, where we will home in on the kinds of concerns that have been raised.
Chris Law
I appreciate that there is a lot in the Bill, and I appreciate that some Government Members on the Committee think this is a nut to crack. I have asked questions—I hope to hear some of the answers to them—and I want to add another. I raised the issue of “likely”, which is the language used. Will the Minister remark on whether the Department intends to advise on how the word “likely” should be determined? Will he consider whether that will reflect what was set out in the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 and a subsequent tribunal judgment, which came to define “likely” as a need to show
“a significantly higher degree of likelihood than just more likely than not”?
Justin Madders
I am not familiar with the particular case law the hon. Gentleman refers to, but I will take that away.
It is fair to say that employment tribunals currently do not have the kind of inquiries into a business’s finances and general condition that we are trying to achieve with this legislation. At the moment, there is a fairly broadbrush approach, particularly in terms of redundancies, to inquiries about the business reasons. It is important to draw the hon. Member for Dundee Central’s attention to the words after “likely” in the Bill. It is about an
“employer’s ability to carry on the business as a going concern”.
That means the alternative is insolvency or redundancies, which is the eventuality that I am sure we all want to avoid. It will ultimately be a question of fact for an employment tribunal to determine whether it genuinely was the only option available to the employer, which is what the Bill will require the employer to demonstrate.
There are a legion of examples of trade unions working constructively with businesses to avoid those kinds of insolvency situations, as a result of which terms and conditions have changed. The hon. Member for Dundee Central quoted Andy Prendergast who, in respect of what happened in the 2008 financial crisis, said in an evidence session:
“It was heartbreaking, but we had to do it because it was the right thing to do.”––[Official Report, Employment Rights Public Bill Committee, 28 November 2024; c. 131, Q135.]
He was talking about changing terms and conditions in agreement with employers to avoid redundancies and potential insolvencies.
The hon. Gentleman’s amendment would take out all of subsection (5) of proposed new section 104I, which is the requirement for the employer to engage with trade unions and have the dialogue that we think is so important in industrial relations. It would say, “That does not matter any more.” The dialogue we are seeking to develop—the tripartite approach—and the move to make the arbitrary take-it-or-leave-it approach that some employers have adopted in fire and rehire a thing of the past, would not matter.
The hon. Gentleman has asked some important questions about what we would expect of employers; I think subsection (5) answers many of them. Further regulations and codes of practice will also deal with them, because we want to make sure we have a situation in which the bar for passing this test is extremely high, but in addition to that—in addition to there being no alternative but insolvency—the employer has to then demonstrate that they have carried out a full consultation with the trade union. That will involve a full explanation of the financial situation. As we develop the regulations and codes of practice, we will flesh that out in some more detail.
Chris Law
I am listening carefully to the words the Minister is using. When does the employer carry out that process? Ultimately, they have two options. They can carry it out well in advance to ensure that employees are kept up to speed early on. Some employees may wish to leave under those circumstances and find employment elsewhere. But often, in past cases of fire and rehire, employees have heard at a very late stage or not at all. There is currently no provision in the Bill to say what the timetable should be. I would like to get an indication of the Minister’s thoughts about potential future amendments relating to that subject.
Justin Madders
I hear what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but subsection (5) does set out the requirements on an employer to consult. It would be normal for further detail about consultation to be considered to be in good time when proposals are at a formative stage, as has traditionally always been the case. I see no reason why it would not also take the same form in that instance.
What we are really talking about is a situation in which there is a sudden change in a company’s financial circumstances and it has to act quickly. In that situation, we do not want to force it to go insolvent or make people redundant, if there is an opportunity to save jobs. That is why subsection (5) is so important: because it will encourage and compel the dialogue that we are seeking to achieve. I accept that there is more to be done in terms of honing some of the detail, but I urge the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment because it would, I am afraid, have unintended consequences.
Chris Law
I thank the Minister for his comments. It is helpful to know that there will be further consultation and, potentially, amendments—which may even come from his own side—to tighten up this bit of the legislation. It is critical to the wider Bill and the SNP understands its importance; we just want to see it made tighter—not to put employers in impossible situations in which they cannot negotiate, but so that it is not exploited as a loophole. As it currently stands, employers are already discussing that.
I appreciate the Minister’s response. In that context, so long as it is something that can be further considered and, particularly, brought forward on Report, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Anna McMorrin.)
Employment Rights Bill (Twelfth sitting)
Thursday 12th December 2024
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Employment Rights Act 2025 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 12 December 2024 - (12 Dec 2024)
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
I beg to move amendment 127, in clause 22, page 33, line 12, leave out from “that” to end of line 21 and insert—
“the reason for the variation was to provide for improved employment practices and to update and reform outdated working practices, in order to allow for the more effective running of a business or organisation.”
This amendment would provide an exemption to unfair dismissal for failure to agree to a variation of contract.
It is a pleasure to see you back in the Chair for the afternoon sitting, Ms Vaz. The amendment, in my name and those of my hon. Friends, is a probing one—I want to be clear about that from the outset—that would provide an exception to unfair dismissal for failure to agree a variation of contract.
The premise underpinning the Bill’s provisions on fire and rehire is that the only reason for an employer to want to re-engage employees on varied terms is to exploit them by giving them worse terms and conditions. I am in no way, shape or form suggesting that that does not occasionally happen, but I come at this debate from the other direction, presuming that most employers are good employers who care about their workforce and want to see a happy staff getting on, being productive and doing the things they do to make the business a success, be that making things, giving advice or providing a service.
The Bill basically says that a business needs to be going bust for the process of varying a contract to be justified. Again, I am not certain that that is the right starting point. What if there were a legitimate reason for wanting to vary certain terms and conditions? We touched on this in our debate on SNP amendments 160 and 161 before the break, and I gave some examples thinking about the pace of change in a business. Let us say a manufacturing business moves from a very manual process for putting a product together—be it a car, a piece of furniture or some smaller product—to invest in robotics or something.
I can think of a farm in my constituency that was a traditional dairy farm but, thanks to a not insubstantial grant from the previous Government, has built a robotic dairy. That means that the people who work on that farm are doing a fundamentally different job. They no longer have to get up at 4 am to manually hook the cows up to the milking machines; believe it or not, the cows now form an orderly queue for the milking robots. I am not joking, Ms Vaz. I invite anyone to come and see it with their own eyes. There is a vending machine where people can buy the milk direct. The point at which staff intervention is needed is if an alarm indicates that a machine has clogged or broken, the pasteurisation room has hit the wrong temperature, or whatever. It is a fundamentally different job. Sometimes, that happens in a workplace where the employer wants to keep the staff—they do not want to let anyone go and they do not want the robots to replace them—but it involves different terms, different conditions and a different physical thing to do on a daily basis. I offer that as a practical example of how businesses change.
Alex McIntyre (Gloucester) (Lab)
I refer the Committee to my membership of the GMB and Community unions. I have two short questions for the shadow Minister. First, if the changes are so positive for employees, can they not simply accept a change to their terms and conditions? Secondly, let us take the scenario that he describes, where there is a change in processes, and put that in a business-to-business context. Say a business moves from wooden cogs and to metal cogs, and it has a contract with the wooden cog supplier. Is he aware of any circumstances in which that business would be able simply to break that contract without any notice or legal recompense to the other business?
Greg Smith
I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman makes. He is right that the businesses in the situation he describes would have to go through a legal process, probably involving very expensive contract lawyers, to alter such a contract. I do not think it is helpful to directly compare those supply chain contracts with employment contracts, because on one level we are dealing with human beings and on the other we are dealing with the flow of parts, services or whatever.
The hon. Gentleman is also right that a change in terms and conditions can sometimes be very positive for the employee. Perhaps it involves fewer hours for more money—that sometimes happens—or longer holidays. Of course, if something better is being offered, employees should have the flexibility to accept that, having exercised due diligence and looked it over properly—dotted the i’s, crossed the t’s and all that. What I am trying to get at is where the business model, and the day-to-day operation of the job, has fundamentally changed, through robotics or whatever.
Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)
I want to continue on the shadow Minister’s theme of milk. It used to be common in factories where there were particulates in the air to include a clause in someone’s contract that said they were entitled to a glass of milk during the day, because it was believed at the time that a glass of milk would remove those particulates from someone’s airway. It was completely misguided, but those contracts still exist, and I have been in situations where I have looked over similar, very outdated terms and conditions. If it is raining on a site, someone might be entitled to a 2p payment, for example. Such contract conditions are very easy to remove; it can be done by agreement.
Does the shadow Minister accept that if a contract is worded appropriately, such variations can be made by an employer—the key factor is whether there has been genuine consultation—and that the circumstances that clause 22 will remedy are really quite separate? It is for those extreme examples that Grant Shapps, the Conservative Business Secretary at the time, spoke out against.
Greg Smith
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, although he was possibly milking it with the length of that intervention—[Hon. Members: “Oh!”] It is nearly Christmas.
I accept the hon. Gentleman’s points about some of those very outdated provisions. I really hope that my children do not find a job out there that involves free milk, because they might jump at it a little too quickly. This probing amendment seeks simply to understand a little further where the flexibilities lie, and to get underneath some of the detail around when a variation of contract might be a good thing on both sides, or when things have just changed and there needs to be a variation in order for the jobs to be saved. I would hope that Members on both sides of the Committee would come at this from the perspective of the real world and wanting to save jobs, create more jobs, grow the economy and grow employment.
There may be legitimate reasons for wanting to vary terms and conditions, such as to provide for improved employment practices, or to update and reform outdated working practices—as the hon. Member for Birmingham Northfield referenced—in order to allow for the more effective running of a business or organisation. The amendment seeks to understand the Government’s position should such a situation arise, and to understand why they are legislating to prevent businesses from acting in such a way.
Michael Wheeler (Worsley and Eccles) (Lab)
On a point of clarity, is it the purpose of the amendment or an unintended consequence of the drafting that it would completely delete the subsection, rather than adding to it? If the purpose is to completely delete the subsection it is amending, are Opposition Members trying to remove the protections for those going concerns?
Greg Smith
The hon. Gentleman asks a perfectly legitimate question. I repeat that this is a probing amendment: we are not going to press it to a vote or try to put it in the Bill. The purpose behind it is to get the evidence base, the justification and some clarity of thought from the Government about why the clause is necessary and proportionate. Sometimes we have to suggest getting rid of something to get a good example or a good justification for going there, doing it and putting it in primary legislation.
The Opposition certainly do not want to see exploitative fire and rehire in any workplace. From talking to businesses, and from the evidence we have heard, we know that there needs to be solid grounding and an evidence base to show that the wording in the Bill is justifiable and does not justify shutting down many businesses that are growing, adapting and changing—hopefully, for the better, so they are more successful. They should be able to keep and grow their staff, rather than go down the redundancy route or other scenarios whereby jobs are lost.
Matthew Percival from the CBI said:
“In the fire and rehire proposals, there is a risk that we might be making it easier to make people redundant than to change contracts”.––[Official Report, Employment Rights Public Bill Committee, 26 November 2024; c. 7, Q1.]
That is the absolute nub of the matter. It would be nothing short of a total disaster if the unintended consequence of the exact wording of the clause or the Bill perversely incentivises companies to make people redundant, so people lose their jobs and have to go home and have that difficult conversation with their loved ones and say that they need to find a new job, with the devastation that that brings to real people’s lives. I cannot imagine that the Government want that to happen. With this probing amendment, we are seeking to kick the tyres. We want an explanation, or at least to encourage the Minister and the wider Business and Trade team to find a better way that does not have that unintended consequence.
A recurring theme of our debates in recent days, and from the Bill Committee witnesses—other than trade union representatives—is that the measures in the Bill on dismissal and re-engagement will be too restrictive for employers. I gently ask the Minister to reflect on that and think about whether the measures will actually work and will not have unintended consequences, so that people’s jobs are protected and saved. We do not want people to be unintentionally forced down the route of job losses.
Michael Wheeler
I agree with the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester. I appreciate that this is a probing amendment, but I want to talk to its specifics. It appears to me that there are plenty of consensual mechanisms for achieving most of what the shadow Minister is suggesting about the variation of contracts to reflect working practices. If anything, they are inherently better than anything that is imposed. Quite often, when working practices, organisations and business practices are modernised, communication between those doing the work and the managers and owners leads to a much better outcome.
I suggest that we need to remember that we are talking about fire and rehire, which is inherently quite extreme. The amendment seems to refer to the particulars of normal working practices, looking at updating mechanisms to account for modern technology and suchlike, that are much better handled by the existing consensual mechanisms. While I appreciate that it is a probing amendment, it seems entirely unnecessary and does not necessarily speak to the heart of what the clause is about: ending the extreme practice of fire and rehire.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair again, Ms Vaz. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Buckinghamshire has explained that this is a probing amendment to find out the Government’s intentions, but I put it to the Minister and Labour Members that each of the Government’s proposals seems to be based on the premise that we need to legislate against the worst possible outcome.
The hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles referred to P&O, and that was in fact a scandal. But the problem with this approach, of course, is that a regulatory burden is imposed on each and every other employer, and the labour market is made less flexible and employing people is made more expensive. Therefore, every time the Government see a problem with one employer and say, “We have to regulate for everyone,” the whole labour market is made more expensive and less attractive to foreign investors—less like Britain and more like France. As we look across the channel, we see a country with a similar-sized economy, but an unemployment rate approximately double our own.
Combine that, for example, with the proposal on unfair dismissal, and employers could be less likely to employ that marginal worker. In this case, as Matthew Percival from the CBI said, it becomes more attractive, perhaps, for employers to make their workers redundant than to try to renegotiate terms and conditions.
I ask the Minister to consider the cumulative effect of each and every one of his proposals. It is easy for him to stand up and say, “This proposal on its own is modest and reasonable and good,” but the whole Bill will add £5 billion of costs to industry, and the majority of that falls on small and medium-sized enterprises. My fear is that the Minister, through the very best of intentions, will end up with unemployment higher at the end of this Parliament than when he started.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Justin Madders)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this afternoon, Ms Vaz. For the benefit of the Committee, I again refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my membership of the Unite and GMB trade unions.
It has been an interesting debate. I think we are on the opposite end of the spectrum from where we were in the earlier debate about where the balance lies with our measures to end fire and rehire. I think that the fact that we have two arguments from other ends of the spectrum suggests that we are in about the right place—but if the shadow Minister expects us to believe that cows queue up to be milked in the morning, I just say to him: pull the other one!
Justin Madders
Yes, they do get worse—it is Thursday afternoon.
The shadow Minister did raise some important points, though. He gave the example of a dairy and its changing practices. Of course, a change in job function does not necessarily mean that terms and conditions have to change or indeed become worse. History is full of examples where technology has come in and made jobs different. As we look forward to the advent of automation and AI in our economy, I hope that people find new jobs and new roles and that those jobs are more fulfilling as a result of technological development.
I will say a few words about the comments from the hon. Member for Bridgwater. We are talking about overall impacts in this Bill of 0.4% of employers’ total costs—a very small price to pay for a comprehensive set of reforms that really are needed for workers. It is about rooting out bad practices and making sure that those bad employers, who we all rightly condemn, are not able to exploit existing loopholes. It is about stopping the race to the bottom. It is about creating a level playing field. One reason why P&O said that it took the action that it did was that its competitors were undercutting it. We do not want to see that race to the bottom continue. We want to see good employers rewarded for respecting and rewarding their employees well by being able to compete on a level playing field.
The general thrust of the shadow Minister’s remarks was interesting. There is nothing to stop an employee agreeing to changes to terms and conditions. Indeed, proposed new section 104I(2)(b) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 makes it clear that these provisions will not apply if the employee agrees to the changes. Changes and discussions happen every day of the week in industry—that is called negotiation, and that is what good industrial relations looks like. That is the sort of thing that we want to encourage.
We are trying to stop a situation that we have seen far too often, where an employer might just say, “Well, here are your new terms and conditions. If you don’t like it, there’s the door.” That, I am afraid, has become far too prevalent in our country. We have heard plenty of evidence about how many employers have been doing that. It is about recognising that there is a loophole in the law. This may be a probing amendment, but it would certainly make this clause ineffective, and arguably, it would make the situation worse than the status quo, because it would effectively legitimise some of those actions by employers. They could point to this legislation and say, “Well, the law says that we are able to do it.”
The way the amendment worded is quite broad. There is a reference to “outdated” terms and conditions. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield gave a good example of where reasonable dialogue between the trade union and the employer would see that change. The shadow Minister’s old colleague, Jacob Rees-Mogg, might have a different view about what “outdated” means. He might think anything after 1874 could be considered modern—[Interruption.] He probably does, yes. There would be very broad latitude for an employer to say that something was outdated. That is why I am concerned that the amendment would make things worse than they are now.
The Bill as drafted makes it very clear what the obligations of a responsible employer are. They are the sort of things that responsible employers do already. We recognise that there will be unfortunate situations in which an employer has no alternative but to change terms and conditions, but the Bill makes sure that, if there is a positive for the employees—there often is from a change in terms of conditions; that is what negotiations often involve—there is a way for that to continue. We are not going to stop that. If employees consent to changes, they will be able to be made under this Bill. I urge the shadow Minister not to press the amendment to a vote.
Greg Smith
I understand the argument that the Minister has set out, and I appreciate that this particular probing amendment was at the extremer end of the spectrum in trying to probe that response from him. I accept that there are many mechanisms whereby employees can consensually work with their employer to change contracts, and that is clear. I am still a little nervous—the proof of the pudding will be in the eating, as the Bill progresses and no doubt becomes legislation—about the nightmare scenario of businesses simply saying, “Rather than trying to engage in this process, as we were warned by the CBI, we will just make everyone redundant instead.”
There needs to be a clear, previously set out mechanism from the Government so that, if that disaster-zone eventuality comes to pass—I hope I am wrong; I do not want to see people being made redundant—there is a quick snapback or sort of provision to allow secondary legislation to throttle those measures down, or to fix them in some other way that still stops the exploitative practices without tying businesses’ hands behind their backs, because the net result will be job losses. I would be incredibly disappointed and sad if these issues, which both the Opposition and businesses have warned about throughout the passage of the Bill so far, became a job killer. The Government need to be ready, if they have got it wrong, to have a process that will give businesses the confidence again to properly engage in negotiations, such as those good industrial relations that the Minister spoke of, and not just make people redundant. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Justin Madders
We are back on fire and rehire again; I should probably count up how many times I have spoken in debates on this issue in the last few years. It has taken a lot of parliamentary time, and rightly so. We all remember the obloquy directed towards P&O when it took those actions, several years ago, and I am afraid that fire and rehire has become far more prevalent in our economy than anyone would want to see.
Investigations by the Trades Union Congress found that around 38,000 employers were using fire and rehire as a tactic. Research from the Chartered Institute for Personnel and Development found that, between August 2021 and 2023, the proportion of firms that had used fire and rehire had almost doubled. The impact assessment estimates that there are around 178,000 workers facing the threat of fire and rehire at this very moment, so the problem is not going away—indeed, because of the way that P&O has been allowed to get away with it, employers see it as a golden opportunity to take a sword to hard-fought terms and conditions.
Other Members have spoken about the household names that have attempted to do that, and USDAW’s written evidence included some notable household names. Once upon a time, fire and rehire was a seldom-used part of the employment law and industrial relations landscape but, as part of the wider pattern of insecurity at work, it has become a much more common tool. I am afraid, as we have seen, it is far too often an act of first—rather than last—resort, and the Government are committed to ending that practice.
The solution to dealing with many of the concerns raised by the shadow Minister and others is to point to what good and bad industrial relations look like, and to say, “This is what bad employer practice looks like.” Good employers and industrial relations will take workers with them. Again I refer to USDAW’s written evidence, which noted occasions where negotiations had begun with fire and rehire on the table almost from the start. That is not a healthy place to have sometimes very difficult discussions about changes to terms and conditions. The impact assessment notes that the power asymmetry can provide incentives for the more powerful party, in this case the employer, to act in a strategic manner to suppress wages and conditions. Such tactics are why we have seen such a slump in wage growth over recent years.
Greg Smith
Most of my concerns have been outlined in the amendments to the clause, but I want to ensure that it is placed on the record that the Opposition want to see employers engage in good faith and believe that most employers do. I accept the Minister’s point about the scandal of P&O Ferries—I was on the Transport Committee at the time, so possibly looked into it in more detail than most colleagues from the previous Parliament.
Where we perhaps still have a difference is that taking that unacceptable, scandalous situation at P&O and legislating for everybody on the back of it is not necessarily the best starting place. As I said in the previous debate, working on the presumption that all businesses are trying to exploit their workforces is not healthy or, I would suggest, reflective of the real world. Although there have to be measures to shut down things like what happened at P&O so that it does not happen again, there must equally be flexibility and understanding so that, when employers have engaged in good faith and really are trying to save the business—to save the jobs in the first place—we do not find ourselves in that nightmare scenario of people saying, “It’s too difficult—we’ll just have to make everyone redundant.”
I fully accept that this clause will pass in a few moments, but perhaps the Minister could consider, before we come to Report, some additional safeguards on that so that we do not end up with job losses and employers slamming their heads down on the desk, unable to find another way to save the jobs and the workforce. That would keep giving people the living they need to get on and prosper as part of our country, part of the business they are engaged in and part of our vibrant UK economy.
Laurence Turner
I will not speak for long, because most of the points have been made in the debate, but I want to come back to the point made by the shadow Minister and the hon. Member for Bridgwater. There is perhaps a legitimate difference in principle between the two sides: when there are extreme examples, should there or should there not be legislation in response? It is important to respond to that, because we have seen extreme examples of abuse across different parts of the labour market. To go back to the example of blacklisting, I suggest that that was a failure of successive Parliaments to tackle a practice that had been thought to be relatively rare, but proved to have been carried out on an industrial scale. It was right for Parliament to enact the blacklisting regulations.
I go back, too, to the Grunwick dispute, the ancestor of the statutory recognition regime. At the time, it was thought that the abusive patterns of employment behaviour on full display in that particular employer would be unlikely to recur. The Government of the day commissioned a public inquiry under Lord Scarman in the belief that, if the inquiry concluded that there should be trade union recognition, it was inconceivable that any employer would not abide by that—but that is exactly what happened.
Where we see those extreme abuses, other employers—by no means the majority, or even a substantial minority, but enough to have a seriously deleterious effect on the lives of many workers—will follow. Since P&O, we have seen other examples; hon. Members have referred to particular employers and sectors, and I could add parts of the retail, utilities and even the public sector, where such tactics have become more common. The previous Government made strong statements—I could quote some—about the practice, but I suggest that the action that was subsequently taken, the code of practice, was not sufficiently strong. In the case of P&O, where the employer made it clear at the time that it intended to ignore the existing legislation, it did not prove sufficient remedy.
We do need stronger action. The measures in the Bill will only ever affect a tiny minority of employers. It is important to stress that, but it is necessary to put this action into the Bill. P&O will always loom large in discussions of this topic, but the practice is by no means confined to that particular employer, and it is right to take the action that was not taken in the previous Parliament.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
Fire and rehire is an absolute scourge to those people who are impacted by it. Whether in significant numbers or a minority, it is utterly shameful. My Liberal Democrat colleagues broadly welcome the amendments, and we look forward to supporting the clause.
Justin Madders
It is good to hear that we have the support of the Liberal Democrats. Most of the country supports this measure; fire and rehire is rightly seen as a practice that should see its end. I quote the former right hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield, Grant Shapps, who said at the time, when P&O first started on that course, that
“we will not allow this to happen again: that where new laws are needed, we will create them, that where legal loopholes are cynically exploited, we will close them, and that where employment rights are too weak, we will strengthen them.”—[Official Report, 30 March 2022; Vol. 711, c. 840.]
I have news for the Committee: I am afraid that only this week several Members of this place have told me about fire and rehire tactics going on in their constituency. A fire and rehire situation is taking place right now in Wrexham. The loopholes have not been closed. That is why we need to act.
To put the shadow Minister’s mind at rest, I believe that proposed new subsection (5) gives employers a real guideline as to how they need to deal with this. Furthermore, as was common to much of the evidence we heard, responsible and good employers do all those things anyway, so they will not be penalised or face any additional burdens, but rather will be able to operate on a level playing field.
To refer to the evidence given by DFDS about this particular matter, or to someone working in an area very relevant to it, they said that they were pleased that fire and rehire was going to be dealt with, because as an operator, they are
“simply looking for a fair and level playing field.”––[Official Report, Employment Rights Public Bill Committee, 26 November 2024; c. 56, Q54.]
That is why we need to act today.
I also refer to the support of the Institute of Directors; approximately two thirds of its members who were polled supported this action, too. I think it will come to be seen as a watershed moment in industrial relations in this country, where we finally got rid of one of the most obnoxious and outdated practices that this country has ever seen.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 22 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 23
Collective redundancy: extended application of requirements
Justin Madders
I beg to move amendment 58, in clause 23, page 34, line 27, at end insert—
“(3A) In section 197 (power to vary provisions), in subsection (1)—
(a) in paragraph (a), for “188(2)” substitute “188(1A)”;
(b) in the words after paragraph (b), for “188(2)” substitute “188(1A)”.”
This amendment would correct incorrect cross-references in section 197 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.
This is a purely technical amendment to fix an incorrect cross-reference in section 197(1)(a) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. Section 197(1)(a) provides that the Secretary of State may make secondary legislation to amend the minimum time period for collective consultations in section 188(2) of the same Act. However, as I am sure the shadow Minister had already noticed, that reference is incorrect: “section 188(2)” should read “section 188(1A)”. A consequential amendment was missed when section 188 was amended by the Collective Redundancies and Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) (Amendment) Regulations 1995. That instrument renumbered section 188(2) as section 188(1A). Of course, it should have also made a consequential amendment to section 197(1)(a), but did not.
The amendment will not change the law, which can already be interpreted to refer to the correct cross-reference by way of the Interpretation Act 1978. The 1978 Act provides that where an instrument repeals and re-enacts a provision then, unless the contrary intention appears, any reference in any other enactment to the repealed provision is to be read as a reference to the re-enacted provision. The amendment will improve the clarity and accessibility of the law, which I am sure we will all be relieved to hear.
Greg Smith
I can be very brief on this amendment, Ms Vaz; in fact, I will channel the questioning style of my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne). This is what happens when a Bill gets rushed to meet an arbitrary political deadline, is it not?
Justin Madders
The shadow Minister will be pleased to hear that we have picked the error up at this stage, so that when the Bill is enacted it will of course be absolutely correct.
Amendment 58 agreed to.
Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
Justin Madders
Employers are currently obliged to collectively consult when they propose to make 20 or more employees redundant at one establishment. Collective consultations are an important part of ensuring fairness and transparency between employers and employees.
In the year to November 2024, approximately 3,500 employers in Great Britain gave notification that they were initiating a collective redundancy process at a single establishment. The benefits of consultation are felt by both employees and employers. Consultation ensures that affected employees can input into the process with a view to avoiding or mitigating redundancies wherever possible, and it helps employers to retain skilled workers and reduce the risk of disputes.
That is why the Government intend to strengthen the collective redundancy framework. The clause will amend the framework to ensure that employers must fulfil collective consultation obligations whenever they are proposing 20 or more redundancies, regardless of whether the redundancies take place at one establishment or not. This will ensure that more employees—many of them in vulnerable positions—will now benefit from redundancy consultation, and that affected employees can participate meaningfully in the redundancy process, regardless of how they might be dispersed across an employer’s business. The clause will also make it easier for employers to understand when they have to comply with these obligations.
I know that businesses have raised some concerns about the practical implications of the clause and I will take this opportunity to clarify its scope. First, the clause does not mean that employers will need to consult with the entire workforce in their organisation whenever they propose 20 or more redundancies. As is currently the case, they must consult only the relevant trade union or employee representatives of employees being proposed to be made redundant, or those who may be affected by measures implemented as a result of the proposed redundancies, such as relevant line managers.
Secondly, when an employer is required to undertake collective consultation with employees across different establishments, they have the flexibility to tailor the process to suit each location. For example, they are not required to undertake a single, uniform consultation across affected locations, but can hold separate consultation activities with each group of affected employees to ensure that discussions are both localised and meaningful.
Greg Smith
I have a couple of brief questions. I am grateful for the Minister’s clarification that the clause does not provide for a consultation of the whole workforce. That was a legitimate concern for many as they looked at the drafting of the Bill. The clarification will be welcome.
My bigger question is about the practicalities where an organisation has in excess of 20 employees. For example, a small chain of five or six pubs could easily have that volume of employees across bar and kitchen staff—chefs—cleaners and perhaps security, but in that sort of setting it is very rare for staff to be unionised, or even organised among themselves. In that scenario, where a smaller business employs that number of people across multiple sites, how does the Minister expect the requirement for the involvement of a trade union or employee organisation that does not exist to be engaged with? What is the mechanism for that? I appreciate that many Government Members would quite like everybody to be in a trade union—
Greg Smith
Indeed, we know from their declarations of interest that they all are. I hope the Minister takes the question with the good intent with which it is asked. Not everybody is in a trade union and not everybody organises in that way, so how would the mechanics of the measure work in those circumstances?
That leads to the wider question, “Why 20?” Why not 19, 18 or 15? Why not 25? It seems like an arbitrary number. I accept that a number needs to be put down. In some ways, in specifying a number, this clause is more detailed than most in the Bill, and it gives certainty, but I would like to understand why it is 20. It seems like a number picked from thin air. It could negatively impact an organisation if it led the employer to decide, “Well, we’ll just get rid of 19 of them, and we won’t have to comply.” That seems at odds with the other provisions in the Bill, where the Government seem to want to move all rights back to day one, yet they do not seem to want to apply that to organisations where, for whatever reason, 20 people are, sadly, being consulted on being made redundant. I would like clarity on that point.
Michael Wheeler
I will keep my contribution relatively short, but I did not want to let the clause pass without warmly welcoming its inclusion in the Bill. In a previous life, I worked to represent shop and retail workers. While P&O and the scandal of fire and rehire entered the collective consciousness, the Woolworths redundancy situation was burned into the consciousness of the workers I represented at that time. That is exactly the loophole that this measure is trying to close. Thousands of workers affected by the Woolworths redundancy missed out on the compensation they deserved as part of the lack of consultation because they worked in individual establishments that were small and fell below the threshold. The interpretation of the law at that point meant they were isolated, divided and not included as part of what was clearly, to everyone—
Greg Smith
Perhaps I can test the hon. Gentleman a little bit on that. I remember many happy hours as a child in Woolworths in the town where I grew up. They were fantastic stores, and they are greatly missed. Given where he is coming from, is he content with the number being set at 20? While Woolworths was a substantial business, I can think of smaller businesses with separate sites, retail outlets, pubs, restaurants or whatever that might employ 19 or 15 people.
Michael Wheeler
The hon. Gentleman invites to me to say whether I am content. I draw his attention to the fact that the clause removes the single establishment loophole while leaving in place the thresholds that are already part of the law around consultation and the time period. I have not examined and, despite the invitation, I will not speculate on where those thresholds should be, but I warmly welcome the removal of the single establishment loophole, so that where the numbers in a redundancy cross those thresholds—legitimately and apparently to everyone looking at it—there are not legalistic mechanisms for those workers to be left out.
Having warmly welcomed the removal of the loophole, let me reassure the shadow Minister. In a previous, previous life I was in a different job—we have all had many jobs—where trade unions were not recognised. I speak for myself alone when I say that I would love for every worker in this country to have the benefit of trade union representation. I confirm for the shadow Minister that I would love to see that, because I think it has genuine benefits.
Michael Wheeler
I am sure it is not. I worked in a retail establishment that did not benefit from trade union representation and that went through consultation, not on redundancy but on a variation of contracts, so it is relevant to what we were talking about before. It was actually a relatively smooth and easy process for employee representatives to be appointed and elected from among our number, despite the lack of an existing structure, and to engage with the company in those consultation exercises. While I would love there to be a trade union fighting the corner for every worker, when it is absent it is not a burdensome process to have employee engagement in these processes.
Justin Madders
I recognise that the shadow Minister welcomed the clarification I provided. No doubt there will be debate to come, as is often the case with legal issues, but the Government are fairly clear and confident that the clause will not have the unintended consequences we heard raised in evidence.
The shadow Minister asked, “Why 20?” He will pleased to know that that was a product of EU regulation. It is in existing law as part of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, which has been amended many times, so I could not say exactly when it came into force, but—
Greg Smith
The Minister can of course look back in history at when these measures were put in, but the Bill seeks to change all sorts of things across all sorts of sectors. We are free from the European Union! He could change it if he wished.
Justin Madders
I will remember that next time the shadow Minister tells me that we are trying to do too much in this Bill. With the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023, the Bill Committee for which I had the great pleasure of serving on, his Government could have done something about this before they left office.
The figure of 20 is long established, and we have no current plans to change it, but we are keen to ensure that the scenario my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles described cannot continue. As he said, Woolworths made 27,000 people redundant, and about 3,000 of those were completely exempt from collective redundancy consultations because of this issue. There has been a number of high-profile retail redundancies where people have missed out on collective redundancy obligations because of this law, which we are pleased to be able to change.
On the question of smaller employers where there may not be trade union representation readily available, the regulations already provide for employee representatives to be engaged and elected in those circumstances, so there is no change to the law in that respect. There is already provision to deal with that situation.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 23, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 24
Collective redundancy notifications: ships’ crew
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Justin Madders
The clause will address the loophole that allowed P&O Ferries to avoid prosecution when it dismissed 786 seafarers without notice in March 2022. It will require operators of frequent services to British ports to notify the UK Government when making 20 or more redundancies even if those affected work aboard ships registered in another state. The clause means that if an operator of frequent services to a British port chooses to copy P&O Ferries and make collective redundancies without providing notice to the Government, it could face prosecution under the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 and ultimately be liable for an unlimited fine.
The clause will apply to services calling between Great Britain and another place in the UK. It will also apply to any services entering Great Britain from a place outside the UK on at least 120 occasions in a 12-month period before the redundancy notification, or to new services that have been operating for less than 12 months and have called 10 times or more per month while they have been operating. We estimate the number of operators in scope of the measure to be around 2,000. The cost to businesses will be minimal; it is estimated to be around £20 per notification. We hope that the prospect of an unlimited fine will deter operators from making mass redundancies without the appropriate notification.
While this measure may not prevent redundancies from being made, it will mean that the Government and any employee representatives must be notified before any dismissals take effect. It will prevent the sort of disruption seen following the P&O Ferries dismissals and will mean that the Government will be able to provide valuable support to seafarers facing redundancy. I therefore commend the clause to the Committee.
Greg Smith
I understand where the Minister is coming from, particularly on the expansion of the requirement to notify the flag state. I spoke earlier about my time on the Transport Committee watching the P&O scandal unfold; we held some pretty tough evidence sessions as part of that. I understand that the clause is very specifically to protect seafarers from that sort of engagement. I very much hope that it works to protect those seafarers, and we will not oppose it.
Justin Madders
I am pleased to see that we have support all round.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 24 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 25
Public sector outsourcing: protection of workers
Justin Madders
I beg to move amendment 59, in clause 25, page 36, line 14, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
“(2) After Part 5 insert—
‘Part 5A
Outsourcing: protection of workers
83A Application of this Part
(1) This Part provides for a Minister of the Crown, the Scottish Ministers and the Welsh Ministers to make provision for the protection of workers in relation to relevant outsourcing contracts (see section 83B).
(2) Accordingly, in this Part, “appropriate authority”—
(a) means—
(i) a Minister of the Crown,
(ii) the Scottish Ministers, or
(iii) the Welsh Ministers, and
(b) does not include a Northern Ireland department.
(3) In addition to the restrictions in section 113, a Minister of the Crown—
(a) may exercise a power under this Part for the purpose of regulating devolved Scottish authorities only in relation to joint or centralised procurement under a reserved procurement arrangement;
(b) may not exercise a power under this Part for the purpose of regulating joint or centralised procurement under a devolved Scottish procurement arrangement.
(4) The Scottish Ministers—
(a) may only exercise a power under this Part for the purpose of regulating—
(i) devolved Scottish authorities, or
(ii) procurement under a devolved Scottish procurement arrangement;
(b) may not exercise a power under this Part for the purpose of regulating—
(i) joint or centralised procurement under a reserved procurement arrangement, or
(ii) joint or centralised procurement under a devolved Welsh procurement arrangement.
(5) In addition to the restrictions in section 111, the Welsh Ministers—
(a) may exercise a power under this Part for the purpose of regulating devolved Scottish authorities only in relation to joint or centralised procurement under a devolved Welsh procurement arrangement;
(b) may not exercise a power under this Part for the purpose of regulating joint or centralised procurement under a devolved Scottish procurement arrangement.
(6) This Part does not apply in relation to—
(a) a private utility;
(b) a person referred to in regulation 4(1)(b) of the Utilities Contracts (Scotland) Regulations 2016 (S.S.I. 2016/49);
(c) a devolved Welsh authority listed in Schedule 1 of the Social Partnership and Public Procurement (Wales) Act 2023 (asc 1);
(d) procurement under a transferred Northern Ireland procurement arrangement, except to the extent that the procurement—
(i) is carried out by a devolved Scottish authority, and
(ii) is not joint or centralised;
(e) a transferred Northern Ireland authority, except in relation to—
(i) procurement under a reserved procurement arrangement,
(ii) procurement under a devolved Scottish procurement arrangement, or
(iii) procurement under a devolved Welsh procurement arrangement.
(7) For the purposes of this section, procurement under a procurement arrangement is “joint or centralised” if as part of that procurement arrangement a contract is to be awarded following a procedure or other selection process carried out—
(a) jointly by a devolved Scottish authority and another contracting authority which is not a devolved Scottish authority, or
(b) by a centralised procurement authority or equivalent body.
83B Relevant outsourcing contracts
(1) In this Part, “relevant outsourcing contract” means a contract in relation to which conditions A to C are met.
(2) Condition A is met where the contract—
(a) is a public contract under this Act, or
(b) is a contract regulated by Scottish procurement legislation.
(3) Condition B is met where the contract—
(a) is a contract for the supply of services that include the performance of functions that are or have previously been performed by the contracting authority, or
(b) is—
(i) in the case of a public contract, a framework for the future award of a contract referred to in paragraph (a), or
(ii) in the case of a contract regulated by Scottish procurement legislation, a framework agreement the purpose of which is to establish the terms governing a contract referred to in paragraph (a).
(4) Condition C is met where the functions referred to in subsection (3)(a) are, or are expected to be, performed by individuals (“transferring workers”) who—
(a) in performing the functions, are employed by the supplier or a sub-contractor under a worker’s contract, and
(b) were employed by the contracting authority under a worker’s contract in performing functions of the same kind.
(5) For the purposes of this Part—
(a) “contract regulated by Scottish procurement legislation” means a contract the procurement of which by a devolved Scottish authority is regulated by Scottish procurement legislation;
(b) in relation to a contract regulated by Scottish procurement legislation—
(i) “contracting authority” means a devolved Scottish authority that is a contracting authority within the meaning of the relevant Scottish procurement legislation;
(ii) “framework agreement” has the same meaning as in the relevant Scottish procurement legislation;
(iii) “supplier” means an economic operator within the meaning of the relevant Scottish procurement legislation;
(iv) “the relevant Scottish procurement legislation” means the Scottish procurement legislation regulating the procurement of the contract.
83C Power to specify provision for inclusion in relevant outsourcing contracts
(1) An appropriate authority may by regulations specify provision to be included in a relevant outsourcing contract for the purpose of ensuring that—
(a) transferring workers of a specified description are treated no less favourably as workers of the supplier or a sub-contractor than they were as workers of the contracting authority, and
(b) workers of the supplier or a sub-contractor who are not transferring workers and are of a specified description are treated no less favourably than those transferring workers.
(2) In carrying out the procurement of a relevant outsourcing contract, the contracting authority must—
(a) take all reasonable steps to ensure that provision specified under subsection (1) is included in the contract;
(b) where provision specified under subsection (1) is included in the contract, take all reasonable steps to secure that such provision is complied with.
(3) Subsection (2) does not apply—
(a) where the contracting authority or the relevant outsourcing contract is of a specified description, or
(b) in specified circumstances.
(4) In this section, “specified” means specified in regulations made by an appropriate authority.
83D Code of practice on relevant outsourcing contracts
(1) An appropriate authority must prepare and publish a code of practice containing guidance to contracting authorities for the purpose of ensuring that, where a contracting authority carries out the procurement of a relevant outsourcing contract—
(a) transferring workers of a description specified in the code are treated no less favourably as workers of the supplier or a sub-contractor than they were as workers of the contracting authority, and
(b) workers of the supplier or a sub-contractor who are not transferring workers and are of a description specified in the code are treated no less favourably than those transferring workers.
(2) An appropriate authority—
(a) may amend or replace a code published by it under subsection (1), and
(b) must publish any amended or replacement code.
(3) A code published under subsection (1) or (2) must—
(a) in the case of a code published by a Minister of the Crown, be laid before Parliament;
(b) in the case of a code published by the Scottish Ministers, be laid before the Scottish Parliament;
(c) in the case of a code published by the Welsh Ministers, be laid before Senedd Cymru.
(4) In carrying out the procurement of a relevant outsourcing contract, the contracting authority must have regard to the code of practice for the time being published under subsection (1) or (2).
(5) This section does not require an appropriate authority to do anything which the authority does not have power to do (see section 83A and Part 11).
83E Interpretation of this Part
(1) In this Part—
“appropriate authority” has the meaning given in section 83A(2);
“contract regulated by Scottish procurement legislation” has the meaning given in section 83B(5)(a);
“relevant outsourcing contract” has the meaning given in section 83B;
“transferring worker”, in relation to a relevant outsourcing contract, has the meaning given in section 83B(4);
“worker” and “worker’s contract” have the same meaning as in the Employment Rights Act 1996 (see section 230 of that Act).
(2) For the purposes of this Part, in relation to a contract regulated by Scottish procurement legislation, “contracting authority”, “framework agreement”, “supplier” and “the relevant Scottish procurement legislation” have the meaning given in section 83B(5)(b).
83F Power of Scottish Ministers to amend this Part
The Scottish Ministers may by regulations modify section 83A, 83B or 83E in consequence of a modification of Scottish procurement legislation.’”
This amendment would restructure the new provisions to be inserted into the Procurement Act 2023 so that the powers and duties extend to the Scottish Ministers and Welsh Ministers and devolved Scottish and Welsh authorities. The amendment also clarifies that the duty to publish a code of practice does not depend on the making of the regulations.
Justin Madders
Amendment 59 will expand and restructure the provisions in clause 25, which amends the Procurement Act 2023, to reinstate and strengthen the two-tier code for relevant outsourced contracts for public services so that the powers and duties in clause 25 extend to Scottish and Welsh Ministers. Amendments 60 to 64 make changes that are consequential on those made by amendment 59, including by updating various definitions in the Procurement Act 2023 and by providing that regulations made by Scottish and Welsh Ministers must be made using the affirmative procedure of the Scottish Parliament and the Senedd.
We are making the amendments at the request of the Scottish and Welsh Governments. They are necessary because to get the benefits of a consistent approach to fair and equitable employment terms and conditions on relevant outsourced contracts, it is essential that a reinstated two-tier code applies throughout the UK.
We continue to engage with our counterparts in Northern Ireland about whether the powers should also extend to Ministers there. The regulations and code of practice created in our provisions will apply to reserved Northern Irish authorities. I commend the amendments to the Committee.
Greg Smith
I am reminded of the old chestnut about rushing out a Bill in 100 days and forgetting about the devolved settlements as part of the process. Given that devolution was largely the product of the previous Labour Government, I am slightly surprised that the current one would forget about Holyrood and Cardiff Bay. However, it is good that we now have clarity. We will of course want to test how things are actually going to work. Indeed, the question of Northern Ireland—which is just as important a part of our country as England, Scotland and Wales—really should be resolved sooner rather than later, so that there can be clarity that the Government are seeking to legislate for the whole of our United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and not doing it in a piecemeal fashion.
Justin Madders
I gently correct the shadow Minister: we did not forget to engage with the Scottish and Welsh Governments. We were making sure that we had agreement before we tabled amendments, which is why they have appeared as they have today.
Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Does the Minister agree that this is actually an example of the Government keeping not only their manifesto promise to deliver a new deal for working people, but the manifesto promise that I certainly made many times during the election campaign, which was that the new Government would show the utmost respect for the Scottish Parliament and Government, and for all the devolved institutions? I reassure the Minister that the Scottish Parliament was not forgotten during the drafting of the Bill, because there was extensive engagement with the Scottish Government, some of which I saw myself.
Justin Madders
I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. On that note, I commend the amendments to the Committee. “appropriate authority (except in Part 5A) section 123 appropriate authority (in Part 5A) section 83A”
Amendment 59 agreed to.
Amendments made: 60, in clause 25, page 37, line 33, at end insert—
“(2A) In section 2 (contracting authorities), after subsection (1) insert—
‘(1A) But see also section 83B(5)(b)(i) (which provides for “contracting authority” to have an extended meaning in relation to certain contracts regulated under Part 5A (outsourcing: protection of workers)).’”
See the explanatory statement to amendment 59.
Amendment 61, in clause 25, page 37, line 34, leave out subsection (3).
See the explanatory statement to amendment 59 - because the new provisions are now being inserted as a new Part of the Procurement Act 2023, there is no longer any need to amend section 100 of that Act.
Amendment 62, in clause 25, page 38, line 3, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
“(4) In section 122 (regulations)—
(a) in subsection (4) (regulations by Ministers of the Crown subject to affirmative procedure), after paragraph (i) insert—
‘(ia) section 83C (provision for inclusion in relevant outsourcing contracts);’
(b) in subsection (10) (regulations by Welsh Ministers subject to affirmative procedure), after paragraph (g) insert—
‘(ga) section 83C (provision for inclusion in relevant outsourcing contracts);’
(c) in subsection (14) (regulations by Scottish Ministers subject to affirmative procedure), before paragraph (a) insert—
‘(za) section 83C (provision to be included in relevant outsourcing contracts);
(zb) section 83F (power to amend section 83A, 83B or 83E);’”.
See the explanatory statement to amendment 59.
Amendment 63, in clause 25, page 38, line 6, at end insert—
“(4A) In section 123 (interpretation), in subsection (1), in the definition of ‘appropriate authority’, at the end insert—
‘(but see section 83A(2) for a different meaning of “appropriate authority” in Part 5A (outsourcing: protection of workers));’.
(4B) In section 124 (index of defined expressions), for the entry for ‘appropriate authority’ substitute—
See the explanatory statement to amendment 59.
Amendment 64, in clause 25, page 38, leave out lines 9 to 11 and insert—
“Part 5A (outsourcing: protection of workers)”.—(Justin Madders.)
See the explanatory statement to amendment 59.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Anna McMorrin.)
Employment Rights Bill (Thirteenth sitting)
Tuesday 17th December 2024
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Employment Rights Act 2025 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 17 December 2024 - (17 Dec 2024)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 15 / Noes: 4 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Chair
Will everyone please ensure that all electronic devices are turned off or switched to silent mode? We will now continue line-by-line consideration of the Bill. The grouping and selection list for today’s sittings is available in the room and on the parliamentary website. I remind Members about the rules on declarations of interests, as set out in the code of conduct.
Clause 25
Public sector outsourcing: protection of workers
Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Justin Madders)
Good morning, Mr Mundell; it is a pleasure to see you in the Chair. As is customary, I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my membership of the Unite and GMB trade unions.
The clause will empower Ministers to reinstate and strengthen the two-tier code on workforce matters where contracts for public services have been outsourced to the private sector. It will ensure fair and equitable employment conditions for public sector workers who have been transferred into the private sector, and private sector workers who work alongside them on public service contracts, while maintaining a high quality of service for the public. It therefore directly supports the Government’s manifesto commitment to make work pay and will tackle the issue of unfair two-tiered workforces where staff working alongside one another to deliver the same contract do not have comparable terms and conditions of employment.
The powers are constrained so that the provisions of the regulations and the code, when developed, will apply only to new contracts entered into once the Bill comes into force, but can and will apply to re-procurements of services already outsourced where the re-procurement leads to a further transfer of workers. Ministers will have the power to make regulations specifying provisions to be included in relevant outsourcing contracts. The provisions may, for example, set out model contract terms that, where incorporated into contracts, will impose obligations on suppliers. Authorities will be required to take all reasonable steps to include those provisions in all relevant outsourced contracts.
The regulations made under the clause will, first, have the purpose of ensuring that transferring workers are treated no less favourably as workers of the supplier than when they worked for the public sector contracting authority and, secondly, have the objective of ensuring that workers of the supplier who are not transferred from the public sector but recruited by the supplier to work on the contract are treated no less favourably than those transferring workers. Alongside that, Ministers of the UK, Scottish and Welsh Governments will be subject to a duty to publish a code of practice addressing similar matters to which contracting authorities will need to have regard.
To ensure that the code is effectively enforced, there will be several forms of redress. Contracting authorities will be required to take all reasonable steps to ensure that suppliers meet their contractual obligations, as set out in the regulations. In addition, the procurement review unit, which will be established under our new Procurement Act 2023, due to commence in 2025, will be able to investigate whether a contracting authority has had regard to the code and taken appropriate steps in relation to provisions specified in the regulations.
These powers are being extended through amendments to the clause, which we discussed last week, to the devolved Governments of Scotland and Wales so that the benefits of a consistent approach to fair and equitable employment terms and conditions on relevant outsourced contracts can be spread throughout the UK. Fair and equitable working conditions are the right of all employees working alongside one other on the same outsourced contracts, and these measures will help to tackle that issue head on.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship once more, Mr Mundell.
Clause 25 has got me thinking about many moons ago, in 2006, when I was part of the team that won Hammersmith and Fulham council for the Conservatives for the first time since 1968. One of our first acts was quite literally to take the red flag down from the roof of the town hall. Part of the symbolism of that, which is why I mention it, was that the council, in 2006, was one of the last to outsource anything at all. Competitive tendering simply had not happened in that London borough. Everything was still a direct service run by the local authority, and we set about contracting out waste, grounds maintenance and many other services. Why? Because we wanted to deliver better value for taxpayers—indeed, we cut council tax by 20% over the eight years that we ran the council—and to improve service standards.
One of the things I learned in that process, and the reason my point is relevant to the clause, is that the first iteration of any contracting out—that first contract, be it for refuse collection, street cleansing, grounds maintenance or whatever—does not tend to result in economies and improvements. It is often in the second or third contract iteration where the cost savings and improvements in service standards start to be seen. That is partly because of the TUPE provisions that rightly exist to ensure that those staff who are being transferred from whatever part of the public sector we might be talking about—in this case, local government—transfer with the same rights, terms and conditions, and pay that they had at the point that they ceased to be direct employees of the council, or whatever other public service, and became employees of whoever won the contract.
The rub comes in the real-world application. In such cases, the staff members who transferred are on favourable terms and conditions, and probably better pay, than some of the staff that the contractor brings into the team. If it is immediately locked in that everybody new has to be on the same terms and conditions and pay scales, we will never achieve value for money for taxpayers, and we will never enable the contractor, be that a refuse collection company or whatever, to find efficiencies and savings at the same time as increasing service standards in the way that we all want to see. It might as well never be done in the first place. That makes me question whether that is in fact the ideological position that the Government want to take. I can see the Minister grinning; perhaps I have hit upon something.
I gently remind the Committee of the time when every refuse service and local government service was provided directly, in house, before competitive tendering and the revolution of the 1980s and the Thatcher Government. We can all remember what delivery of those services looked like in the 1970s: the rubbish piled up on the streets with no one collecting it.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I just reflect that when I was a unitary authority leader, we were effectively a hostage client of the private sector, since the previous Conservative authority had set up a joint venture with it. That was far from the land of milk and honey. Well, it was the land of milk and honey for the private sector, whereas local taxpayers had to suffer under a system that was set up to benefit the private sector. The reality is that often it is more appropriate for local authorities to run these services so that they are run in the interests of local communities rather than the profits of the private sector.
Greg Smith
The hon. Gentleman is clearly not of the orange book wing of the Liberal Democrats.
Greg Smith
My hon. Friend indicates that perhaps there are not any left. I fundamentally disagree with the point made by the hon. Member for Torbay. It is not about profits for the private sector, although the profit motive is an important element in driving up service standards and ensuring that if a company wants to keep a contract, it has to deliver on it.
Some councils have failed on this front by failing to set the specification of a contract correctly and failing, as the client, to enforce against the contract. That is where we see failure on so many fronts; it has little to do with terms and conditions or the points covered by the clause. Often, an ill-equipped council, be it the members or the officers—I have seen this from both sides—fails to properly specify in the first place, when it goes to market, and then fails to deliver proper contract management. That is where we see gremlins creep into the system and unintended consequences come about.
I gently point out to the hon. Member for Torbay that when I was in local government, we saw many benefits from competitive tendering over multiple iterations of the contract. I can ensure him that in the cabinet portfolios that I held in that local authority, where I was directly overseeing the waste, street cleansing and grounds maintenance contracts, I was pretty tough on those contractors in ensuring that they did drive up standards. But sometimes it is not the right step. The Labour council we took over from had outsourced housing, which we as a Conservative council brought back in house. We ended the arm’s length management organisation to bring it back within direct council control to deliver a better service for the tenants of those properties. So if it is not done properly in the first place, that model does not always work.
The measures in clause 25 are once more a sledgehammer to crack a nut. They do not recognise the practical realities of how competitive tendering has worked, excepting the flaws that I raised about how well contracts are specified and enforced against. If we want to ensure that we are delivering the best possible value for money for taxpayers—the people who pay for public services—at the same time as increasing the standard of services delivered, which I expect is a universal aim that all of us hold, there have to be flexibilities to ensure that efficiencies can be found, and that the fat is taken out of all systems, processes and ways of doing business. If we lock contractors into absolutely having to match every term and condition, with every pay scale being exactly the same, we are never going to deliver that.
Sarah Gibson (Chippenham) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I really welcome the clause. Despite the fact that their uniforms, pensions and contracts said “NHS”, staff at a community hospital in my constituency only realised that they had been effectively TUPE-ed over to a private business when they failed to receive the £1,000 bonus that all their colleagues in the main hospitals got. One may say, “How naive of them; they should have read their contracts better,” but most of them had been NHS workers for 25 years, so they were completely unaware that this had happened to them and that they were no longer entitled. I must thank the then contractor, a charity, for lobbying hard to make sure that eventually they got some kind of bonus, but to be suddenly without those conditions was quite frightening for them. So I welcome these measures.
I take some issue with what the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire said. For many years, I served as part of Wiltshire council, which is a Conservative-led council. It was locked into a service contract for maintenance that was poor and used to lower wages, producing a system where we had very little maintenance. Our town councils are now having to pick up the bill for repairing grounds and play areas because the company, although it had the contract and was paid by the local authority, was not carrying out the works. Therefore, I welcome this measure and I am pleased to support it.
Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. Merry Christmas, everyone. In that spirit of glad tidings, I draw the Committee’s attention to my declarations in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my membership of the GMB and Unite trade unions.
Clause 25 enables the reinstatement of one of two bodies that are to be reinstated by the Bill—the other is the school support staff negotiating body, which I hope we will come to today. The clause stands in a long and proud tradition in this Parliament, and at its heart is a simple question: what duty does the state owe to people who perform services on its behalf? The phrase “two tier” has become highly charged in recent years, but I hope that we can channel some of that spirit of protest towards the iniquity of two-tier workforces.
The injustice is easy to describe—in fact, the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire, described it. When a public service is outsourced, the original workers’ pay and terms and conditions are protected to a certain extent by TUPE, but those of the workers who are subsequently employed on that contract are not. Even when they carry out exactly the same duties, they will normally be paid inferior rates.
That is understandably a cause of tension and resentment at many sites where services continue to be performed on behalf of the public sector. The original workers who are TUPE-ed over can be singled out for victimisation and adverse treatment on the part of their new employer. We know from the labour force survey, in the days when that instrument was in better health, that many such workers continue to regard themselves as part of the public sector and are motivated by public service. The workers who tend to find themselves in this position are more likely to be women, on lower earnings and from non-white backgrounds.
The case for parity of treatment was made powerfully in the last Parliament by the Defence Committee, which at the time had a Conservative Chair. The Committee’s report on the treatment of contracted staff for ancillary services states:
“In general, the terms and conditions of outsourced employees are worse than those of their directly employed counterparts, with reduced wages and benefits…The Ministry of Defence should do more to ensure that contracted staff receive comparable employment contracts to staff directly employed by the MoD.”
That is precisely what the reinstated and strengthened two-tier code, enabled by this clause, will accomplish.
Two-tier workforces are not just unfair on workers; they represent a failure of public policy. When margins are tight, bidders can end up competing not on efficiency or innovation, but on a squeezing of wages. We need only look at Carillion for a prominent example of what can go wrong, and of the wider liability for taxpayers when a contractor loses sight of its wider operations. The direct cost to the public sector has been estimated at some £150 million, the wider debts to the private sector were in the region of £2 billion, and the National Audit Office has warned that we will not know the true cost for many years to come.
The shadow Minister referred to the sepia-tinted days—perhaps we should say the blue-rinse days— of 2006, but I was grateful for the contributions from the hon. Members for Chippenham and for Torbay, because there is a long-standing and cross-party record on this matter. We can go back to 1891, when the radical Liberal politician Sydney Buxton moved the fair wages resolution, a resolution of this House, which was carried unanimously—at that time, Parliament had a Conservative majority. He said:
“The Government is far the greatest letter-out of contracts in the country, and Government contracts are the most popular for three reasons. In the first place, the contractor makes no bad debts; secondly, he has quick returns; and, thirdly, a Government contract forms a good advertisement. The consequence is, that there is great competition, and tenders are cut down very much at the expense of the labour market. Such a state of things is unfair to the good employer…and injurious to the community. The fair employer is placed at a very great disadvantage as compared with the unfair.”—[Official Report, 13 February 1891; Vol. 350, c. 618.]
Those arguments hold true today. That fair wages resolution was adapted and improved down the years, and took its final form under the Attlee Government in 1946. It has subsequently been exported around the world, in the form of International Labour Organisation convention No. 94. Indeed, those great British protections, developed in this Parliament, apply now in Italy, Spain and such far-flung places as Brazil, but because of decisions taken in the 1980s, they do not apply to contracted-out workers in this country. I very much welcome the opportunity to put that right.
The two-tier code existed previously, between 2005 and 2006. It grew out of an earlier iteration in local government, and it has been in force subsequently in Wales, where the sky has not fallen in in terms of service provision. [Interruption.] If the shadow Minister wants to intervene, he is welcome to.
Greg Smith
How does the hon. Gentleman feel that the NHS in Wales is doing—better or worse than in England?
Laurence Turner
I would say better, having had some experience. The hon. Gentleman might want to return to that point.
On the substance of the clause, there were some concerns about the original incarnation of the two-tier code. It was purely voluntary and did not contain meaningful provisions for redress where an employer who had signed up to uphold the standards of the code did not follow through. I hope that that deficiency will be remedied when the associated regulations appear.
It is legitimate to have differences on points of principle. After the current Lord Maude abolished the two-tier code, the Secretary of State—now Baron Pickles—said that the Government of the time had
“Abolished the…two-tier code that…hindered the voluntary and independent sector from delivering better value for money.”—[Official Report, 26 March 2015; Vol. 594, c. 166WS.]
The shadow Minister has made much the same point. This was explicitly about driving down wages for the large number of people who are contracted out to deliver public services. I very much welcome the fact that this Government have a policy objective of making work pay. For a large number of people in the labour market who have been overlooked by politicians for too long, the clause represents an important step forward for remedying that deficiency.
Justin Madders
We have had a broad debate—very broad from my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield, who took us on a canter through the history. He was right that it was the coalition Government who abolished the two-tier code, which is why it is welcome that the Liberal Democrats have realised the error of their ways; I welcome their support on this. Their spokesperson, the hon. Member for Chippenham, made the important point that the inherent unfairness of people doing exactly the same job for the same employer finding out that they are on different terms and conditions and are earning less is a big morale sapper. It is also a big issue in terms of workforce retention—one problem that we often see with outsourced contracts.
I will turn to the shadow Minister’s misty-eyed days at Hammersmith and Fulham, and I will raise him Ellesmere Port and Neston borough council, which was a great believer in direct provision of services; we certainly felt that was the best way to deliver value for the taxpayer and good-quality services. In his contribution, the shadow Minister alighted on the illusion of outsourcing—the fact that consultants can demonstrate that savings can be made, but when you drill into the detail, those savings are always off the back of the workforce. They are not some magical way of doing things differently. It is about cutting terms and conditions and it is about a race to the bottom, which we are determined to end.
Greg Smith
I do understand the ideological difference between the two sides on this point, but I take issue with the Minister that this is about a race to the bottom and cutting terms and conditions; it really is not. From my experience, it was not a matter of consultants, but of properly probing contracts, setting the right specification to deliver for the residents in the place that the council served, and requiring the flexibility to ensure that some people would be doing very different jobs in a different way from before in order to deliver that. It was not about wanting to cut anyone’s pay or terms and conditions; it was about service delivery and value.
Justin Madders
I take the shadow Minister’s point. I am not familiar with the machinations of Hammersmith and Fulham council in the 2010s, and it may well be that savings were made by doing things differently. But there is absolutely no reason why that cannot be done directly from a public body: if it is well led, if it is able to have constructive dialogue with its work force, savings can be made.
The difficulty with the shadow Minister’s analysis is that, while he may have been able to find savings for the taxpayer through those kinds of measures, too often the savings are made by cutting terms and conditions for new workers. That is why, as he said in his original contribution, the second or third outsourcing is usually where the savings happen, because it is when those new workers come in on lower terms and conditions that the savings begin to emerge. That is why the whole outsourcing trick is a con, because it is how those savings tend to be made.
When we add in the contract monitoring costs and the profit motivations for the outsourced company to make a living from these things, we can quickly see why it becomes a bad deal for the taxpayer. I certainly make no apologies for putting forward this proposal, because we think it is the right thing to do, to respect and value those who work in public service and ensure that they are paid the same as their colleagues for doing the same work. I therefore commend—
Laurence Turner
I thank the Minister for giving way at the death. Does he also recognise that one example of a council that tried to go down the wholesale outsourcing route was Northamptonshire? We all know how that story ended, and Eddie Martin, the Conservative former leader of Cumbria county council, stated that the then Government
“says that outsourcing is everything, but while it might get you an initial cheaper price, that price simply doesn’t last, you lose flexibility, and it causes a great deal of unrest.”
Justin Madders
I think that is the kindest thing that has been said about me this year, Mr Mundell. I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention; I think we can all see the difficulties. I know, from dealing with public bodies in my area, that sometimes when there is more than one person responsible for a service—the public body and then the contracting body—we find duplication, differing priorities and often a poorer service as a result, because there are competing ambitions in those bodies. That is one of the main reasons why we want to see a much more holistic approach to our public services. I commend clause 25 to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 25, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 26
Equality action plans
Sarah Gibson
I beg to move amendment 112, in clause 26, page 38, line 35, at end insert―
“(c) supporting employees with menstrual problems and menstrual disorders.”
This amendment would add menstrual problems and menstrual disorders to “matters related to gender equality”, in relation to any regulations made under the Bill to require employers to produce equality action plans.
I am very pleased to move this amendment. First, as the Bill stands, there are provisions for businesses to report on the impact of menopause on women in the workplace as part of the equalities impact assessments. I think the hon. Member for Sheffield Brightside and Hillsborough (Gill Furniss) is right to table this amendment and to remind us all that menstrual problems can hinder women at any point in their working life, not just as they enter menopause. She is the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on women’s health and an officer on the APPG on endometriosis; I feel confident that she has tabled this amendment with the best intentions. It seems an omission that this issue was not included in the original Bill.
Several constituents have contacted me about endometriosis, and specifically its impact on them at work. Endometriosis costs the UK economy £8 billion a year in treatment, loss of work and healthcare costs, and it takes an average of eight years to get a diagnosis. One in six workers with endometriosis leaves the workforce due to their condition—an issue that the Government and employers cannot afford to ignore. Those people could go back to work and stay in work if there was additional flexibility for them.
As one of my constituents told me—she does not wish to be named for these reasons—many employees with endometriosis find that their employers do not believe them about their symptoms, that their flexible working requests are refused and that they are subject to discriminatory automated absence procedures that penalise short but intermittent time off work. The amendment seeks to address that injustice. I want to be very clear that I support it, and I hope that the rest of the Committee will see its importance.
Greg Smith
I hear very clearly what the hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Sheffield Brightside and Hillsborough have said. I do not take issue with anything that has just been said. The endometriosis point is a clear one, and well made. Where I challenge the hon. Member for Chippenham, and indeed the Minister, is that that women’s health issue is not exclusive; there are many health concerns that only women face, and indeed some that only men face. Given that the clause explicitly refers to gender equality, would it not be better, from a pure legislative drafting perspective, to say that gender equality will be the catch-all that encompasses all that?
Is there not a danger that by listing one or two medical concerns, we will lock out other health problems faced exclusively by women, or exclusively by men? Naming one or two things in legislation often creates a problem in the interpretation of the rule. Courts may look back at this debate, or at any other debate on the Bill, and understand that this gender equality provision is intended to be a general catch-all for anything that any man or woman may face. If we name one or two things in legislation, however, it could become dangerous for when a man or a woman presents with something that is not named.
Sarah Gibson
I cannot help agreeing that naming a few conditions in the Bill might well be a concern, and when I first looked at the amendment on its own without looking at where it would fit into the Bill, it did seem slightly incongruous to suddenly mention one aspect. But if we look at where it would be inserted into the Bill, following a direct reference to menopause, it seems far more appropriate to make the point that menopause is not the only ongoing issue that women face. Many women are quite relieved to go into menopause, because it has been so onerous for them to have periods that keep them off work or in bed for several days a month. If we are going to mention menopause, mentioning menstruation makes perfect sense. The amendment makes sense only in the context of the Bill.
Greg Smith
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that clarification. There is a danger that we will end up dancing on the head of a pin, but I am always concerned about naming individual things in a catch-all provision. If amendment 112 were to be accepted, it might create an interpretive problem for the courts at a later date. Indeed, it might create a problem for employers in navigating whether they have to abide by legislation that mentions one condition but not another.
I would be grateful if the Minister, in his response to the amendment, gave the Government’s interpretation—[Interruption.] With two Ministers on this Bill, it is confusing to work out which one will be responding. I would be grateful if, in her response, the Minister gave clarity on the Government’s interpretation and the legal advice that they have received.
Steve Darling
I echo the comments from my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham about the impact of endometriosis on younger women’s lives. It can be extremely incapacitating. A constituent of mine in Torbay shared how her daughter had to give up work because of the impact and the length of time that it was taking her to go through the NHS system to get the treatment that she deserved. Action to resolve that and get her in the right place was months and months away.
To me, the Bill needs a couple of touch points that test the employer and challenge them to reflect on certain areas of their workforce. That will result in a culture change among employers, so that they reflect on these matters and see the broader picture. It is extremely important to drive that culture change by adding this amendment, because throughout the United Kingdom, including in my Torbay constituency, there are significant issues related to finding enough people to fill workplaces. If we have the appropriate culture through this proposal and other changes in the Bill, we can make sure that the pool of people who can step up and work and contribute to our economy is enhanced.
The Minister for Equalities (Dame Nia Griffith)
Amendment 112 would add menstrual problems and menstrual disorders to matters related to gender equality in clause 26. Prioritising women’s health is a positive step that the Government are taking, and the hon. Member for Chippenham is absolutely right to highlight the terrible impact that many different conditions related to menstruation can have on whether a women can perform to the best of her ability. Physical symptoms can be further compounded by the taboo that often surrounds conversations about women’s reproductive health, and I thank her for bringing that to the Committee’s attention.
Clause 26 does not provide an exhaustive list of matters related to gender equality, as the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire referenced. As the hon. Member for Torbay said, this is about culture change in a place of employment. In creating equality action plans, we are reflecting the fact that many actions will be beneficial for people in lots of different circumstances. For example, the improved provision of flexible working can be valuable for an employee balancing childcare, as well as someone managing a health condition.
In the same way, ensuring that employers support staff going through the menopause will necessitate them taking steps that are positive for supporting women’s health in the workplace more broadly. For example, menopause best practice includes greater discussion around women’s health and awareness of potential workplace adjustments—things that have a much wider potential benefit. I therefore ask the hon. Member for Chippenham to withdraw the amendment.
Sarah Gibson
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Steve Darling
I beg to move amendment 162, in clause 26, page 38, line 35, at end insert—
“(c) supporting employees who provide or arrange care for a dependant with a long-term care need, as defined by the Carer’s Leave Act 2023.”
This amendment adds caring to the list of “matters related to gender equality”, on which regulations will require employers to produce an equality action plan.
This amendment relates to research showing that by the age of 46, 50% of women have taken on caring responsibilities, whereas the equivalent age for men is 57. Clearly, the impact of caring happens much sooner for women, and that is why it is appropriate to take carers into account under the equality action plan.
There are approximately 10.5 million carers in the United Kingdom, 2.6 million of whom work. That shows that a significant number of carers do not work. In an earlier debate I made the point about the pool of workers for whom there are opportunities in our workforce yet who are not able to access longer-term employment. I strongly contend that the amendment is a way to enhance the pool of opportunity by driving the culture change that I was delighted to hear the Minister say a lot of the Bill is all about.
Carers will often stay in lower-paid jobs or refuse promotion because of caring commitments. It is extremely important to include caring as part of the consideration and clearly flag that to people who consider the action plans, because it is not an obvious matter for an employer to take into consideration, but it affects such a large number of people in the United Kingdom that it would be an error in judgment not to include it in the Bill.
Greg Smith
I rise to address the technicalities of how the amendment would work in legislation and with the Bill’s gender equality provisions. I entirely accept the hon. Gentleman’s point about the disparity between the average age by which a woman might take on caring responsibilities compared with the average for a man, but those are averages and there will be outliers and exceptions across all age ranges and all genders.
I say clearly that the Opposition welcome the contribution of all carers and salute them as the heroes they are, but I am concerned that the amendment would shoehorn a very worthy and important matter into a provision on gender equality. I do not see how it fully fits; it would have been more sensible to have created provisions for the support and recognition of those with caring responsibilities in a new clause or in another part of the Bill. I worry that, like amendment 112, amendment 162 could confuse the Bill’s interpretation as it goes down the line and, potentially, is challenged in court at some point.
I accept the core argument about support for those with caring responsibilities, but it is dangerous to shoehorn provisions into clauses where that is not the primary intent. It is important that the gender equality points remain focused on gender equality issues, on which I think the Government have good intent. If the Bill gets changed too much by us bringing in things that—although clearly in scope, given that they have been selected—are on the edge of scope, that could cause an interpretative challenge later. Provisions on support for those with caring responsibilities would be far better in a new clause or a different part of the Bill, where they might fit more neatly and enable us to avoid judicial challenge.
Dame Nia Griffith
If I may, Mr Mundell, I will draw attention to my registered interests, including my membership of the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers and the National Education Union.
Amendment 162 would add caring to the matters related to gender equality listed in clause 26. The hon. Member for Torbay is absolutely right to highlight the impact of caring responsibilities on women in the workplace, and we recognise that carers might need extra protection and support. I reassure him that many people with caring responsibilities are likely already to be afforded protections under the Equality Act 2010, through the provisions relating to age and disability discrimination.
The Equality Act protects people from direct discrimination by association. That means that individuals with caring responsibilities for someone who is, for example, elderly or disabled are likely to have protection from unlawful discrimination because of their association with someone with a protected characteristic. The Government frequently receive requests for the creation of new protected characteristics. Unfortunately, merely creating new characteristics within the Act will not necessarily lead to a change in the behaviour of service providers and employers. We can see that from the number of court cases that continue to be brought under the existing characteristics.
Clause 26 does not provide an exhaustive list of matters related to gender equality. Instead, we are reflecting the fact that many actions will be beneficial for people in lots of different circumstances. For example, improved provision of flexible working can be valuable to someone who is managing a health condition as well as to an employee who is balancing care. Equality action plans will increase awareness of the need for a wide range of potential workplace adjustments for all who would benefit from them, delivering a much wider potential impact. I therefore ask the hon. Member to withdraw the amendment.
Steve Darling
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Dame Nia Griffith
The clause is the first step towards introducing equality action plans, and it provides the power to do so in subsequent regulations. Women are a crucial part of securing economic growth and improving productivity, but the national gender pay gap remains at 13.1% and eight in 10 menopausal women say that their workplace has no basic support in place. This lack of support adds up to a significant loss of talent and skills. Menopause affects 51% of the population, with one external estimate showing that the UK is losing about 14 million work days every year because of menopause symptoms.
Large employers have been obliged to publish gender pay gap data since 2017, with action plans being encouraged, but voluntary. Analysis in 2019 found that only around half of employers that reported data went on to voluntarily produce a plan saying how they would act to improve the figures. That demonstrates that only making it mandatory will push employers to act. The best employers already recognise that providing women with the conditions to thrive is good for their employees and good for business. In taking this step towards introducing mandatory action plans, we are making sure that all large employers in scope of this clause follow their lead.
We are using a delegated power, mirroring the approach taken for gender pay gap reporting. Just as with that requirement, we want to give employers as much detail as possible in legislation—more than would commonly be in a Bill. The use of regulations allows us to do that while maintaining flexibility. When drafting this power, we reflected on what we have learned from gender pay gap reporting and from the hundreds of employers we have engaged with as a result. Most organisations think about equality in the round. They have one diversity and inclusion strategy, recognising what is borne out by the evidence: the most effective employer actions have benefits for more than one group or identity. That is why this clause proposes that employers produce one plan that covers both the gender pay gap and the menopause, reflecting the way they already work, reducing the burden of duplication and ensuring that they can get on with putting the plan into action. I commend clause 26 to the Committee.
Greg Smith
We covered many of the issues relating to this clause when we discussed amendments 112 and 162. I am grateful to the Minister for citing the 2017 changes, which were brought about by the previous Conservative Government. It is morally right to completely close the gender pay gap. That will undoubtedly take some time, but every step taken to close it completely is a welcome one. It is important to make sure that employers are taking proper and serious account of the issue and action on ensuring gender equality in the workplace.
Dr Marie Tidball (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under you, Mr Mundell. I have fought to break down barriers to equal justice, opportunity and dignity without discrimination for women and disabled people at every stage of my personal, professional and political life. I know that our Labour Government’s work on our missions for 10 years of national renewal has the purpose of changing lives across our country. This clause will be an important part of achieving that change for women in the workplace, ensuring that no matter what their background or where they live, women can thrive in the workplace. I am standing here because of the difference that world-class public services made to my life chances. This Bill creates a culture for world-class employers to break down barriers for women employees. The requirement to develop and publish equality action plans showing the steps that employers will need to take in relation to gender equality will be a significant move forward to improve equality, alongside collecting and publishing figures on the gender pay gap.
In an evidence session for the Bill Committee, Jemima Olchawski from the Fawcett Society said:
“We have a gender pay gap of just under 14%. On average, women take home just over £630 a month less than men. It also has a detrimental impact on our economy, because it is a marker of the ways in which women are not fully participating or contributing to the economy at their full potential. Estimates indicate that that means we are missing out on tens of billions of pounds of GDP.
We strongly support the measures as an important step towards redressing that balance. In particular, we are pleased to see the inclusion of equalities action plans as an important way to get employers to drive forward progress on the gender pay gap.”––[Official Report, Employment Rights Public Bill Committee, 26 November 2024; c. 81, Q76.]
This is helpful. The clause makes an important contribution to advancing gender equality by including the requirement to develop and publish equality action plans, which address the gender pay gap and support employees going through the menopause. I am pleased to be a member of the Committee seeing this go through today.
Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship once again, Mr Mundell. I draw the Committee’s attention to my declaration of interests and my membership of Unison and the Writers’ Guild of Great Britain.
I associate myself with the contribution made by my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge on the gender pay gap. I particularly welcome the focus on menopause support, which will be provided by the equality action plans proposed in clause 26. The TUC has reported that research from Bupa estimated that 1 million women have been forced out of their jobs because of discrimination and a lack of support for them while experiencing the perimenopause or menopause. I have lost count of the many talented women whom I count as friends and who have left jobs and careers that they loved, simply because they were not given support by their employers to manage their symptoms while at work. I am pleased that we have moved on from an era in which women going through the menopause had to suffer in silence, but we have a long way to go. That is why the mandatory equality plans are so necessary. They will help employers to provide the best workplace experiences.
USDAW research involving women members who are going through the menopause has found that one in five women take time off because of menopause-related symptoms. Given that women between the ages of 45 and 54 make up 11% of all women in employment— 3.5 million women—it is vital that employers consider the needs and experiences of women during this period and ensure that support is in place, that women can keep working and earning, and that their talents are not lost to the workforce.
Dame Nia Griffith
I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Penistone and Stocksbridge and for Scarborough and Whitby for their powerful contributions.
I cannot stress enough to the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire how important our continuing consultation will be. We are keen to engage with stakeholders to ensure that we get this right and lay the appropriate regulations before the House in the appropriate way. On that note, I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 26 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 27
Provision of information relating to outsourced workers
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Dame Nia Griffith
This clause is the first step towards requiring employers that already report gender pay gap data also to provide information about where they receive outsourced support from.
A 2019 YouGov survey found that seven out of 10 employer respondents had used third parties to provide key services. We know that the success of a business is down to everyone who contributes, including those who do some of the most demanding jobs but whose pay may be overlooked because they are employed by outsourced service organisations.
By getting large employers to disclose who they have outsourcing relationships with, we are building on what we have learned from gender pay gap reporting. Public accountability is an effective motivator for organisations. Instead of trying to get organisations to share employee data, which risks data relating to outsourced workers getting lost in the wider data, our approach will put those outsourcing relationships front and centre. That will act as a prompt for employers, and so achieve our original aim: getting employers to work throughout their networks and be invested in the pay decisions of those from whom they receive outsourced services.
We are taking a delegated power, mirroring the approach taken for gender pay gap reporting. That will enable us to provide as much detail as possible to employers in legislation, including the definitions and parameters of what will need to be reported. We recognise that outsourcing is not clearly defined and that we will need to work with employers to ensure that the measure works. The use of regulations will allow us to engage on an ongoing basis with experts in the area, provide as much clarity as possible in legislation and still maintain flexibility.
This measure is a step towards valuing and supporting some of the lowest-paid workers; it is a step towards businesses working together, rather than engaging in a race to the bottom; and it is a step in the right direction. I therefore commend the clause to the Committee.
Greg Smith
The clause builds on the gender pay gap reporting introduced by the last Government. Of course, in 2017 we were on the second of four female Conservative leaders, while the Labour party is still yet to show its commitment to gender equality in its leadership. Perhaps the Minister might be the first female leader of the Labour party—who knows? I gently and slightly naughtily make that point; it is the Conservative party that has shown a clear commitment to gender equality, particularly with the changes to gender pay gap reporting.
Expanding reporting to outsourced service providers does not seem a controversial move, but I urge the Minister to ensure that the provisions that the Government introduce do not create loopholes or miss anyone out; I can imagine various scenarios in which someone might argue that something is not outsourced, even though it is contracted. I urge her to double check that the specific language used does not create something that anyone can exploit or legally challenge. That is to ensure that the provisions build in spirit on the previous Government’s 2017 changes and do not create loopholes.
Laurence Turner
I will pick up the point just made about the changes made in 2017. Some of the opposition at that time came from the august institution of the Institute of Economic Affairs, which said that, if the regulations were introduced,
“they may encourage outsourcing of lower-paid jobs which happen to be taken by women (to avoid inclusion in a firm’s own return).”
That point has also been made by other organisations. King’s College London published a study on this matter three years ago, which said that
“focusing on the pay gap headline number can risk organisations seeking to window-dress their figures by outsourcing lower-paid jobs, which in turn worsens overall gender segregation within the labour market.”
Therefore, this extension of gender pay gap reporting to outsourced workers really does close that loophole and remove that perverse incentive—one example of many that we have heard about in this Committee.
We also heard from the Women’s Budget Group; Dr Mary-Ann Stephenson, giving evidence, said:
“We welcome the move to include outsourced workers in gender pay gap reporting…We are very conscious that you will quite often see that the lowest paid workers, particularly in the public sector, are now outsourced.”––[Official Report, Employment Rights Public Bill Committee, 28 November 2024; c. 163, Q176.]
The measures as proposed would effectively link the outsourced employer’s reporting to the reporting of the primary contracting authority. I hope that, when the regulations are drafted, they will shed some light on the extent of outsourcing across the economy; these workers are often invisible in official statistics, which is a wider problem for our understanding of the labour market. However, this move within the Bill is welcome.
I will just come back on one point; the shadow Minister referred to elected leaders of the Labour party. He is quite right to point out that the Labour party has not elected a woman leader—I very much hope that that will happen—but, for completeness, under the Labour party rulebook there is no role of “acting” or “interim” leader. It is therefore important to say, for the record, that in the eyes of the rulebook the noble Baronesses Beckett and Harman were as much leaders of the Labour party as any men who have fulfilled that role, and they served with distinction.
Sarah Gibson
I am not sure that highlighting quite how quickly the Conservatives go through leaders is helpful, but we do have to recognise that they have had the highest number of female leaders of any of our parties here, which is to be commended.
On a serious note, I welcome the intentions of clause 27. It is incredibly important that we start to shine a light on outsourcing, especially in the public sector, which I have seen myself, as I highlighted earlier, regarding the Chippenham hospital. To a certain extent, it seems to be a way of hiding some of the less clear and sensible ways we employ people, especially when it comes to low-paid, often female workers. I will therefore be supporting this clause and I am very pleased to do so.
Dame Nia Griffith
I think I had better start by putting on the record that I am not intending to stage some sort of leadership coup—[Hon. Members: “Shame!”]
Dame Nia Griffith
Well, I shall leave Members to interpret my words in Hansard as they choose. On that note, may I just make sure that I have not inadvertently made a mistake? I was referring to the 2019 YouGov survey, and I may have inadvertently said 2020, so I would like to just correct that on the record.
Turning now to the clause itself, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield for making some powerful points, as did the hon. Member for Chippenham. On the burden and the detail required, I say to the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire that we are absolutely committed to ongoing stakeholder engagement in this matter.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 27 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 28
Pay and conditions of school support staff in England
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Justin Madders
Clause 28 introduces schedule 3, which inserts proposed new part 8A into the Education Act 2002. Paragraph 1 of schedule 3 contains proposed new sections 148A to 148R of the 2002 Act and will be discussed separately.
The reinstatement of the school support staff negotiating body will give school support staff the recognition they deserve for the crucial role they play in children’s education and development. Establishing the SSSNB through the Bill will help ensure that schools can recruit and retain the staff needed to deliver high-quality, inclusive education and support the Government’s work to drive high and rising standards in schools, so every child has the best life chances.
The body will bring together representatives of school support staff employers, representatives of support staff, an independent chairperson and a representative of the Secretary of State. The SSSNB will consider the remuneration, terms and conditions of employment, training and career progression opportunities for school support staff. Its remit will lead to the creation of a national terms and conditions handbook, fair pay rates and clearer training and career progression routes for school support staff in England.
Most school support staff are currently employed on National Joint Council for local government services pay and conditions. The NJC is a negotiating body made up of representatives from trade unions and local government employers. Existing NJC arrangements are not statutory or school specific. Moving to a school-specific body where pay rates and pay awards for support staff are negotiated by school support staff employer and employee representatives and ratified by the Secretary of State will both help to ensure fair pay rates for school support staff and allow central Government to have a strategic view of pay across the school workforce.
It is essential for the SSSNB to have a statutory remit so that all prospective and current support staff in state schools nationally benefit from a transparent, guaranteed core pay and conditions offer. The Bill re-establishes the SSSNB as an unincorporated body on a similar footing to the previous body from 2009 that was abolished by the coalition Government in 2010.
As education is a devolved matter, the extent of these measures is therefore England and Wales and the measures will apply to England only. This is consistent and in line with the remit of the School Teachers Review Body being England only.
The 2009 SSSNB included only those support staff employed by local authorities and governing bodies to work in maintained schools within its scope. Roughly half of schools are now academies, compared with around 200 in 2009 when the body was previously established. Support staff employed by academy trusts are now included within the SSSNB’s remit. It is crucial that the body has a remit for all state-funded schools in England in order to achieve greater national consistency, irrespective of which type of school support staff work in. That is a point that we may come on to debate in due course.
Greg Smith
The Opposition have tabled a number of amendments that probe what is introduced by clause 28 and schedule 3, which we will come on to in subsequent debates today. I will reserve the bulk of my remarks for those debates, although, as clause 28 introduces schedule 3, I will preview those debates now by noting our strong opposition to these provisions. There was a very good, solid and rational reason that the former Secretary of State for Education during the coalition years—now editor of His Majesty’s Spectator magazine—abolished SSSNBs, which was to give that flexibility and freedom to the quite right and good, educational standards-raising revolution in education that came through the creation of the academies by the last Labour Government and in particular the creation of free schools by the last Conservative Government, including in the coalition years. Clause 28 and schedule 3, which we will come on to shortly, seek to undo a lot of that. For the reasons I will outline when speaking on those amendments, I think this part of the Bill requires a rethink.
Dr Tidball
I draw your attention to my declaration of interests, Mr Mundell. I am a member of the Community union, Unison and GMB.
I found it difficult to hear, in anything the shadow Minister just said, any rationale for getting rid of this body all those years ago. I missed three years of school as a child because of the surgeries I needed. Incredible classroom teaching assistants helped me to build my confidence and learn to mix with other children again when I returned—making education and learning an escape, a way to express myself, to overcome people’s assumptions about my disability and to feel free.
I stood in my constituency because I wanted to use my skills and experiences to give back to the communities that gave me so much. To know that, because of this Bill and the clause before us now, teaching assistants and other school support staff like the ones who made school a less daunting place for me will once again have a collective bargaining system for pay and conditions—which will ensure that those staff are finally valued and recognised for their vital work—is a very great privilege indeed.
The reinstatement of the school support staff negotiating body in England, previously scrapped by the coalition Government for reasons that still remain unclear, will be key to providing professional recognition for a group of staff who have been overlooked for far too long. As Unison, of which I am proudly a member, has highlighted, the proposals in this clause
“demonstrate that the Employment Rights Bill isn’t just tackling worker’s rights—it holds the key to tackling long standing public policy failures that have been ignored because they affect workers and service users whose voices are too often neglected by decision makers. Tackling this neglect and allowing trade unions to engage in constructive social partnership and better represent their members is long overdue”.
This clause therefore empowers that group of working people, who have been so long overlooked by the Government, to have a better life at work. It will help trade unions to raise standards and pay across the labour market.
Laurence Turner
In addition to the interest to which I drew attention earlier, my partner is a trustee of a multi-academy trust.
The reinstatement of the school support staff negotiating body is a hugely welcome measure and long overdue. It is a real shame to hear that there will be cross-party division on this question, because the consequences of the decision to abolish the SSSNB are negative, they are serious and they are now plain to see. We will come on to detailed discussion of the schedule and the amendments, but it is worth reflecting on the rationale that the then Government gave back in 2010 for abolishing the SSSNB. The Secretary of State at the time said—and he never went much beyond this—that the Government had
“concluded that the SSSNB does not fit well with the Government’s priorities for greater deregulation of the pay and conditions arrangement for the school workforce.”
What has been the consequence of that decision? We saw it last year, when the Low Pay Commission, for the first time, reclassified school support staff roles as low-paying occupations. That should be a mark of shame on the Governments that oversaw that unhappy outcome—which, as I said, was a consequence of the decision to abolish that body.
Sarah Gibson
I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman; I must make a declaration that my parents were a state headmaster and headmistress before their retirement. One issue that I strongly feel needs to be taken into consideration—though perhaps it is not relevant to this Committee—is that funding for education in general has driven down the pay of these roles. If there were good funding for the education sector in general, these roles would not need so much protection. While we are considering giving more bargaining power, we also need to ensure that there is enough funding for education so that those roles can be paid, otherwise there will merely be fewer of them. I think that is something we need to take into consideration, do you not?
Laurence Turner
I thank the hon. Member for Chippenham for her intervention. I agree with her up to a point. Teaching assistants’ wages have increased by about 24% on average over the period that we are talking about, while the consumer prices index has increased by 40% over the same period, so there has been an erosion in wages. We could talk about funding at great length. However, as she said, it is beyond the scope of the Bill and the clauses that we are discussing.
The matter goes beyond funding and pay, as important and relevant as those two issues are, because it is also about contracts and about terms and conditions. There are real problems, which we will discuss, involving the construction of term-time only contracts as they currently exist. We saw in the Harpur Trust v. Brazel decision the liabilities created for employers, as well as for workers, by existing contracts inherited from negotiating arrangements that are not fit for purpose. There is a strong rationale for extending and separating the negotiation over terms and conditions, as well as over pay. That point has been recognised for a long time. Given the complaints that we have heard from the Opposition about what they see as the expeditious drafting of policies and clauses in the legislation, I hope they welcome having this matter before us, which has precedent and is the result of more than 20 years of policy development.
It was recognised as far back as the 2005 schools White Paper that an early challenge for the school workforce agreement at that time—signed, I think, in 2003—would be ensuring fair pay and rewards for support staff. We want to ensure that that is supported by a more coherent approach to union recognition at school level, clearer career paths and skills escalators, and a more standardised and benchmarked approach to grading, job descriptions, contract awards, deployments and school support staff training and development. Those are exactly the issues that we are talking about. It is sad to look back at those complaints from 20 years ago and to realise just how little progress has been made.
The decision to increase the number of school support staff workers, which was carried forward by Governments of all parties, was taken because at the time the workload of teachers was far too high. There were serious problems of classroom management and teachers found themselves undertaking a huge number of administrative duties, rather than teaching. Those complaints are current today, but it was worse then, and that was remedied by the introduction of more school support staff workers.
My hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge spoke about her own experience. I can also speak from direct experience, having been a special educational needs and disabilities kid during that time, about the value to me of school support staff workers. I do not think I would be here in this Committee without them. However, for too long we collectively have not recognised their contribution.
The Minister made the point that the National Joint Council for local government services is not adequate for school support staff workers. The Green Book was never designed to accommodate those roles, and it is an anachronism that school support staff workers continue to fall under the Green Book. Indeed, while the Confederation of School Trusts has some wider concerns—I think one of the Opposition’s amendments is modelled on the submission that the CST made to the Committee—it has said that it agrees that the time is right to take school support staff negotiations out of the local government umbrella.
I know from representing school support staff workers in the past that they are some of the lowest paid workers in the public sector. I have represented some—primarily women—who have been forced to resort to food banks and payday loans to make ends meet, but they often still dip into their own pockets to provide educational essentials to children who do not have enough to get by. That record has led school support staff to be reclassified as being in low-paying occupations, which should really be a badge of shame for us. The logic of live and let be, and of deregulating and letting a thousand flowers bloom across schools, has not worked, and I would be interested to hear what the Opposition have to say on that.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman says that the great educational experiment has not worked, but would he not acknowledge the significant improvement in our children’s ability to read, write and do mathematics over the past 14 years? Scores in the programme for international student assessment show that standards of reading, writing and mathematics have improved enormously in England—although they have regrettably fallen in Scotland, for reasons we can imagine. I am really proud of the achievements of the coalition and later Conservative Governments in improving educational standards. The freedom granted to academies—the freedom to innovate and to employ staff on the terms and conditions that they wish—has been critical in that, but the Government are rolling back those freedoms. Does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge the educational achievements of the past 14 years?
Laurence Turner
That was quite a generous amount of time for an intervention. The hon. Member may wish to go back to the record, because the point I made was that the experiment over pay and terms and conditions has failed. The challenge to the Opposition was: do they recognise that there is a serious problem with school support staff remuneration and contracts? If they do, what are their proposals to fix it? I would be willing to take a second intervention on that point.
Greg Smith
Much as the hon. Member for Chippenham said, this is about political choices. If this new Labour Government, six months in, wish to make a political choice to fund schools to pay support staff more, why do they not make that political choice and make that money available? We all want people to earn more, to get more in their pay packet and to be richer.
Laurence Turner
I think we have it there: the Opposition do not see this as a political priority. They chose not to take steps or to put forward meaningful proposals to raise the employment standards of school support staff. My challenge was: do they have any proposals for this group of workers, particularly in light of the Low Pay Commission decision? We have not heard an answer.
Greg Smith
I am glad the festive spirit is alive and well, but I remind the hon. Gentleman—there is no sugar coating it for Opposition Members—that the Labour party had a thumping victory in July. There is no general election on the horizon, and there is little chance of any change of Government before 2029, so it is on the Labour party to make political choices for the next four and a half years. Will the hon. Gentleman do that, or is he just going to deflect back to the Opposition?
Laurence Turner
I doubt I am going to do it personally; as with all these things, it is a collective endeavour. The hon. Member asked whether the Government are going to do this, but they are doing this—it is in the Bill. I ask again: what is the Opposition’s alternative? We are yet to hear it.
It is worth reflecting on the nature of these review bodies—not that this is a pay review body; it is a negotiation body—and the way in which we establish new agreements, because these things do not happen quickly. I think that the establishment of “Agenda for Change” in the NHS took seven years from initiation to completion. That exercise took a long time, but I do not think anyone would seriously argue for going back to the plethora of terms and conditions, and the mismatch between different grades of workers, that existed before, which created serious equal pay liabilities. That is the situation that we inherit in respect of school support staff.
These things do take time. If the shadow Minister goes back to the record of the original school support staff negotiating body—from 2009 to 2010—the progress made in that relatively short time was not on establishing the new pay system, but on drawing up model role profiles and moving towards a national handbook for terms and conditions. Those measures would be hugely welcome today. In fact, the Conservative Government acknowledged that some the school support staff negotiating body had done some important work during that time. They were on record as saying that there was a clear case for carrying forward some of it, but that never happened, and we have been left with an absence in that area of policy for almost 15 years. The changes to pay will be hugely welcome when they come. It will be a negotiation, so the outcomes will be a matter for the parties represented on the negotiating body, including the Department for Education.
We must go back to the problem: schools are finding it increasingly difficult to recruit and retain skilled school support staff. A number of private sector employers, including supermarkets, are increasingly offering term-time only contracts, with the intention of attracting people out of schools and into alternative roles. Freedom of information requests show that, where data is held, teaching assistant vacancy rates run at around 10%. That is having a real impact on the ability of schools to deliver inclusive education, which is a shame.
Nick Timothy
On schools’ ability to deliver, my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater asked the hon. Gentleman a moment ago to acknowledge the significant rise in the performance of English schools in the PISA rankings and other international comparative studies. Will he clearly say whether he acknowledges or denies that rise?
Laurence Turner
That is a direct question. We could talk about the way the PISA rankings are constructed.
The Chair
Order. We are not going to talk about that; we are going to talk about the Bill.
Laurence Turner
That is fine—I think that applies to both the intervention and the response. A direct question had been put about whether there is an alternative proposition on pay and terms and conditions, which is the matter we are considering today. I hope we will have an opportunity to talk in much more detail about the matters the hon. Member for Bridgwater raised, but the Opposition could not answer that direct question.
It is a shame that there is not more agreement on what is a very real policy problem. We have a serious—dare I say it—road-tested proposal in the Bill to reinstate the school support staff negotiating body. I am none the wiser about what measures the Opposition propose, but it is important that the clause be part of the Bill.
The Chair
Order. Obviously, education matters are relevant to the context of the discussion, but this is not a debate about education policy as such.
Uma Kumaran (Stratford and Bow) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Mundell. I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and to my membership of GMB union. I note the comments that you have made, but if I may I will just respond to the shadow Minister, who talked about the previous Conservative Government’s record. I draw his attention to an article published by the London School of Economics that said that England was an outlier among OECD countries, having both lower numeracy and literacy levels among school pupils.
Nick Timothy
Does the hon. Lady accept that it is not just the PISA rankings that show great advances in achievement in English schools, but the TIMSS—trends in international mathematics and science study—report published last week? That report said exactly the same thing: English schools are ahead of any comparable western country.
The Chair
Order. I am sure you did not wish to do it, Mr Timothy, but we are going down exactly the opposite route to the one I suggested. Let us stick to the Bill.
Uma Kumaran
The school support staff negotiating body—to stick to the Bill—is an important part of the Bill and will help to ensure standardised fair pay and employment terms across the board, addressing not only local but regional disparities.
School support staff make a massive contribution to the running of our schools. Just last Friday, I visited the Odessa school in Forest Gate in my constituency, which has an above-average intake of SEND pupils, and I saw at first hand the contribution the support staff made. That is why the Bill, and this clause, are so important—because those staff, too, deserve to have their contributions properly recognised through a negotiating body. At present, their job profiles are out of date, opportunities for professional development are poor and the work they do often goes largely unrecognised or unnoticed. The SSSNB can play a major part in tackling the recruitment and retention crisis across our schools.
I do not think anyone could look at our current approach to school staff and say it is a functioning system—that is certainly not what I hear from teachers when I visit local schools. Local support staff have told me the hardships they are under, and the TUC has shared a report with us showing that one in eight workers use food banks, a quarter take second jobs and half are actively looking to leave their role because they cannot make ends meet.
The attitude—which some may call neglectful—that we have had towards school support workers due to the approach taken by the last Government has sent a clear message that they simply are not valued. By re-establishing the school support staff negotiating body, the Bill will change that. I therefore commend the clause to the Committee.
Sir Ashley Fox
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. We are discussing clause 28 and schedule 3, and the hon. Member for Birmingham Northfield asked what the Opposition’s proposal would be. Well, nothing needs changing—the clause and schedule are completely unnecessary. I say that because it is my belief that the way the education system in England is delivered—mostly by academies—is a successful model. The Government’s proposals will harm our education system because they will take freedom away from schools and academies. There is a fixed amount to be spent on education, and the governors of schools and academies are best able to decide where those resources are allocated.
The hon. Member for Birmingham Northfield told us it was unfair that some teaching assistants have lower pay than others and that their terms and conditions are not identical. He also said it was difficult to retain and recruit teaching assistants. If that is the case, the governors of a school or the leaders of an academy can pay more to recruit the staff they need.
What we see from the Government is a belief that Whitehall knows best. They intend to centralise terms and conditions and will try to specify how much each teaching assistant in each school will work, because that suits their political agenda and the agenda of the trade unions that pay for their election campaigns.
Laurence Turner
Why does the hon. Gentleman’s argument against central direction-setting not apply to teachers? Is he arguing for the abolition of the School Teachers Review Body?
Sir Ashley Fox
Teachers are different because teaching is a profession that should certainly agree not to strike on pay and conditions, in return for the provision of the pay review bodies, which should play an integral part in ensuring that children’s education is not disrupted by industrial action. I would be happy to grant academies the freedom to pay a little more or less for scales, although perhaps that is not currently possible. I want the maximum freedom granted to academies and schools because, fundamentally, I believe they are best able to allocate the limited resources.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Buckinghamshire said, if the Government really wanted to raise pay and improve conditions for teaching assistants, it is in their power to increase substantially the amount of money available for schools. They choose not to do that, but instead say that schools must stick to certain parameters on pay and conditions that will not enable schools to deliver the best education for children.
It is important that I talk briefly about the enormous improvement in educational standards for our children, which has been enabled by the freedom that academies have been granted. Clause 28 and schedule 3 start to roll back those freedoms. My fear is that this is the start of a process in which we will see educational standards in England deteriorate.
Laurence Turner
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way a second time. He describes a picture of extraordinary success. Classroom-based support staff spend the majority of their time supporting SEND learners. Does he regard the SEND system as a success?
Sir Ashley Fox
I am trying to think of how clause 28 and schedule 3 relate to SEND education, and I am struggling. I do not believe that the SEND system is a success, and I do not think that more central control is the way to solve that. In fact, one of the problems is that every time there is a problem, we in Parliament and Whitehall think, “The solution is a directive from above. That will sort out the problem.” That is precisely the model that the Government are adopting in clause 28 and schedule 3: “There’s a problem with low pay, so we will set up a process in London that will help matters.” That is not true at all.
I hope we can all agree that the purpose of spending money on education is to improve the life chances of our children. How are resources allocated? Are they best managed on a school basis or an academy basis? Or are they best decided in London? I argue that they are best decided on a school or an academy level. As I say, I fear that clause 28 and schedule 3 are the beginning of a process in which we will see more and more central control exerted over schools, and that that will lead to worse outcomes for our children.
Justin Madders
I will respond in the strict terms that you have directed, Mr Mundell. I also point out to Members that an education Bill will be presented today. So there will be an opportunity for the wider debate that Members are keen to have, when that Bill gets its Second Reading in due course.
Nick Timothy
I will avoid the temptation to start to read out the PISA statistics. It is important that the Bill that is published today is seen alongside this Bill, because together they chip away quite substantially at the academy freedoms that have been behind school reform. It would be good to hear the Minister acknowledge that fact.
Justin Madders
Of course, the Bill has not been published yet, so we cannot stray into that. We may be able to get on to it this afternoon, but we are trying to help some of the most poorly paid people in our society, who do such an important job. My hon. Friends the Members for Penistone and Stocksbridge, for Birmingham Northfield and for Stratford and Bow all talked about how important teaching assistants are, particularly in supporting those with special educational needs. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield was right that it is shameful that the Low Pay Commission has now deemed teaching assistants to be part of the low pay environment. We are determined to address that, which is why the reinstatement of the SSSNB is an important step.
Let us reflect on some of the evidence that we have had—for example, the GMB evidence. Andy Prendergast said:
“we see increasingly more pupils with special educational needs go into mainstream education, and they need that additional support.”––[Official Report, Employment Rights Public Bill Committee, 28 November 2024; c. 132, Q136.]
Some of those staff do detailed things such as phonics, supporting pupils with special educational needs and disabilities, and help to deliver classes.
I take the point that has been made about the NJC being an inappropriate way of evaluating and assessing job value. It is clear—indeed a number of other pieces of written evidence have supported our assertion—that the NJC is not the right vehicle for assessing teaching assistants’ pay. We believe that the SSSNB is the way ahead.
The hon. Member for Bridgwater talked about this being a centralising move. Of course, the SSSNB will comprise mainly employers and employee representatives. It will not be a Whitehall-dominated machine.
Sir Ashley Fox
But to the extent that the SSSNB will decide the terms and conditions of assistants in Bridgwater, Mid Buckinghamshire and Birmingham Northfield, and those conditions will apply to all teaching assistants, regardless of the school’s or academy’s view on the subject, it is a centralising measure, does the Minister not agree?
Justin Madders
It is a necessary measure because, as we have seen, teaching assistants and school support staff have suffered in recent years. The point that the hon. Member for Chippenham and several other Members made about funding is correct. It will, of course, be incumbent on future Governments to ensure that any proposals that come forward are affordable. It should be noted that the recent Budget put some additional funds into special educational needs.
Let us look at why this measure is needed. We know that there is a chronic issue of low pay, a lack of career progression and damaged recruitment and retention among school support staff. A survey of teaching assistants found that 27% were considering leaving education altogether—surely we need them to stay—while 60% cited low pay as a reason for leaving, and 40% said that lack of opportunities for progression was. Eighty-nine per cent of schools said they found recruitment difficult, particularly in respect of teaching assistants, and 78% said they found that group hard to retain. There were similar figures in terms of the difficulties with the recruitment and retention of teaching assistants with SEND specialisms.
We are setting up this body to recognise that these people do a critical job in our education system and that they are not properly represented at the moment. They do not have a proper voice, and they do not have a proper mechanism to ensure that the valuable work they do is properly measured, remunerated and recognised. That is why the SSSNB is so important.
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Employment Rights Bill (Fourteenth sitting)
Tuesday 17th December 2024
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Employment Rights Act 2025 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 17 December 2024 - (17 Dec 2024)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 12 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 11 / Noes: 4 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
I beg to move amendment 168, in schedule 3, page 115, leave out from the beginning of line 15 to the end of line 31 and insert—
“(1) In the case of staff employed under subsection (3)(b) of section 148C, matters within the SSSNB’s remit are limited to the establishment of a framework to which employers of school support staff must have regard when discharging their functions.
(2) A framework under subsection (1) must include information on—
(a) the remuneration of school support staff;
(b) the terms and conditions of employment of school support staff;
(c) the training of school support staff;
(d) career progression for school support staff; and
(e) related matters.
(3) When taking any action related to the matters in subsection (2), an employer may disregard the framework only in exceptional circumstances.
(4) For the purposes of subsection (3), the definition of ‘exceptional circumstances’ shall be set out in regulations.
(5) In the case of staff employed under subsection (3)(a) of section 148C, the matters within the SSSNB’s remit are matters relating to the following—
(a) the remuneration of school support staff;
(b) terms and conditions of employment of school support staff;
(c) the training of school support staff;
(d) career progression for school support staff.
(6) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide that, for the purposes of subsection 5—
(a) a payment or entitlement of a prescribed kind is, or is not, to be treated as remuneration;
(b) a prescribed matter is, or is not, to be treated as relating to terms and conditions of employment of school support staff;
(c) a prescribed matter is, or is not, to be treated as relating to the training of school support staff;
(d) a prescribed matter is, or is not, to be treated as relating to 30 career progression for school support staff.”
This amendment would change the matters within the SSSNB’s remit in relation to academy staff, limiting it to the creation of a framework to which academy employers must have regard in all but exceptional circumstances.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz, at the Committee’s last sitting before Christmas—let us make it a memorable one. [Laughter.]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Justin Madders)
They are all memorable.
Greg Smith
Some are definitely more memorable than others.
Amendment 168, tabled in my name and that of my hon. Friends on the Conservative Benches, would change the matters that are within the remit of the school support staff negotiating body in relation to academy staff, limiting it to the creation of a framework to which academy employers must have regard in all but “exceptional circumstances”. I am sure that Government Members will agree to a moderate amendment in the spirit of what they seek to do.
As I said in the debate on clause 28, which introduces schedule 3, in 2010 the then Conservative Secretary of State for Education, Michael Gove, rightly abolished the school support staff negotiating body. The Conservative Government had a clear and principled reason for that: employers should have the flexibility to set pay and conditions locally, rather than having a top-down, centralised framework imposed on them. Instead of giving employers the flexibility to do what works best for them, this Government are establishing a national terms and conditions handbook on training, career progression routes and fair pay rates for school support staff.
These things can sometimes get taken out of context, so I want to be clear: we are not advocating for a race to the bottom on pay and conditions for school support staff, but we believe that the current arrangements are working well and have allowed for innovation that is beneficial for pupils—real children up and down the land receiving their education. Our worries about the re-establishment of the school support staff negotiating body are principally that we believe that school employers must retain a degree of freedom and flexibility to recruit, develop, remunerate and deploy their staff for the benefit of the children in their community—their setting—to achieve their particular aims from a school improvement and inclusion perspective.
Children with special educational needs and disabilities rely on schools’ ability to deploy staff to meet their individual needs, and stifling innovation in staffing to meet those needs would be the greatest barrier to reforming the SEND system. In particular, ensuring that mainstream provision can meet the needs of SEND children requires, in its very essence, an innovative use of support staff resource.
As I have said in previous debates, I salute all support staff, whether they support children with SEND or other- wise. They are great assets to every school who do an enormous amount of good work for every child they work with on a daily basis—I am thinking of the example given earlier by the hon. Member for Birmingham Northfield, and the way in which they interact with and support my own children in their schools in Buckinghamshire. They are hugely important, but this is about ensuring local decision making, local flexibility and the local ability to shape what is right for children’s education, development and future life prospects.
For those reasons, we believe that the statist approach created by the Bill is fundamentally misguided, and that children, particularly those with additional needs, could be worse off because of it. All school employers operate in a competitive market to attract and retain staff. I accept that in the education world it is currently particularly difficult to recruit teachers and support staff—there is no doubt that that has been a challenge for a considerable number of years—but, particularly in relation to support staff, schools compete with other local establishments, including in the private sector, and employers in local markets. Incentives to attract and retain staff are needed.
Our concerns with the re-establishment of the school support staff negotiating body do not end there. Academy trusts sign a funding agreement with the Secretary of State that gives them certain freedoms, among which is the ability to set pay and conditions for staff. What the Government are trying to do with the Bill is therefore to unpick a clear, established and positive freedom that academy trusts have. To take that away from them would be a retrograde step. The Bill explicitly overrides that contract. As for school support staff, it states:
“Where the person is employed by the proprietor of an Academy, any provision of the Academy arrangements relating to the Academy has no effect to the extent that it makes provision that is prohibited by, or is otherwise inconsistent with, the agreement.”
His Majesty’s loyal Opposition worry that this is just the start of the Government’s longer-term mission to unwind academy freedoms, and that it shows that they fail to understand how to support educational excellence.
The data on key stage 4 performance recently released by the Department for Education shows that academies and free schools tend to perform better than other types of school. We therefore believe that it would be counterproductive to unwind one of the key tenets that has led them to where they are today. There is always room for improvement, but when things are travelling in the right direction it is foolish to put barriers up. Our amendment would change the SSSNB’s remit so as to create a framework that academies must have regard to but are not compelled to follow. That seems a reasonable compromise, and I ask the Government to consider it carefully.
In this context—we are all creatures of our own experience—I think particularly of examples from my constituency of Mid Buckinghamshire and the county of Buckinghamshire more widely. I think I brought up this example in relation to other sectors in earlier Committee sittings. Because the county of Buckinghamshire borders London boroughs, rigid pay scales make recruitment an even greater challenge, because of the London weighting issue. Many teaching assistants, school support staff and, frankly, staff in any sector—we will come to adult social care later in the Bill, and care workers are equally affected—who live in Buckinghamshire and perhaps want to work there feel compelled to go and get the extra money that the London weighting would bring by applying for a job in, say, the London boroughs of Hillingdon or Harrow. Nobody can blame them for doing that, but it creates a recruitment challenge for Buckinghamshire, Hertfordshire, Essex, Kent, Surrey and other London-bordering counties.
The amendment seeks to correct for what the Government are trying to do with schedule 3, and so to maintain the freedom that allows academies in Buckinghamshire and those other counties to dynamically adapt their pay and offering for school support staff and counter those challenges. It would mean that schools in Buckinghamshire that want to employ people who want to work in Buckinghamshire can get them on board, rather than there being a false incentive that forces people to take jobs in one of the London boroughs and secure the London weighting that goes with them. That is one practical example of why I believe that academies, and free schools for that matter, should have that core freedom and flexibility to get it right for their children.
Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz.
I think I am correct in saying that Buckinghamshire is one area that has opted out of the National Joint Council, so I recognise that the shadow Minister brings a particular perspective to the debate, but the final line of the amendment states that
“a prescribed matter is, or is not, to be treated as relating to 30 career progression”.
I assume that is just a typographical error, but it would be good to have that point clarified.
More widely, I do not think the amendment is necessary. In some ways, it is quite loosely worded. It seeks to put in the Bill a reference to a framework, but a framework is not defined and that would not be clarified through later regulations. Therefore, I am not sure that the wording before us would necessarily resolve the Opposition’s aim, and the meaning of “framework” is probably not something that we would want to have out in the courts.
On the wider issues, the shadow Minister said that the proposals in the Bill would overwrite the funding agreements, but part of those agreements is a requirement for academy employers to have regard to the academies handbook, which is altered as part of the normal course of public policy, so such variations are not especially new. As I say, I do not think that what is in front of us would achieve the Opposition’s aim. The reinstatement of the school support staff negotiating body was a manifesto commitment. It would be problematic to say that a manifesto commitment could not be implemented because funding agreements were already in place. It is quite proper for the Government of the day to pursue their public policy objectives in this manner.
I would like to correct the record. In the morning sitting I said that freedom of information requests had established that, where data was held, the vacancy rate for teaching assistants was 10%. The actual figure is 18%. I just wanted to put that higher number on the record.
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
I should warn the Committee that I have a frog in my throat and a bit of a cough, but I think it is known that I used to work for the former Prime Minister, Baroness May, and I have seen how to get through a speech with a cough.
The amendment is important because it seeks to protect one of the academy freedoms that have made English schools the best in the west. I say English and not British schools advisedly, because education is devolved and, in Scotland and Wales, standards have gone not forward but backward. In Wales, the average pupil reaches about the same level of attainment as the average disadvantaged pupil in England, yet it is the Welsh model that the Government seem to be intent to follow. So the amendment is all about seeking to protect the academy freedoms behind the success of the school reforms of which the Conservatives are rightly proud.
According to the programme for international student assessment—or PISA—rankings, English primary school- children are the best readers in the west. On 15-year- olds, they say that schools in England are 11th in the world in maths, up from 27th in 2009; 13th in science, up from 16th; and 13th in reading, up from 25th. That is an unqualified success story. Yet I am afraid the Education Secretary and Ministers in the current Government repeatedly claimed that standards fell under the Conservatives.
Laurence Turner
The hon. Member is making an interesting argument. I am keen to tease out the evidence for the assertion that there is a relationship between the decentralisation of pay and terms and conditions, and performance. Can he explain why, then, the overwhelming majority of academies subscribe to the National Joint Council green book terms and conditions? Is that not, in fact, an argument for collective bargaining as a handmaiden to academic success?
Nick Timothy
I am doing my best to remain in scope, Ms Vaz.
If I may say so, the hon. Member asks a characteristically precise and intelligent question. I suggest that members of the Labour party who want to move away from academy freedoms look first at what Labour figures such as Tony Blair and Lord Adonis say about why those freedoms matter.
It is a bit like with the Bill overall: just because some employers choose to hit certain standards, that does not necessarily mean that those standards must then be imposed in a uniform manner through legislation. The point about academy freedoms is that, a little like labour market flexibilities, they are cumulative. If we look at the list of academy freedoms—whether in respect of the terms and conditions that schools are able to employ staff on, the relationship with councils and how admissions are decided, or the policy of having to respond to school failure through academisation—we see that they are all being picked away at, partly through this Bill and partly through the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, which we discussed briefly earlier and is being introduced today. While that Bill has not been published, as the Minister corrected me earlier, there is a description on gov.uk of the measures in that Bill, and it is quite clearly a reversal of policy when it comes to academisation. The reason that school reform has worked over this time is not just because of particular measures about things such as the promotion of a knowledge-rich curriculum, or didactic teacher-led instruction, or anything like that. Those are the means by which lots of schools have chosen to use their academy freedoms in order to improve standards—
The Chair
Order. This is the Employment Rights Bill, not an education Bill. I do not know how long you are going to continue, but could we move to a possible wind-up, Mr Timothy?
Nick Timothy
Perhaps we could, but I am trying to make the argument that, in the end, when we are talking about employment in the public sector—when we are talking about terms and conditions and things like that—yes, these things are obviously of huge importance to the employees themselves, but they are also important regarding the way in which employers set themselves up. The purpose of a school is obviously to educate our children, and the ultimate objective is to drive up those academic standards. That is the context in which we are discussing these particular academy freedoms and what this Bill therefore does.
It is the case that free school and academy founders have been in the vanguard of reform, precisely because they have been able to use their freedoms from local council control—freedoms to develop the curriculum in their own way, to set things such as the school day and term dates, and to decide the pay and conditions for their staff themselves. We can see that in the data that is published: it is not just about things such the PISA rankings; it is also about things such as the trends in international mathematics and science study, an international comparative study, which was published a couple of weeks ago and showed that, despite the pandemic, English schools have actually improved and have outperformed almost all western countries.
It is also the case that the progress data that the Government have published demonstrates that the best schools in the country have benefited from exactly those kinds of freedoms. The best school in the country, looking at performance data, is Michaela, which is a free school. Free schools and academies far outperform normal maintained schools when it comes to that data, and that is because of the freedoms that we are talking about trying to defend through our amendment.
I know that this is a debate for another time, but I am very disappointed that the Government have cancelled the next wave of free schools, that they have weakened things such as Ofsted and its inspection framework, and that they want to water down discipline policies and so on. I am very disappointed as well that, through measures such as this, the Government are watering down the academy freedoms that have done so much to make our schools the best in the world.
Sarah Gibson (Chippenham) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship this afternoon, Ms Vaz. I share the passion of the hon. Member for West Suffolk for education—as I stated earlier, both my parents became headteachers before retirement—so I appreciate that he is very concerned about the state of education in our country. However, I am very concerned that this amendment is in danger of creating a slightly two-tiered system between maintained schools and academies, whereby maintained schools would have a certain level of protection for their staff that would not be there in academies.
If this change is so important for the academies, my question to the hon. Members for Mid Buckinghamshire and for West Suffolk would be that, if this is good for academies, surely it is good for maintained schools? In that case, why are we not arguing that this whole Bill should be changed, and that this whole clause should be taken out and the change therefore applied to all schools?
I am also concerned about the separation of requirements for one school and not for the other.
Greg Smith
Does the point the hon. Lady is trying to argue go to the very reason for having different types of school in the system? Academies were set up by the last Labour Government for a reason, which was to have additional freedoms such as those the amendment defends. Free schools were set up by the coalition Government, of which the Liberal Democrats were part, to have a different set of freedoms—in that sense, parental and governing body freedoms that are over and above everyone else. If we were to make all schools the same, surely that is an argument for one style of school alone.
Sarah Gibson
I appreciate the clarification. The point of free schools and academies was to have a diversity of education. A diversity of employment rights, which is what we are discussing, is a different element. If we end up with a situation where I, as a member of support staff, am looking at two jobs in my region, and one is with a maintained school and one is with an academy, and there is protection for one, I can only see that as detrimental to our academies. I am unable to support a provision that separates those two types of school.
Greg Smith
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way once more. She is presuming that the academy would be offering a lower rate, but in fact, it might be the case that, in order to attract staff, the academy offers something much higher.
Sarah Gibson
I appreciate the point, and the shadow Minister is quite right: I was assuming that without support there might be such a situation. However, that does not detract from the fact that in most situations, having a body that someone can go to that is independent from their employer has to be a supporting situation. Nobody would go to that body for support if they were being paid above the average in their area.
Laurence Turner
Is it the case—perhaps this gets to the heart of the matter—that the proposed way that the SSSNB would work is that a matter would be referred to a body, an agreement would be reached, and it would be passed back to the Secretary of State to write it into regulations? Nowhere in the Bill does it say that that would be a ceiling. If it was something that was negotiated between the parties, it would be a floor that could be improved on. There is nothing in the Bill to stop that happening.
Sarah Gibson
I appreciate the clarification. That makes perfect sense—it would be unlikely that a body representing employees would create a ceiling, so I cannot help feeling that that issue is not likely to come up. With that in mind, I am unable to support the amendment.
Justin Madders
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this afternoon, Ms Vaz, and as always I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, and my membership of the GMB and Unite trade unions.
The shadow Minister will not be surprised to hear that we are not going to accept the amendment, as it would drive a coach and horses through what we are trying to achieve. The remit in the Bill gives the negotiating body the scope necessary to negotiate and reach agreements on pay and conditions, and advise on training and career progression for all school support staff. The Secretary of State may then incorporate agreements reached in support staff contracts through secondary legislation. As has been pointed out, that would be a floor. It will be possible for schools to innovate above that, and the detail will be worked out in due course. This is about creating a baseline for terms and conditions, not a ceiling.
As the shadow Minister knows, as roughly half of the 24,000 state-funded schools are academies the amendment would seriously undermine the policy intention of the SSSNB. We believe that about 800,000 employees would be positively impacted by the Bill, but the amendment would mean that school support staff in academies would have no voice, and no opportunity to raise their concerns about pay, career progression and training prospects, which we know are real issues, particularly in the SEN sectors. There would no vehicle for them, because they would not be part of this body. Of course their employers would have to have regard to what the SSSNB decided, but there would be no legal requirement for those terms to be incorporated into individual contracts. I think that misses the point of what we are trying to achieve here. I do not accept that there is a connection between good educational outcomes and low pay for teaching assistants, which seems to be the thrust of the argument from the Opposition. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield said, the references in the amendment to a framework are not particularly helpful, as it is not defined and would create more confusion. We should say that it is not just academies that can demonstrate excellence in innovation. All schools have the ability to do that, and there will be room for all schools to continue to innovate under the legislation and meet their local recruitment needs.
Greg Smith
I listened very carefully to what the Minister and the hon. Member for Birmingham Northfield said about amendment 168. I was open to dialogue on it to see if we can make it stronger and improved. Its proposed new subsection (2) sets out all the information we would expect to see in such a framework. There are five parts including the remuneration of school support staff; the terms and conditions of employment of school support staff; the training of school support staff; career progression for school support staff; and—the lovely catch-all phrase that drafters love to put in—all related matters. I would say that it is pretty clear what we have laid out.
To get to the nub of the argument, this is not about some sort of race to the bottom. It is not about, as the Minister asserted, arguing for low pay. That is not what we are doing at all. This is a point of principle about support for the academy system, which was brought in by a former Labour Government, and support for free schools, which was brought in by a coalition of the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats. The three main parties in this House on that basis are broadly aligned, unless anyone has radically changed their mind—perhaps they have, and 2015 probably did focus some minds.
This is a point of principle of diversity in the education system, and central to the diversification of offer is that those establishments, in this case academies, have the freedoms to decide things themselves, locally. In this case, it is on pay and terms and conditions but, wary of the fact that I do not want to go out of scope, it can be on other things as well. To take that away would be the retrograde step that I spoke about. It would undermine academies, and it would undermine the very point of having choice and the diversity of offer in the education system for parents.
Justin Madders
The shadow Minister is talking about choice, but the Bill does not remove any academies from the current system. Will he confirm that?
Greg Smith
No, of course it does not remove academies from the system, but it does take away a freedom and power that all those wonderful academies, many in my own constituency and I am sure some in the Minister’s, currently enjoy to be able to set their educational offer, including the power of who they recruit and on what basis they recruit them. I come back to the point I made when I intervened on the hon. Member for Chippenham; if we are going to just make everything the same again, there needs to be an honesty about actually advocating that from the Government, from the Liberal Democrats or from whoever it might be. I value and welcome the choice that we have in our education system, and this is one of those freedoms that makes that choice possible.
Michael Wheeler (Worsley and Eccles) (Lab)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Sarah Gibson
I could not agree more with the hon. Gentleman about the importance of diversity of education. One of the things that academies and free schools have done very well is cater for children with learning difficulties, whether they are dyslexic or autistic, or doing all the other things that probably many of us in this room have benefited from. However, basic rights as an employee of an institution and the right to protection and a body to go to if somebody feels that they are being unfairly treated have little to do with diversity of education. I cannot help feeling that we are conflating the two issues of employment rights and educational standards, which do not necessarily go hand in hand. Paying staff well does not stop an institution having a diverse and fantastic form of education.
Greg Smith
I think the hon. Lady has potentially misinterpreted my remarks. I am not directly conflating the pay of staff with the educational outcome: I am saying that there are academies that may well be able to structure their own affairs in the way they recruit, pay and set terms and conditions so that that is actually more favourable. That is one of those fundamental freedoms that make academies—and free schools, for that matter—different and able to offer the diversity that we both seem to celebrate, particularly in supporting those children who need additional support to whatever degree in that setting. Someone else was waving at me a minute ago.
Michael Wheeler
I am more than happy to wave in a friendly manner in this festive sitting. As usual, I draw attention to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests of my membership of the GMB and USDAW. We have heard the phrase “academy freedoms”, with a lot of emphasis put on freedoms. We have also heard the Minister confirm that diversity is not being lost in terms of educational choice. We have heard that teaching assistants, according to the Low Pay Commission, have unfortunately been defined as low-paid workers. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the only “freedom” —I use inverted commas there, for the sake of the record—being lost is the ability of academies and free schools to pay poorly?
Greg Smith
I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman makes, but I caution him against this presumption that those academies want to pay poorly, somehow mistreat their staff or set pay rates so low that most of us would think that it was an absurdity. I am not sure that they do; I am not sure that anybody wants to pay their staff as low as they can get away with. Those academies often advertise and appeal for staff, be they teaching assistants, teachers, ancillary staff or whoever, in a manner that actually makes them more attractive than the other offerings. That is part of the freedom to set up the school in the way that they wish and to ultimately deliver the best possible outcome for the children they are teaching and preparing for their future lives.
I come back to the point that if we start stripping away the freedoms and rights of those establishments to have local control, in this case around employment, I do not see any other natural conclusion than trying to bring our entire educational establishment back into being one single style of education. There may be some on the left—I say “the left” broadly; I am not just looking at the Labour party—who would welcome going back to simply having the secondary modern or whatever it might be. To be fair to her, the hon. Member for Chippenham agreed with me on the point of diversity and choice in education. It is a huge strength and a benefit to all children in this country that we have that level of different offering and choice in our educational establishment, and it has made our country fundamentally better. For total fairness, I repeat the fact that it was the last Labour Government who introduced academies.
Nick Timothy
I reassure my hon. Friend that the danger he is talking about is not just hypothetical. Special advisers in the Department for Education have briefed the newspapers, calling free schools a “Tory vanity project”. I find that absolutely appalling, as somebody who believes—
Nick Timothy
Yes, and free schools have the academy freedoms that we are talking about undermining with this and other legislation. I just wanted to draw that example to my hon. Friend’s attention.
Greg Smith
I am grateful to my hon. Friend; he is always reassuring. He raised an important point. Given that, as he highlighted, free schools enjoy the same freedoms —they are specifically referred to in amendment 168—as academies, I am worried that the Government’s attitude to free schools indicates that they are rowing back on support for them.
Justin Madders
The shadow Minister keeps referring to freedoms, but does he accept that the only freedom that would be given to academies by virtue of this amendment would be the freedom to pay their staff—I am not saying that they would—lower than the national terms and conditions?
Greg Smith
I come back to this point of principle: either we have autonomous bodies that can make their own decisions or we do not. If the Government’s answer is that we do not, I certainly understand why they do not want this amendment, but I do not understand why they persist with their support for that which they created in the first place—the academisation of so many schools—and resist making the more straightforward argument for a one-size-fits-all education policy. I hope they do not adopt such a policy, because of the progress that the Labour party made through academisation in the first place. However, that is the natural conclusion of what the Minister is saying.
Alex McIntyre (Gloucester) (Lab)
I refer to my membership of the Community and GMB unions. In the break, the shadow Minister challenged me, saying that I had been very quiet this morning—I was feeling festive, but perhaps I am feeling less festive now. Let us take the analogy about choice that he is trying to set out and put it in a slightly different context. Private limited companies are often seen as the drivers of growth, and we have heard lots about that from the Opposition. Those companies have lots of freedoms to make decisions and to invest where they want, but they are all subject to the national minimum wage. Is the shadow Minister suggesting that a national set of terms and conditions will remove academies’ freedom to make entrepreneurial decisions? I am interested to hear whether the Conservative party’s position is now that the national minimum wage should also be abolished.
Greg Smith
No. I did challenge the hon. Gentleman on his quietness in the morning sitting, and he has not disappointed this afternoon, but of course that is not the position of the official Opposition. The last Labour Government brought in the national minimum wage, but the last Conservative Government brought in the national living wage. We are absolutely committed to that, but it is a rule that applies equally and evenly across every sector in the economy. In schedule 3 and amendment 168, we are talking about a specific carve-out of an existing position for one specific sector.
Justin Madders
I beg to move amendment 65, in schedule 3, page 116, line 6, leave out “education”.
This amendment, and amendments 66, 67, 69, 70 and 71, make a minor drafting correction.
Justin Madders
Amendments 66 and 67, and 69 to 71, make minor drafting corrections to the clauses to remove the word “education” when referring to local authorities. This is necessary because of an error in terminology used in the Bill on introduction.
I will also speak to amendment 68. We know that academy trusts use a range of innovative practices to support staff in a range of roles. The sector and the workforce have evolved since the previous negotiating body for school support staff existed in 2009. That is why we intend to consult on the definition of support staff in scope and appropriate protections for staff in transitioning to the new arrangements. The consultation may bring to our attention staff in academy trusts who are not captured by the existing definition of support staff, working wholly at one or more academies, but who we think should be. Having the ability to broaden the scope, as well as to exclude staff types in secondary legislation, would give us more flexibility to respond to the consultation.
Greg Smith
As the Minister said, amendment 68 extends the definition of school support staff in the Bill to include people who do not work in an academy, but who are employed by the proprietor of an academy to carry out particular kinds of work, to be specified in regulations—it is our old friend, waiting for future regulations to be laid before the House—for the purposes of one or more academies. The other amendments in this grouping are minor drafting corrections, and we accept that. I merely want to put on record once more that had this Bill not been so rushed to meet the arbitrary political 100-day deadline, we might not be in this place, and we might have had greater clarity from the get-go. We accept, however, that these are fundamentally minor amendments that really should have been included at introduction.
Justin Madders
The shadow Minister’s comments are noted, and I commend the amendments to the Committee.
Amendment 65 agreed to.
Amendments made: 66, in schedule 3, page 116, line 8, leave out “education”.
See the explanatory statement for amendment 65.
Amendment 67, in schedule 3, page 116, line 10, leave out “education”.
See the explanatory statement for amendment 65.
Amendment 68, in schedule 3, page 116, line 13, leave out from “employment” to end of line 14 and insert “which—
(i) provides for the person to work wholly at one or more Academies, or
(ii) provides for the person to carry out work of a prescribed description for the purposes of one or more Academies.”
This amendment extends the definition of “school support staff” in new Part 8A of the Education Act 2002 to include people who do not work at an Academy but are employed by the proprietor of an Academy to carry out particular kinds of work (to be specified in regulations) for the purposes of one or more Academies.
Amendment 69, in schedule 3, page 123, line 31, leave out “education”.
See the explanatory statement for amendment 65.
Amendment 70, in schedule 3, page 123, line 33, leave out “education”.
See the explanatory statement for amendment 65.
Amendment 71, in schedule 3, page 124, line 13, leave out “education”.—(Justin Madders.)
See the explanatory statement for amendment 65.
Greg Smith
I beg to move amendment 123, in schedule 3, page 124, line 39, at end insert—
“(2A) Before making or revising arrangements under sub-paragraph (1), the Secretary of State must publish and lay before Parliament an impact assessment of the costs on the education sector of any proposed arrangements.”
This amendment makes a requirement from the Secretary of State to undertake an impact assessment of the costs on the education sector before making or changing arrangements related to the School Support Staff Negotiating Body.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 124, in schedule 3, page 126, line 9, at end insert—
“(1A) The report must include an assessment of the increased costs to the education sector of any pay and conditions agreements made in that reporting year.”
This amendment requires the annual reports of the School Support Staff Negotiating Body to include the cost of pay and conditions agreements.
Greg Smith
Amendment 123 requires the Secretary of State to undertake an impact assessment of the costs to the education sector before making or changing arrangements related to the school support staff negotiating body. I have already spoken, probably at greater length than anybody particularly wished me to, about our reservations over the re-establishment of the body—in particular the way that it will override the traditional academy freedoms that seem to trigger Government Members so much.
I am interested in what assessment the Secretary of State has undertaken about the current arrangements for pay and conditions for support staff, and in whether the Minister can provide concrete evidence about the shortcomings and how those would be rectified by re-establishing the school support staff negotiating body. In other words, is the policy driven by evidence or by ideology? The amendment asks for the Secretary of State to come clean about the costs of the proposed arrangements, not just to the schools budget but to pupils in schools.
We had some back-and-forth earlier about how, if they are to work, the changes made by the Bill need to marry up with the real-life pay settlements and budgets made available by the Treasury. Otherwise, the net result will be that schools will have to obey the rules as set out in the Bill without getting any additional money to pay for doing so. Who will suffer if the school is asked to do that? It will be the children and pupils, because of the number of textbooks, laptops, iPads or interactive screens and boards—all the things that are used in education—that the school can buy.
Laurence Turner
I am trying to understand what the shadow Minister means by cost to the education sector. Does he mean the running cost of the body itself or the cost of an agreement? If he means the latter, how could that possibly be accounted for when, as we have heard, any new pay scale is likely to be some years away and would be subject to negotiation?
Greg Smith
The answer is, of course, both. There will be a cost to the body and a cost to the individual education establishments—the academies, free schools and so on—that still fundamentally rely on a funding settlement. One pot of money can only go so far. I accept that the body itself will be separately funded, but the pay awards that individual schools would have to make will not. If schools are being asked to swallow the cost, they will have to find it within their budgets.
I am sure that I am not alone in having visited schools—other hon. and right hon. Members will have done so in their own constituencies—where headteachers say that they have to have this debate when setting their budget every year. Over the decades, Governments of all political persuasions have given them things to deliver and rules to follow but only one pot of money, so something has to give. If they are to follow the rules, the ones who suffer are children, through the equipment and books that the school is able to purchase.
The amendment is a reasonable one. It requires one of those impact assessments, so that we can all be absolutely clear. When we vote, in whichever way, on this Bill as it passes through Committee, Report and Third Reading, as well as ping-pong with the other place, we can be really clear about what these provisions mean on the ground for real schools and real children going through their education. As I think we all accept, that is so important to their future lives.
Amendment 124 requires the annual reports of the school support staff negotiating body to include the cost of pay and conditions agreements. We believe it is important that there is transparency over the additional costs and burdens that this new body will impose on school employers. What might those costs be? Will the Department for Education appropriately compensate school employers for them? I will not repeat the arguments that I made on amendment 123, but the point is fundamentally the same. The amendments are designed to probe the Government properly on what the measure will mean in the real world.
Laurence Turner
I want to come back on some of the points that the shadow Minister raised. I appreciate his clarification about exactly what information the Opposition are trying to tease out with amendment 124. I hope he does not mind me saying that the cost of any future settlement agreement is speculative in nature. We heard from the Minister earlier that part of the remit that Ministers will give the body will be about affordability and the funding available at the time. It will probably be several years in the future when that new pay scale comes into force, albeit that there is some good work that the SSSNB could be getting on with in the interim that would have very low costs for the sector.
We have some information about how much the body itself would cost. An answer to a written parliamentary question in 2011 put the estimated cost saving of abolishing the SSSNB at £1.4 million over the spending review period. That was about £350,000 a year. In today’s prices, we are looking at close to half a million. That is a very small fraction of a percentage of the Department’s budget, and it is probably an overestimate given that civil service wages have not kept pace with inflation over that time. The former education spokesperson for the Labour party, Andy Burnham, who was involved in the setting up of the original SSSNB, described it as a “low-cost panel”. That is exactly what we are talking about here. I hope that that provides some reassurance that amendment 124 is not necessary.
The SSSNB produced annual reports, which were published by the Government in the normal way. The Department for Education tracks the costs of school support staff pay increases. That information is made available, including to sector representatives, through the schools and academies funding group. I hear what the shadow Minister says, but I do not think these amendments are necessary because the information is unknowable or already available, or it will be made available in the normal course of business.
Sarah Gibson
For similar reasons as I was concerned about previous amendments, I feel that I cannot support this amendment. I think it is unnecessary to add more complications to the system on things that are probably already covered in other areas.
Justin Madders
I thank the shadow Minister for tabling amendment 123 and 124 and for raising these issues. The Department will assess the cost implications of the constitutional arrangements of the SSSNB prior to constituting it, but it would be disproportionate to require an impact assessment. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield referred to some costs; those costs have not necessarily been pinned down at this stage, but they are clearly below the level at which a formal impact assessment would normally be required. It is envisaged that the costs of the body will be limited to administrative expenses and fees, so we do not think that amendment 124 is necessary.
The Bill requires the constitutional arrangements for the SSSNB to provide for it to prepare annual reports; it allows the Secretary of State to specify the manner in which reports are published. Assessing the impact on the education sector of agreements reached will be important, prior to the Secretary of State’s ratification of any agreements. We anticipate that the Department for Education will undertake an assessment of affordability and impact, as it will be better placed to do so than the SSSNB itself. It is important to note that there will be employers on the SSSNB who will be part of the body making those recommendations, so they will have those considerations at the forefront of their mind.
Considerations of cost and affordability will be an important part of any discussions and negotiations that take place in the SSSNB. Annual reports are likely to set out the work undertaken by the body, but the exact detail of what will be in the annual reports will be agreed at a later date; I do not think that it would be appropriate to specify that in the Bill.
Greg Smith
I cannot remember a single time in the last Parliament when the then Opposition would have made the case that there was no need for an impact assessment. I put that to the Minister very gently as a point of principle that is specific to amendments 123 and 124. However, I understand the argument that he is making.
The Opposition still think that the Bill’s approach is flawed as to diversity across our educational establishments. We will not press our amendments to a Division now, but we reserve the right to revisit the matter when we come up for air on Report, once the Minister has had time to reflect on the implications of his policy. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the schedule, as amended, be the Third schedule to the Bill.
Justin Madders
As the Committee has discussed, clause 28 introduces schedule 3, which provides for the establishment, remit and functioning of the school support staff negotiating body. Paragraph 1 of schedule 3 will insert into the Education Act 2002 a new part 8A, which contains proposed new sections 148A to 148R.
New section 148A will reinstate the SSSNB as an unincorporated body. Reinstating the SSSNB will give school support staff the voice and recognition that they deserve as a crucial part of the school workforce. It will help to address the recruitment and retention challenges facing schools and will drive standards in schools to ensure that we give every child the best possible chance in life.
New section 148B sets out the remit of the SSSNB for remuneration, terms and conditions of employment, training and career progression of school support staff, and the powers of the Secretary of State to define what is or is not to be treated as falling within those categories within the regulations. This ensures clarity over the remit of the SSSNB and what can and cannot be referred to it by the Secretary of State. The remit will lead to a national terms and conditions handbook, fair pay rates and clearer training and career progression routes for school support staff in England.
New section 148C defines school support staff in relation to who they are employed by and their role. Support staff are defined as all staff, other than qualified teachers, who are employed by local authorities, governing bodies and academy trusts to work wholly at schools in England. The 2009 SSSNB included only those support staff employed by local authorities and governing bodies to work in maintained schools within its scope. Support staff employed by academy trusts are now included in the SSSNB’s remit, despite the shadow Minister’s attempts to persuade us otherwise.
It is crucial that the body have a remit for all state-funded schools in England to achieve greater national consistency, irrespective of the type of school in which support staff work. Roughly half of the 24,453 schools in England are now academies, compared with approximately 200 in 2009 when the body was previously established. New section 148B gives the Secretary of State a power to prescribe in regulations those who will not fall within the SSSNB’s remit.
Amendment 68 will allow the Secretary of State to include, through secondary legislation, those who do not work wholly at academies within the SSSNB’s remit, by reference to the type of work that they do. The Department currently holds limited information about the roles in which support staff are employed in academies or the terms and conditions under which they work. It intends to consult on which roles should and should not be within scope of these provisions. These powers will provide the necessary flexibility to respond to that consultation and amend the remit of the SSSNB as necessary.
New section 148D sets out the power of the Secretary of State to refer matters to the SSSNB that are within its remit, namely those matters relating to remuneration, terms and conditions of employment and training and career progression of school support staff. Referrals by the Secretary of State to the negotiating body will mean that those representing employers and employees can agree and advise on suitable outcomes for school support staff within the parameters set out by the Secretary of State in relation to wider Government priorities and context.
New sections 148E and 148F set out the powers of the Secretary of State when referring matters relating to remuneration, terms and conditions of employment and training and career progression to the SSSNB. The Secretary of State may specify factors that the SSSNB must consider and a timescale for their consideration. The new sections set out the steps that the SSSNB must take, depending on whether it has or has not reached agreement on matters relating to terms and conditions. Where the Secretary of State refers a matter relating to the training and career progression of school support staff to the SSSNB, the SSSNB is required to provide a report on the matter to the Secretary of State, rather than reaching agreement.
New section 148G will give the SSSNB the power to consider matters within its remit that have not been referred to it, with the Secretary of State’s agreement. This will give the SSSNB the ability to raise alternative matters that it wishes to negotiate or advise on. Agreement from the Secretary of State is required from the outset to ensure that no work is undertaken on a matter that could be considered to be outside the SSSNB’s remit. It will also ensure that the body has sufficient capacity to consider referred matters within the required timescale, alongside any additional matters that the SSSNB wishes to consider.
New section 148H sets out the Secretary of State’s powers in relation to agreements submitted by the SSSNB. The Secretary of State may ratify an agreement in secondary legislation in full or in part—if in part, the part not ratified falls away—or refer the agreement back to the SSSNB to reconsider it under new section 148I. This power is necessary to ensure that any agreements are practicable—for example, that they are affordable—before being incorporated into contracts. The ability for the Secretary of State to ratify agreements in part is a pragmatic approach to allow matters with agreement to progress and to avoid delays if there is an element of an agreement that the Secretary of State is not content to agree.
New section 148I sets out what happens where the Secretary of State refers a matter back to the body for reconsideration. The Secretary of State may specify factors to which the body must have regard in reconsidering the agreement and by when it must revert.
New section 148J will apply where the SSSNB has submitted an agreement to the Secretary of State after reconsideration. The Secretary of State has powers to ratify the agreement in full or in part in regulations; to refer the agreement back to the SSSNB for reconsideration; to make regulations requiring prescribed people to have regard to the agreement in exercising prescribed functions; or to make regulations that make alternative provision in relation to the same matter. The new section gives the Secretary of State a range of powers to determine the best course of action based on the agreements from the SSSNB to ensure that the desired outcomes for school support staff are met and are practicable.
New section 148K sets out the process if an agreement cannot be reached by the SSSNB on a matter relating to school support staff remuneration and terms and conditions referred to it by the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State may specify a later date by which agreement must be reached or may make regulations in relation to the matter referred to the SSSNB if there is an urgent need to do so, but the Secretary of State must consult the SSSNB before making those regulations. This will ensure that the Secretary of State is able to regulate as necessary in the event that agreement cannot be reached, for instance on a pay award for school support staff.
New section 148L sets out the Secretary of State’s powers if the SSSNB fails to submit a report on a matter relating to the training and career progression of school support staff by the deadline set by the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State can specify a later date for the SSSNB to report or issue guidance on the matter. This ensures that the Secretary of State can still issue guidance on training and career progression to support recruitment and retention in the absence of a report from the body.
New section 148M sets out the effect of regulations made by the Secretary of State that ratify agreements reached by the SSSNB in full or in part. The terms of the agreement are imposed in a person’s contract of employment so that a member of school support staff must be paid and treated in accordance with those conditions. Any inconsistent terms in contracts of employment or academy funding agreements have no effect. That allows the Secretary of State to make changes to the pay and terms and conditions of school support staff as agreed by the SSSNB, in order to ensure fairer pay rates and greater national consistency, boost recruitment and retention in those roles, and drive improved standards in schools.
New section 148N sets out the effect of regulations made by the Secretary of State where she decides not to ratify agreements reached by the SSSNB or where the SSSNB fails to reach agreement on a matter. Where the Secretary of State decides to make regulations imposing terms and conditions into school support staff contracts, for example because there is an urgent need to make changes to terms and conditions and the SSSNB has failed to reach agreement on them, school support staff must be paid and treated in accordance with those terms and conditions. It is important that the Secretary of State has the ability to legislate to provide fair terms and conditions for school support staff in the event that the SSSNB fails to reach an agreement.
New section 148O will allow regulations made under part 8A to have retrospective effect, subject to their not subjecting anyone to a detriment in respect of a period that falls before the date on which the regulations are made. This will allow the Secretary of State to backdate pay awards agreed after the start of an annual pay period to ensure that school support staff may benefit from them for the entirety of the period.
New section 148P sets out how and when the Secretary of State and the SSSNB can issue guidance on matters within the SSSNB’s remit. The SSSNB, with the Secretary of State’s approval, can issue guidance on pay and terms and conditions, as can the Secretary of State. Only the Secretary of State can issue guidance on training and career progression. Local authorities, governing bodies and academy trusts are required to have regard to guidance issued. This will allow the Secretary of State and the SSSNB to support employers in the implementation of new terms and conditions and the promotion of training and career progression opportunities for school support staff.
New section 148Q will provide a carve-out for the SSSNB framework from the collective bargaining provisions in the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The new section is necessary to ensure that agreements reached by the SSSNB can be imposed in contracts only through ratification by the Secretary of State.
Paragraph 2 of schedule 3 will insert a new schedule 12A into the Education Act 2002. New schedule 12A includes provision for the SSSNB to be constituted in accordance with arrangements made by the Secretary of State. School support staff and employer representative organisations on the SSSNB will be set out in secondary legislation; the Secretary of State will be required to consult the TUC before prescribing which organisations represent school support staff.
The membership of the SSSNB will include support staff, employee and employer representatives, an independent chair and a representative of the Secretary of State. It may also include members who do not represent school support staff or their employers. However, only school support staff and employer representatives will have voting rights. The new schedule also provides for administrative support to be provided to the SSSNB, including for the Secretary of State to pay expenses for the chair and for administrative costs incurred by the SSSNB. The SSSNB is required to provide a report for each 12-month period.
I commend schedule 3, as amended, to the Committee.
Greg Smith
After that lengthy oration from the Minister, I can only conclude that when it takes that long to explain something, a bureaucracy is coming that probably nobody wants. As we rehearsed during our debates on amendments to the schedule, it challenges in many respects the freedoms that some of our education establishments enjoy.
As the Bill leaves Committee at some point in January and heads back to the main Chamber for Report, I urge the Minister to reach out to educational establishments—and perhaps to the Department for Education, but real-world schools are probably better—and reflect on the impact that this new bureaucracy will have on them. Is it as streamlined as it can humanly be? The Minister was on his feet for seven or eight minutes trying to explain that bureaucracy. In fairness, he did a commendable job of it, but that does not necessarily make it right. Whether we are in opposition or in government proposing things, we too rarely ask ourselves in the House: have we collectively got this right?
The Opposition believe that this new body—which we in government, along with the Liberal Democrats, removed—should not be brought back in. There is a better way of achieving some of the noble aims that the Government have in this regard and avoiding some of the potential catastrophes that we spoke about earlier. We therefore cannot support the schedule remaining in the Bill.
Sarah Gibson
I support the schedule. Over the past 10 years, we have seen how difficult it has been to retain and employ support staff in our schools, partly because they do not see a career progression and do not see themselves valued. I hope that this body will help to support those staff and will allow them to feel that they are very much part of the education authority and so have that support.
Laurence Turner
We have covered a huge amount of ground in this debate, so I will restrict my remarks to a few matters that have been raised. I say to the shadow Minister that if he thought that the Minister’s summary was bureaucratic and difficult to follow, he should sit through some meetings of the National Joint Council for Local Government Services, which is the dominant mode through which pay and terms and conditions are set.
It is worth reflecting briefly on some of the practical issues in schools that can be remedied through this new approach. It is a well-known problem that schoolteachers’ and school support staff’s pay award dates are misaligned. For schoolteachers, it is September; for school support staff, it is April, with the financial year. That can be a nightmare for bursars, school business managers and large employers, who have to plan their budgets with that significant difference.
In a previous life, I sat through a working group convened by the Local Government Association through the NJC on a vexed issue: how can school support staff’s work out of term-time be calculated on a term-time-only contract, because they are accumulating annual leave but cannot take all of it during term? It was a bit like a version of this Committee that reached no conclusions and never ended. These are real problems that result from the ossification of the NJC system. It is not appropriate for school support staff workers. As we all know, when a pay and grading system becomes ossified, legal danger lurks for employers in the inconsistencies that emerge.
There is no justification for saying that TA level 2 means something completely different in neighbouring authorities. That can become a block on people’s progression and ambitions to relocate. Multi-academy trusts and other academy employers overwhelmingly remain subscribed to the NJC, because this system of pay and grading, which has grown up over decades, is labyrinthine and difficult to follow, and most academy trusts do not have the HR and payroll functions to put something new in place.
We can put some figures on this. The school workforce census carried out by the Department for Education collects data on NJC coverage compared with other pay gradings. For local authority maintained schools, 80% of school support staff are paid on NJC grades, when non-responses are excluded. For academies, the figure is 77%, so there is no huge difference between the two sectors. Even among the remainder, some staff are employed under separate agreements with Soulbury terms, so are quite separate, and a high proportion—possibly even the majority—are paid on NJC-like terms and conditions, although there might be some local improvements to those pay gradings. That is the issue that the Confederation of School Trusts raised in its written evidence, and I think it has been addressed through this Committee. We are seeking to establish a floor, not a ceiling, so local improvements can still be made where employers and trade unions agree them.
The clause takes a lot from the lessons that were learned from the previous iteration of the SSSNB, which is welcome. The clauses on the adult social care negotiating body contain a general provision that any specified matter relating to employment could be referred to that body. Proposed new section 148J is drafted a bit more tightly for the SSSNB—at least, that is my reading of it—so I wonder whether there is a case for aligning the wording for the two bodies.
Let me go back to why we are doing this. School support staff are the hidden professionals in the education system. I did not just represent school support staff; I was once a school governor in a specialist SEND setting, and there were school support staff and teaching assistants. It is important to remember that the term covers site staff, cleaners, caterers and all sorts of other workers, who often do not get talked about. Those workers make lifesaving interventions—they may have to administer medicine or perform a medical intervention that literally keeps a child alive—but they are paid about £14,000 a year. That represents a failure of central Government to account for the pay, conditions and wellbeing of all the people who work in schools. The measures we are discussing are hugely important and welcome, and it is very welcome that the Bill has been brought forward this early in the Parliament.
Justin Madders
I am grateful for Members’ contributions. The shadow Minister gently joshed me about the technical detail but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield pointed out, that is the nature of the beast: it is important that all eventualities are covered. We have not reinvented the wheel here; we have lifted much of what was already in place for the previous iteration of this body, and we have taken some further learnings from that.
On my hon. Friend’s points, we have not needed to take the broader powers of the adult social care body, which we will discuss shortly, because the clauses relating to the SSSNB give it a remit to negotiate terms and conditions, as well as advise on training and career progression. That is broader than its 2009 remit, and we think it covers the areas that are recognised as those that need to be included, in addition to the powers the body had in 2009. Of course, the Bill has to be detailed—it has to be right—because it will affect 800,000 people, and a lot of people in that workforce are on low pay, have poor career prospects and are frustrated at the lack of progression in their job. When setting up such a body, it is important to cover all eventualities.
This is not a novel concept, but it is an important step forward in our industrial relations in this country, and in tackling low pay and insecurity. I am proud that we are able to discuss it today.
Question put, That the schedule, as amended, be the Third schedule to the Bill.
Greg Smith
I beg to move amendment 121, in clause 29, page 41, line 34, at end insert—
“(5A) No regulations may be made under this section before the Secretary of State has published and laid before Parliament an impact assessment of the costs on the social care sector of any proposed Adult Social Care Negotiating Body.”.
This amendment makes a requirement from the Secretary of State to undertake an impact assessment of the costs on the social care sector of any newly proposed Negotiating Body.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 122, in clause 29, page 41, line 34, at end insert—
“(5A) Regulations under this section must, for any Negotiating Body established under subsection (1), include a requirement for annual reports to be published and laid before Parliament.
(5B) Annual reports, required under subsection (5A) must include an assessment of the increased costs to the social care sector of any pay and conditions agreements made in that reporting year.”.
This amendment would require any Negotiating Body established under these regulations to publish annual reports setting out the cost of pay and conditions agreements.
Greg Smith
Amendment 121 would require the Secretary of State to undertake an impact assessment of the costs on the social care sector of any newly proposed negotiating body. Amendments 121 and 122 mirror those tabled in relation to the school support staff negotiating body that we have just spent the best part of an hour and a half debating. That is because our concern is essentially identical: that this is ideologically driven policy, not evidence-based policy.
Can the Minister provide the Committee with the evidence that the adult social care negotiating body is necessary? Has the Department of Health and Social Care made any assessment of the additional costs that may be incurred by the sector? Given that social care is provided across multiple platforms—to use a generic term—from the NHS to local government to many private sector providers, this measure will cross a number of sectors responsible for providing social care, and it is important that there is a cross-governmental impact assessment alongside it that provides a clear understanding of the costs involved to all parties, particularly local government, which is facing extraordinary pressures at the moment.
We have seen what has happened with councils such as Birmingham, which reached the point of bankruptcy, and with other councils that are under considerable financial pressure. When I speak to my council in Buckinghamshire, I hear that much of that pressure is driven by social care. It is a good problem to have; medical advances and technologies are ensuring that people have longer lives, but there is then the requirement for adult social care for far longer than was previously the case. The burden of that is falling disproportionately on local government budgets at the moment, and the Deputy Prime Minister and her Department need a clear understanding of the impact on the local government cost base.
Sarah Gibson
I rise to speak to the amendment, but I note that the whole clause is relevant. As the shadow Minister stated, this debate is fairly similar to the discussion we had about the SSSNB. Our hope for the adult social care negotiating body, similar to that for the SSSNB, is that having a uniform body can help to negotiate and address some of the issues that he highlighted, such as the poor pay and terms and conditions that a lot of adult social care workers suffer.
Social care providers in my constituency, many of which are not for profit, have welcomed the fact that the adult social care negotiating body will include providers, and that they will be able to discuss this issue together. I feel that that is an important point when discussing some of the issues that hon. Members might be concerned about. There is a suggestion that the Government might consider that some of those not-for-profit providers should be included in the negotiating body so that they have a voice.
However, several of the providers in my constituency that I have spoken to have said that, as employers who take their employees seriously and pay them properly throughout the day, they welcome the body on the grounds that it will give them a level playing field against the many employers who do not do that, since they feel that they are commercially disadvantaged against those employers. That is the predominant response that I have heard from employers in my constituency. With that in mind, I will not support the amendment and I do support the clause.
Justin Madders
The shadow Minister will not be surprised to learn that we do not support his amendments. Amendment 121 seeks to require an assessment of the impact of the new negotiating body on the adult social care sector. The Government have already produced a comprehensive set of impact assessments for the Bill, including one on the fair pay agreement for adult social care. That was published on Second Reading and was based on the best available evidence regarding the potential impact on businesses, workers and the wider economy.
The adult social care fair pay agreement will be subject to sector-wide collective bargaining and negotiation. At this stage, our impact assessment provides an illustrative analysis of its potential impact, including the magnitude of the cost to businesses, as well as the benefits for up to 1.6 million social care workers. We intend to refine that analysis over time, working closely with businesses, trade unions, academics and, of course, the Department of Health and Social Care.
As is standard practice, we will publish an enactment impact assessment once the Bill reaches Royal Assent, in line with the better regulation framework requirements. That will account for where the Bill has been amended in its passage through Parliament in such a way as to significantly change its impacts on business. That impact assessment will be published alongside the enacted legislation. In addition, the Government will produce an impact assessment to accompany regulations connected to the establishment of the negotiating body.
The Minister asked why the body is needed—what is the evidence base? He will be aware of the evidence given to the Committee, both orally and in writing, about its importance. The hon. Member for Chippenham spoke of the need for a level playing field, which is certainly a big part of what we are looking at here, because many of us will know from our experiences in our constituencies—never mind the evidence before the Committee—that, fundamentally, the adult social care sector is in desperate need of help. We have known that for a very long time, and if Members care to look at the Low Pay Commission’s recent reports, they will see that it has dedicated a considerable amount of space in them to the challenges in the sector. Trade unions, of course, have also been calling for action in this area for many years.
It is also well known that there are huge recruitment and retention challenges in the adult social care workforce. It is a very large sector, employing about 1.6 million workers, which is about 5% of all people in adult employment, and it plays an important role. The people in those roles are predominantly women and, as was noted during the evidence sessions—and backed up by the analysis in the impact assessment—there are about 130,000 vacancies at the moment. It was also noted that filled posts have reduced by 4% recently, and that the shortfall since 2022 has been plugged primarily by overseas workers, which we know is a topic of great interest.
The turnover rate in the sector is incredibly high: it has been higher than 25% since 2016 and was consistently over 30% between 2017-18 and 2022-23. There were some improvements last year, but that was largely driven by international recruitment, and the turnover rate is generally much higher than the UK average. The impact assessment notes that, while some movement is healthy, the higher rates witnessed can be disruptive and impact not only productivity, but the quality of service, with recipients of care not getting continuity. I think we can all recognise the situation in which a person in receipt of care has a different person turning up every day and how disruptive that can be. It is important to note that recipients of care, and not just the workers, will benefit from the Bill.
We know that low pay is rife, as has been identified by the Low Pay Commission. In December 2023, the average wage was £11, and nearly 70% of workers were paid within £1 of the minimum wage. In the last two reports by the Low Pay Commission, space has been dedicated to underpayment in the sector. In its latest report, the Low Pay Commission said:
“In the social care sector, non-compliance appears persistent”.
The shadow Minister asked a wider point about travel costs. He will no doubt welcome the announcement in the Budget that we are freezing fuel duty, but the cost of travel is a much broader issue than the point he raised. Clause 30 will allow broader questions of terms and conditions to be considered. Clause 39 is also important, because it deals with record keeping. We know from research by Unison that about one quarter of domiciliary care workers are repaid only for travel time, and only 18% of them have the travel time listed on their payslips. Given that these people often earn close to the minimum wage, this is an absolute scandal that needs to be addressed. The shadow Minister made an important point about travel, but we hope that the fundamentals of ensuring that people are paid for that travel time will be addressed by the negotiating body.
Let me turn to amendment 122. The Government are committed to engaging with the adult social care sector on the design of a fair pay agreement, including how the negotiating body will be set up, how it should operate and how negotiations will run. The powers under clause 29 allow for the Secretary of State to create the adult social care negotiating body by regulations and to provide for the smooth and efficient running of that body. The regulations will confirm the type of body being created. The power also allows for reporting requirements to be imposed on the negotiating body, such as producing reports. Engagement with the sector will ultimately influence the type of body that the negotiating body actually becomes. All public bodies have specific reporting requirements to meet transparency standards.
I can confirm that the Department of Health and Social Care has committed to publishing an impact assessment on establishing fair pay agreements in the adult social care sector to accompany the secondary legislation required to establish the negotiating body. It is intended that the assessment will include an analysis of the potential costs and benefits that will arise from a fair pay agreement. On that basis, I invite the shadow Minister to withdraw his amendment.
Greg Smith
I am grateful to the Minister for his remarks, and not least for acknowledging the importance of the points about just travel time and about compensation for using one’s own vehicle and having to purchase the petrol, diesel, electricity, hydrogen or whatever to get around—in a brave new world, who knows what it might be? I invite him to ensure that that can be locked into, whatever the negotiating body has the power to do. I say that not least for rural communities such as mine, where it is not unusual for someone to have to travel for half an hour between many of the villages, and from one person they are caring for to another. That adds up very quickly in terms of not just time, but the cost of the fuel to get them there and the wear and tear on the vehicle’s brakes, tyres and so on.
We will not press these amendments to a Division. However, as the Minister reflects on this issue, I urge him to again ensure that the way in which this new body will inevitably be set up accounts for the multiple different platforms of provision across local government, the private sector and the not-for-profit sector, which the hon. Member for Chippenham talked about. This is a much more complex arena than that of schools, which is much more heavily defined—we spoke about that earlier. I urge the Minister to reflect on that as he potentially brings forward Government amendments or minor surgery to the Bill ahead of Report. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Justin Madders
As Committee members will have noticed, this is a significant group of clauses, which relate to the establishment of a negotiating body for the adult social care sector, a key element of the Government’s plan to make work pay. The body aims to address the long-term issues of low pay and poor retention in the adult social care sector.
The adult social care sector is large, with 1.59 million people working for it in England in 2023-24, which as I have already said is equivalent to 5% of all adults in employment. Poor terms and conditions are associated with higher staff turnover. For example, the Skills for Care annual report states that care workers were less likely to leave their posts if their employers paid above the 3% auto-enrolment rate for pensions, or paid more than statutory sick pay if care workers could not work due to illness. This is a key element of the Bill.
I will speak to each clause in turn. Clause 29 gives the Secretary of State the power to create the adult social care negotiating body by regulations, with the aim of negotiating a fair pay agreement within the adult social care sector. Giving specific powers to the Secretary of State in relation to the body is key to ensuring that the Government have the necessary powers to set up and design this body, and that will take place after engagement with the sector.
The clause ensures that the Secretary of State has the power to create a body that is appropriately made up of members including representatives from relevant trade unions and employers. It also enables regulations to provide for the smooth and efficient running of the body, and for it to be subject to reporting requirements. The Secretary of State will have the power to set out the body’s decision-making process and to make provision for any staff and facilities and for payment of fees and expenses.
Clause 30 defines the matters within the negotiating body’s remit—namely, the remuneration and other terms and conditions of employment of social care workers. The clause enables the body to cover not only pay, but wider terms and conditions of employment of adult social care workers.
We know that the adult social care sector is diverse, so the clause also allows the Secretary of State to add further matters to the remit of the body, provided they relate to a social care worker’s employment. The remit of the body can also be narrowed by the Secretary of State, who has the power to specify in regulations the types of social care worker that fall within the remit of the body.
Members will see that clause 31 defines “social care worker” as including those who work in, or are employed in connection with the provision of, adult social care. The clause specifically excludes from the definition of adult social care anything provided by an establishment or agency regulated by His Majesty’s chief inspector of education, children’s services and skills, to ensure that children’s services are not captured. The clause provides an essential definition of adult social care worker, which the other clauses refer to throughout. Without it, the remit of the body and the scope of the clauses would not be sufficiently defined.
Clause 32 sets out the power of the Secretary of State to make provision in regulations about the consideration by the negotiating body of matters within its remit. In accordance with regulations made under the clause, the Secretary of State will be able to specify conditions that any agreement must meet, such as on funding. It also allows regulations to provide that the body may consider only matters referred to it by the Secretary of State, such as specific terms and conditions for certain types of social care worker, and must take into account specified factors when coming to an agreement.
The regulations that can be made under clause 32 can impose information-sharing duties on the body’s members to enable efficient negotiation and require the body to submit any agreement to the Secretary of State for consideration. They also allow for the body to be allocated clear deadlines for discussion, so as not to delay this important process.
Clause 33 enables regulations to provide that the Secretary of State can refer agreements back to the negotiating body for reconsideration. Making provision for reconsideration of an agreement ensures that any agreement can be refined following review by the Secretary of State and that the Government are not forced to reject an agreement they are unable to implement. It also provides the Secretary of State with an appropriate safeguard to ensure that further work can be done, where necessary, to ensure that a suitable agreement is reached. The Secretary of State can also make regulations that provide for the same matters listed in clause 32.
Clause 34 allows the Secretary of State to make provision in regulations for circumstances where the negotiating body is unable to reach an agreement. Providing a clear process for the body to resolve roadblocks in reaching an agreement is key to ensuring that the body arrives at a conclusion that is agreeable to all parties. In regulations made under this clause, the Secretary of State will have the power to appoint someone to resolve the barriers to an agreement and confer the relevant dispute resolution powers on them.
Clause 35 allows the Secretary of State to ratify an agreement made by the negotiating body and thereby give it legal effect. That is essential to successful implementation and ensures that any agreement provides the maximum protection for affected workers. It allows for sufficient flexibility, because the Secretary of State can ratify part of an agreement, such as implementing some aspects through employment contracts, while leaving others that would be more appropriately implemented through codes of practice.
The regulations may have a retrospective effect, as outlined under clause 41. That is necessary to enable regulations to appropriately fill any gap between, for example, the body reaching an agreement and the subsequent regulations ratifying that agreement, and could be used to backdate a pay rise to the date previously agreed by the body. However, the retrospective effect is limited by appropriate safeguards: regulations cannot make provision that reduces remuneration or alters conditions of employment to a person’s detriment, in respect of a period before the date on which regulations are made.
Clause 36 explains that the effect of ratifying an agreement under clause 35 is to change the employment contracts of adult social care workers included in the scope of the agreement. The ratification regulations can change both the remuneration and the terms and conditions of employment contracts, depending on the content of the fair pay agreement. They also give precedence to the terms in ratified agreements over inconsistent terms in existing employment contracts. For example, if an agreement sets a new minimum hourly rate, that will take precedence over employment contracts that set out a lower rate, and so ensure that the employee enjoys the rate set out in the ratified agreement. The clause is essential to ensuring that any ratified agreement will be on a statutory footing and therefore legally implemented.
Clause 37 gives the Secretary of State the power to make provision in regulations when the body has notified the Secretary of State that it has been unable to reach an agreement. The Secretary of State’s powers under this clause are limited to those matters on which the body has failed to reach an agreement. The powers under the clause are similar to those in clause 35, and enable regulations to override the pay and other terms and conditions set out in social care workers’ contracts.
As under clause 35, the regulations may have a retrospective effect, as outlined under clause 41. That is necessary to enable regulations to appropriately fill any gap between, for example, the body reaching an agreement and the subsequent regulations ratifying that agreement, and could be used to backdate a pay rise to the date previously agreed by the body. However, the retrospective effect is limited by appropriate safeguards: regulations cannot make provision that reduces remuneration or alters conditions of employment to a person’s detriment, in respect of a period before the day on which regulations are made.
Clause 38 gives the Secretary of State the power to make regulations about the creation of guidance or codes of practice in relation to the agreements reached by the body. The clause also enables regulations to impose duties on specific persons in relation to provision in guidance or a code of practice, and makes provision around the consequences of failing to comply with those duties, including increased financial awards in any later court or tribunal proceedings. That will ensure that any pieces of guidance or codes of practice are appropriately followed, with appropriate consequences for parties that fail to comply.
Clause 39 gives the Secretary of State the power to make regulations imposing record-keeping obligations on employers. Similar provisions already exist for enforcing other aspects of employment law, such as the national minimum wage and the working time regulations. The clause therefore gives the power to apply the provisions under the National Minimum Wage Act 1998, to give social care workers a right of access to records. There may be new requirements under a ratified agreement that are not covered by existing record-keeping obligations, and without this clause the employer may not be able to provide evidence to enforcement authorities that the new requirements are being followed. We expect the fair work agency, upon its creation, to take on responsibility for the enforcement of the national minimum wage, including those record-keeping requirements.
Clause 40 will give the Secretary of State the power to make regulations about the enforcement of remuneration terms in ratified fair pay agreements. These regulations can apply enforcement mechanisms used under the National Minimum Wage Act 1998, notably the notices of underpayment regime, and the clause lists specific sections of that Act in relation to enforcement. We do not intend to introduce any criminal sanctions to enforce the fair pay agreement framework. That will ensure that any pay terms can be appropriately enforced by the state, ensuring that employees are effectively paid under the conditions of a ratified agreement. The clause also prevents double recovery of remuneration, ensuring that enforcement cannot take place twice—once for the national minimum wage and again for a ratified fair pay agreement—in respect of the same work.
Clause 41 gives the Secretary of State the power to create regulations under clauses 35 and 37 that have retrospective effect. As we have set out previously, that is to ensure that provision in terms of pay and conditions that falls after an agreement is reached and before the day on which regulations are made can have retrospective effect. That is necessary to enable regulations to appropriately fill any gap between the body reaching agreement and subsequent regulations being passed to ratify that agreement. Subsections (3) and (4) ensure transparency, creating an obligation to publish documents, such as the ratified agreement, that are referred to in the regulations.
Clause 42 makes further provision about the regulations that can be made under the powers in this chapter. These provisions are non-controversial, and they include the option for regulations to confer discretion on a person. That may be needed, for example, to give the chair of the body discretion to deal with a matter during the negotiation process or to give a third party discretion to resolve a dispute in accordance with the regulations under clause 34. Subsections (2) and (3) provide that ratification regulations will be subject to the negative resolution procedure, and any other regulations made under this chapter will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. That is because ratification relates to an agreement that has been reached by the negotiating body and assessed by the Secretary of State as being appropriate for ratification, and it would not be necessary to subject the ratification regulations to detailed parliamentary scrutiny.
Clause 43 simply allows regulations to provide that any actions or agreement by the body would not constitute collective bargaining or a collective agreement as defined in the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The Government have taken that approach because these clauses, and the regulations made under them, will create a new, separate legal framework under which fair pay agreements in the adult social care sector will be negotiated. For example, the clauses provide for a fair pay agreement to apply across the entire sector and to be legally binding when it is ratified in regulations.
That goes further than the 1992 Act, which sets different requirements for collective agreements to be legally binding and envisages that collective bargaining will be on a much smaller scale between one or more recognised trade unions and one or more employers or employer associations. The Government’s intention is very much for the negotiating body’s activities to be a form of collective bargaining, as a concept. It is simply that we cannot have two different legal frameworks to the same process.
Clause 44 is uncontroversial. It simply provides definitions for the terms used in this chapter and ensures that the definition of worker’s contract can cover agency workers who might not have a contract with their agent or the person they have been supplied to work for. That ensures that an agreement can be ratified for agency workers who do not have a contract with the agent or principal. The clause clarifies that references to a ratified agreement may also include references to parts of an agreement that have been ratified.
I am confident of the Government’s ability to deliver this flagship policy, supported by the Health Foundation, which indicated the strong case for improving pay and conditions in the social care sector in its written evidence to the Committee. Indeed, the same thing was noted in much of the evidence that we have heard in support of these measures. I commend clauses 29 to 44 to the Committee.
Greg Smith
As we prepare to begin the 12 days of Christmas, we have the 16 clauses of the adult social care negotiating body. I am not sure which has the better ring to it, but I think only one ends with a partridge in a pear tree.
I have a few questions for the Minister after his impressive run-through of the 16 clauses. I might not have agreed with every word he said, but we have to acknowledge a powerful performance, and he went through such technical detail with such speed. In clause 29, yet again we have the powers to set up a body but only after engaging the sector. There is nothing wrong with engaging the sector, and we encourage regular engagement with any and every sector, but this is yet another example in the Bill of legislate first, consult second. That is always a concern whenever it comes up, and not least on clause 41, where the Minister repeatedly referred to certain retrospective powers.
Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair once again, Ms Vaz. I remind the Committee about my membership of Unison.
We all want to live in a place we can call home, with people and things we love, in communities where we look out for one another and do the things that matter to us. Adult social carers support millions of people every day in that. The shadow Minister rightly spoke about the vital contribution made by social work carers who go to support people in their own homes, but there are other carers who support people who have highly complex needs to live in specialised settings. One of those people is my adult son, who has been in supported living for the last six years. It took a while to find him the right setting, but he is now living in a specialised service that accommodates people who have a diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder, and I am pleased to say that he is thriving.
Members of the Committee may be aware that one of the defining characteristics of ASD is how neurodivergent people relate to, and connect with, the people who care for them. My son sees his carers as being part of an extended circle of trust—not family, but close. After all, why shouldn’t he? They support him with all his daily living needs. They plan his meals, accompany him to the shops to buy food, help him to cook it and keep him company while he eats it. They help him to do all the chores that any 26-year-old young man would rather not do at all. But far more importantly, the staff who care for my son help him in all aspects of his life so that he can achieve the best he can, whether through volunteering to build up his confidence or through educational opportunities to improve his prospects of work.
Many of these staff are highly skilled. I cannot speak highly enough of the work they do. They have worked in adult social care for many years and are dedicated to the people they care for, like my son, but others are new in the job and do not stay long. That is not as a result of not wanting to do the job, but of not being able to afford to stay in the job. In fact, some carers live in poverty. For young adults like my son, the turnover and lack of consistency in staff, which is no fault of the organisation that employs them, means that his extended circles of trust are continually broken down. That leads to a lack of engagement, which affects his mental health and wellbeing.
I wanted to talk about my lived experience to shed light on why the adult social care negotiating body and the whole Bill are so important, because we so need a step change in our attitude to social care. We must respect the work that social care workers do and value it more highly. Three quarters of those who work in the industry are women, and they earn around only 68% of the median salary for all UK employees. It is just not good enough. I welcome the negotiating body, which I believe will be a game changer in addressing low pay and insecure employment. It will send a powerful message to the 1.59 million social care workers in England to say, “You are valued, you are respected and you are part of a profession that I am proud to say the new Government are committed to supporting in the long term.”
Sarah Gibson
I start by thanking the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby for that very personal story. I imagine it has been extremely difficult. She must be very relieved to have finally found somewhere where her son is happy. I have several friends with children in similar situations. I know that it can be extremely stressful.
We are all in agreement that people working in social care have been undervalued for a long time. These provisions are incredibly helpful in bringing them to the fore and in trying to make their conditions of work considerably better. Members on both sides of the Committee have made that point very clearly.
I have one specific concern, which is on clause 41, where it talks about
“provision that has retrospective effect.”
Like the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire, I find the word retrospective in any legislation extremely worrying. My background is in the building industry, and that retrospective element has been introduced many times in the 20 years that I have been in the building industry, to the detriment of many of the hard-working professionals involved.
This clause concerns me because many of our care-provider employers are small businesses, and they are also not-for-profit small businesses. Those small businesses will be in no position whatsoever to provide any retrospective increase in salary if they are asked to do so, because they simply do not have any profits—because they are not for profit—to draw on to pay any increase. I am very concerned that if subsequent legislation were to introduce a retrospective pay increase that these firms do not have provision for, that would detrimentally affect some of these hard-working and useful not-for-profit care providers. As it stands, I will not be able to support that clause.
Justin Madders
I will deal with the point raised by the Liberal Democrat spokesperson and the shadow Minister first. This measure is about the practicality of negotiations. Clause 41 is not trying to say that the body will reach back in time to change workers’ terms and conditions; it is about the fair pay body agreeing terms and conditions, and the period between that agreement being reached and it then being ratified and passed in regulations by the Secretary of State.
For example, if the body said that from 1 April 2028, for argument’s sake, there would be an uplift of whatever pence or pounds an hour to everyone’s pay, and if the regulations enacting that were not passed until July of that year, the retrospectivity would be from July 2028 back to 1 April, so that pay can be included. That is normal in pay negotiations. That is all it is; it is not about trying to unpick previous agreements; it is about the way that anything agreed is implemented.
The shadow Minister said that we legislate first and consult second. As he will be aware, introducing a fair pay agreement in such a huge area of employment in this country is a novel and groundbreaking introduction to our legal system, so we need to put the legislative framework in place, which is what the Bill does. The detail and how it will work in practice is what the consultation and the secondary legislation will deal with. That is the proper way to do this, and that is how we will get this right. The Government are absolutely committed to getting this right. We absolutely recognise the terrible pay and conditions that lots of people in the adult social care sector face and the need for this kind of body to try and drive out those poor practices.
The shadow Minister asked about clause 33 and the ability of the Secretary of State to refer matters back to the negotiating body. He will of course understand that as the Bill is currently drafted the Secretary of State will need to pass regulations in order to enact many of the recommendations from the body. Some will be guidance, but that will still need the Secretary of State’s involvement. It simply would not be tenable for the Secretary of State to be compelled to pass legislation with which they did not agree, so I am sure that the shadow Minister will appreciate why that is in the Bill. We hope that that does not come to pass—it would clearly not be in the spirit of what we are trying to achieve—but we have no way of knowing what the future holds in that respect. It is therefore important for the Secretary of State, who is the person responsible for this system, to have the final say on such matters.
Greg Smith
I took careful notes, and we can check Hansard later, but I am pretty certain that the Minister himself used the word sufficient in his remarks.
Justin Madders
We may have to write to the hon. Member on that. Having furiously double-checked clause 32 during the other hon. Members’ speeches, I cannot find the word sufficient.
My final point relates to the powerful contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby about her personal circumstances and how important it is that we get this right. It is people such as her son who have benefited from good support in social care, and at the end of the day, they are the people who will benefit from stability and security in the workforce and better retention rates. This is about the workforce, but it is also about the people who receive the care, and it is about time that we gave them more priority. That is why these clauses are so important, and I therefore commend them to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 29 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 30 to 44 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
Before I call the Whip to move the Adjournment, I wish everybody a very happy Christmas and a happy new year.
Justin Madders
On a point of order, Ms Vaz. I thank all those who have worked behind the scenes—the Clerks and other staff—to ensure that the Committee has run smoothly. We have had some very interesting debates and made good progress with the Bill. I wish everyone involved a very merry Christmas and a happy new year. No doubt we will see many of them in January.
Greg Smith
Further to that point of order, Ms Vaz. I seek your guidance on how we might put it on the record that we wish a very merry Christmas to everyone involved in this Bill Committee. I might not agree with every word of the Bill, but I appreciate all the work that the civil servants put into supporting the Minister and the Government—and, likewise, for the Opposition, the hard work of all the Clerks, as well as Hansard, the Doorkeepers and security. I wish Members of all parties a very merry Christmas.
The Chair
Thank you, and thank you to all hon. and right hon. Members, the officials and the Clerks, who have been very supportive.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Anna McMorrin.)
Employment Rights Bill (Fifteenth sitting)
Tuesday 7th January 2025
(1 year, 2 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Employment Rights Act 2025 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 7 January 2025 - (7 Jan 2025)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
May I begin by wishing everyone a happy new year? Will everyone please ensure that all electronic devices are turned off or switched to silent mode? We will now continue line-by-line consideration of the Bill. The grouping and selection list for today’s sittings is available in the room and on the parliamentary website. I remind Members about the rules on declaration of interests, as set out in the code of conduct.
Clause 45
Right to statement of trade union rights
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Justin Madders)
Good morning, Mr Mundell. It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair. Happy new year to you and to all members of the Committee. I start by making my customary reference to my declarations in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
This, I hope, is a fairly straightforward and uncontroversial clause; it does exactly what it says on the tin. Currently, there is no general requirement for employers to let their staff know of their right to join a trade union. The clause introduces a legal duty for employers to inform all new employees of their right to join a union and to remind all staff of that right at prescribed intervals. Employers must provide this information alongside the written statement of particulars that they are already required to produce under section 1 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. Specific details, including the frequency and manner of notification, will be set out in secondary legislation following consultation.
A lack of awareness of the right to join a trade union may be contributing to declining union membership and reduced worker engagement in collective bargaining. The clause will help empower workers to become active in protecting their rights. This is a step forward in strengthening worker representation and the collective voice in the workplace, ultimately supporting more effective collective bargaining. I therefore commend the clause to the Committee.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell, and I too wish you and all members of the Committee a very happy, prosperous and healthy new year. If only the optimism of that statement were matched by business confidence around the country as we start this new year.
I understand why the Government want to take this measure, and it is pretty clear that it will happen as part of the Bill. As the Minister prepares for the consultation that he spoke about, I ask him to reflect on how quickly we can give businesses certainty on the frequency with which they will have to remind their employees of their right to join a trade union. Of course everyone has a right to join a trade union—there is no issue with that—but this is yet another thing that HR departments of bigger businesses, and individual owners of smaller businesses, who have to do everything from the HR function down to replacing the loo roll in the toilets, will have to remember to do on a regular basis, and presumably they will face consequences if they do not. It might not seem onerous as we talk about it at half-past 9 on a Tuesday morning in Westminster, but once we start ratcheting up all these different things for businesses—particularly those very small businesses—to do, it will become a burden.
The other thing that I gently ask the Minister to consider as part of his consultation is this. Would it not be a fairer, more balanced and better way of doing things to have in the proposed statement, as well as a reminder to employees of their right to join a trade union, a reminder that they do not have to do so—that there is equally a right not to join a trade union if they do not wish to? It would be much more fair and balanced if the consultation focused on ensuring that both sides are equally reflected—yes, a reminder that there is a right to join a trade union, but equally, a reminder that there is no compulsion and no absolute, set-in-stone requirement to do so. If we could have that, the clause would be much more balanced.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I wish all colleagues a happy and prosperous new year.
I welcome these proposals. Only this weekend, I was speaking with a constituent in Torbay who told me that the unit he worked in had transferred out of the NHS and been taken over by the private sector. He was gravely concerned about sharp practices that he saw being undertaken by the new employer. My best advice to him was, “Have you engaged with the trade union on site? How can the trade union help you? If I can do anything to assist the trade union, I stand ready to help.”
Trade unions are a force for good in the workplace, and many of the proposals that we will discuss today will put us mid-range in the OECD on trade union rights. Far from the extremism that the Conservatives are painting us into a corner with, these measures will actually put us back on an even keel as a nation in our relations with trade unions, rather than something like third or fourth bottom among OECD countries in the rights that we give unions.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell, and I wish you and other colleagues a happy new year.
I want to follow on from the comments made by the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Buckinghamshire, and emphasise that the clause is completely pointless. Of course all workers have the right to join a trade union and the right not to join a trade union. Will the Minister outline the consequences for a small employer of not complying with the clause? Will there be a penalty? Will the employer be taken to a tribunal that can make a protective award? If there will not be a penalty, surely the clause is only performative, and just more evidence that the Government are doing what their trade union masters are telling them to.
Time and again in the Bill, we see measures that are small and inconsequential individually, but in total mount up to £5 billion of additional costs, most of them on small and medium-sized businesses. We see from surveys of business confidence that businesses are reeling under the imposition of additional taxes and of these rights, and the Government’s business-unfriendly stance. While the Minister talks about growth, the actions of his Government point to the very opposite. They believe that somehow they can regulate their way to growth. We start this new year with more regulation from the Government, none of which will contribute to the wealth and prosperity of our citizens.
Justin Madders
There was a mix of responses there. We heard from the hon. Member for Torbay that the Liberal Democrats welcome the clause, I think the shadow Minister was generally supportive, albeit not explicitly, and then the hon. Member for Bridgwater was fairly critical. I will address the points made by all three individuals.
The shadow Minister made a fair point that the frequency with which employees will have to be notified is important. That will be determined by the responses that we get to the consultation. Clearly, we do not want to make this measure too onerous, but we believe that it is important as a matter of principle that employees are aware of their right to join a trade union, for all the reasons that have been amply set out over many months and years.
On making it clear within a notification that the employee is not obliged to join a trade union, I am sure the shadow Minister is aware that the closed shop principle was abolished quite some time ago—possibly not even in his lifetime. [Interruption.] Well, possibly not; perhaps his rest over the Christmas period has made him look more youthful than he is. The precise wording of the notification will be set out in secondary legislation. I am sure it will not be worded in a way that indicates that there is a compulsion on individuals to join a trade union, but it is important that people know of the right.
In reference to the comments from the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Torbay, I too have had many conversations with constituents who have notified me of issues with their workplace. I hope most Members respond with the question, “What has your trade union said about this?” When I ask that, quite often I get the response, “My employer doesn’t allow us to join a trade union.” That response is far too common for my liking. Evidence has been submitted to the Committee, particularly by the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers, about the lack of awareness of employees’ right to join a trade union. In a free society, we should be ensuring that people are aware of their rights.
On the points made by the hon. Member for Bridgwater, the consequences for not notifying an individual of this right will be the same as they currently are for failure to provide a statement of terms and conditions under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002. It is not a free- standing claim on its own; it can be put on top of another employment tribunal claim, and the penalty can be between two and four weeks’ pay.
On the administrative burden, there is already prescribed in legislation a long list of matters about which the employer must notify the employee when they join in a statement of terms and conditions. Really, we are just adding this to that list. We think this is an important measure.
Sir Ashley Fox
I think this comes together with day one employment rights. Take the example of a very small businessman or woman who takes someone on with no written contract, and within a week or two the employment does not work out and the employee is fired. They might be within a—what is the word for the period of time in the first few weeks of employment?
Sir Ashley Fox
Probation period—thank you. It is early in the new year, Mr Mundell. That member of staff might be within their probation period, but if that is not specified in a written contract, that dismissal would be procedurally unfair, according to the Bill. If that same small businessman or woman has not notified the employee of their right to join a trade union, the Minister seems to be saying that the employee will get a protective award of another two to four weeks’ salary on top of that. Can he not see that for microbusinesses, the array of sanctions becomes threatening—many weeks’ wages, for a very short contract that did not work out—and that he threatens to make it very difficult and onerous for them to take on new employees?
Justin Madders
I understand the point the hon. Member makes. I do not think it is helpful to get into hypotheticals about what might or might not happen under the statutory probation system, given that we have not really fleshed out the details. That will happen in due course, but it is already the law that statements of terms and conditions are required to be presented to employees, I think within the first month. There is not an additional burden of extra paperwork that has to be delivered; this is already built into the system, in terms of ensuring that employees receive their statement of terms and conditions when they start employment.
On that note, I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 45 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 46
Right of trade unions to access workplaces
Justin Madders
I beg to move amendment 72, in clause 46, page 50, line 30, leave out “listed” and insert “qualifying”.
This amendment and other amendments to this clause would require a trade union to have a certificate of independence in order to have the rights provided for in the clause.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider Government amendments 73 and 75 to 79.
Justin Madders
The clause makes provision for trade unions and employers to negotiate access agreements, under which employers will be required to permit trade union officials to enter workplaces for various purposes, such as recruitment, organising, and meeting and providing support to existing members. This is particularly significant for unrecognised unions. Access to a workplace can provide an opportunity to recruit and organise with the aim of gaining formal recognition.
The Bill currently provides that any listed trade unions can apply for access to a workplace. Under the current definition, it is possible that employers could use staff associations and non-independent bodies to frustrate independent trade unions’ access to the workplace. Therefore, proposed amendments 72, 73 and 75 to 79 require trade unions to have a certificate of independence issued by the Certification Officer to qualify for access.
The amendments will ensure that clause 46 is used as intended. The clause will ensure that independent unions can initiate and agree access agreements with an employer, while not affecting the existing ability of non-independent bodies to negotiate voluntary access agreements. Amendment 73 inserts the defined term “qualifying trade union” and defines it as a union that has a certificate of independence issued by the Certification Officer. That will apply to proposed new chapter 5ZA of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 only, and amendments 72 and 75 to 79 update other provisions that refer to “listed” trade unions accordingly.
Greg Smith
As the Minister clearly outlined, the requirement for a trade union to have a certificate of independence to have the rights provided for in clause 46 is a tidying up of the Bill. The Opposition are not entirely on board with the spirit of the Bill in this regard, but we welcome its being tidied up and the clarity that the amendments bring to what the Government are trying to do to prevent even more of a free-for-all in terms of access to workplaces.
I have said many times that it is a shame and regrettable that so many of these tidying-up amendments have had to be tabled. Welcome though they are in bringing certainty to businesses about the Bill’s core provisions, if we had not had that arbitrary 100-day deadline, we probably would not be spending our time going through these sorts of amendments, and could instead be debating much more of the substance of the Bill. As I say, the Opposition are not convinced about some of the core provisions of the Bill, but these particular amendments do at least tidy it up to some extent.
Steve Darling
I welcome the amendments. Driving our economy to achieve the productivity that we need must be a mission for all of us in this House. The culture in our businesses is really important, and I think the amendments will drive a positive working relationship between workers and bosses, so that we can see productivity enhanced across the United Kingdom.
Justin Madders
Just that I welcome the support from the shadow Minister, albeit for the wording rather than the spirit of the amendment.
Amendment 72 agreed to.
Amendment made: 73, in clause 46, page 51, leave out lines 1 and 2 and insert—
“(3) A ‘qualifying trade union’ is a trade union that has a certificate of independence.”—(Justin Madders.)
See the explanatory statement to amendment 72.
Justin Madders
I beg to move amendment 74, in clause 46, page 51, line 4, at end insert—
“(4A) ‘Workplace’ does not include any part of a workplace used as a dwelling.”.
This amendment would ensure that the right of access does not include access to dwellings.
This important amendment adds some clarity about the right of access to a workplace, providing an exemption so that the right of physical access does not apply to private dwellings such as the private homes of workers who are working either fully from their home or in a hybrid manner between their workplace and their home. Most exemptions will be provided for and set out in detail in secondary legislation, but we think it is important to set out this principle in the Bill.
We will provide in secondary legislation and guidance more detail on how complex physical access cases, such as care homes, where premises are a mix of residential and a workplace, will be negotiated. To protect the privacy of people living in the premises, that could, for example, set out the terms that it is reasonable for the trade union to comply with when exercising access, for example limiting access to parts of the premises that are used by workers only, and specifying that unions should take a specific route to the particular room where access activities are due to take place. That sort of detail will be set out in secondary legislation following consultation.
Greg Smith
As the Minister says, the amendment ensures that the right of unions to access workplaces does not extend to dwellings. Of course the Opposition welcome that the Government have acknowledged that trade unions should not be able to access private dwellings. The fact that the Bill was introduced in such a manner that would have permitted trade unions to do so begs a number of worrying questions about the speed with which the Bill was drafted. The fact that we are debating whether a trade union should have access to someone’s private dwelling is deeply regrettable. I would have hoped that the Government, from first principles, would acknowledge that it was never an acceptable outcome for anyone to have their own home invaded by a trade union or otherwise.
The way people set up their homeworking arrangements within their own dwelling is very much a matter for them. Balancing what they do in their own home with their family life and perhaps their children’s needs or the needs of someone they are caring for, and the way they structure that should, of course, remain entirely private. This is just another example of the damage that can inadvertently be done when legislation that is not ready is introduced to this House. It makes us question what other mistakes, if I may call them that, are lurking in the Bill that are still yet to be spotted by the Bill Committee.
Greg Smith
Ah, the first intervention of the new year! How could I say no to the hon. Member for Birmingham Northfield?
Laurence Turner
What a dubious honour, but happy new year to everyone in the Committee. Will the shadow Minister acknowledge that there is a body of legislation on trade union right of access in comparable jurisdictions, particularly Australia, which goes back many decades and does not contain such provision? There have been mischief-making campaigns and wild warnings of trade unionists suddenly appearing at the foot of somebody’s bed to carry out a health and safety inspection. All that is being done here is that a step is being taken that has not been taken anywhere else in the world, to my knowledge, to make it clear that this set of circumstances, which exists only in theory, not in practice, will never actually arise.
Greg Smith
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I understand his fundamental point, but before the Government tabled the amendment a feasible interpretation of the rules would have allowed access to a private dwelling. We can all stand or sit here in Committee Room 10 of the House of Commons and think how preposterous that would be and how that it never actually happen, but there are plenty of examples in history where the preposterous has come to be—where someone’s interpretation of legislation or rules or regulations or whatever it may be has brought about perverse outcomes.
We would have been in a much more satisfactory position had the Government, from first principles and at the very start, laid out in the Bill that someone’s private dwelling is just that: private. Although there has been an explosion in working from home and a fundamental shift, particularly in the post-pandemic world, of people actively choosing to work from home, either all the time where they can, or in a hybrid arrangement where they work from home for a couple of days a week and in the office, factory, warehouse or wherever it might be for the other days, it should be an enshrined principle in this country—the free society the Minister spoke of—that a private dwelling should from absolute, unquestionable first principle remain private, and not be an area to which a trade union or otherwise can freely demand access. It is important that private dwellings remain accessible only by warrant, which has to be granted by a magistrate, for clear purposes, such as where criminality or some such activity is suspected.
The Opposition welcome the core text of the amendment, but we want it firmly on the record that such an amendment should never have been required in the first place.
Justin Madders
I feel that we are going to have a few of these conversations again this year. Heaven forbid the previous Government ever amended anything in Committee! We knew the Bill was issued at a challenging pace and that it was large, so there were always going to be elements that needed clarification at this stage. It is right to do that now before it becomes law and well in advance of any practical application. Like amendment 72, this amendment is an example of us responding to concerns raised when the Bill was published. It is probably fair to say that no one actually envisaged trade unions marching into people’s homes, so it was not something we thought it necessary to spell out in the Bill, but that concern has been raised in feedback, and we are able to provide clarification and reassurance. I therefore commend the amendment to the Committee.
Amendment 74 agreed to.
Amendments made: 75, in clause 46, page 51, line 18, leave out “listed” and insert “qualifying”.
See the explanatory statement to amendment 72.
Amendment 76, in clause 46, page 52, line 13, leave out “listed” and insert “qualifying”.
See the explanatory statement to amendment 72.
Amendment 77, in clause 46, page 52, line 26, leave out “listed” and insert “qualifying”.
See the explanatory statement to amendment 72.
Amendment 78, in clause 46, page 53, line 36, leave out “listed” and insert “qualifying”.
See the explanatory statement to amendment 72.
Amendment 79, in clause 46, page 53, line 40, leave out “listed” and insert “qualifying”.—(Justin Madders.)
See the explanatory statement to amendment 72.
Justin Madders
I beg to move amendment 80, in clause 46, page 54, line 11, leave out from “circumstances” to “a determination” in line 13 and insert—
“in which it is to be regarded as reasonable for the Central Arbitration Committee to make”.
This amendment would clarify that, if circumstances are specified under subsection (4)(a), the effect of specifying those circumstances is that it is to be regarded as reasonable for the CAC to make a determination that officials of a union are not to have access (but without requiring the CAC to make such a determination).
Justin Madders
Proposed new section 70ZF(4)(a) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 allows the Secretary of State to prescribe circumstances in which it would be reasonable for the Central Arbitration Committee to determine that a trade union is not to have access to a workplace. Amendment 80 is a minor technical amendment to clarify that, if circumstances are specified under proposed new section 70ZF(4)(a) of the Act, the effect of specifying those circumstances is that it is reasonable to make a determination that officials of a union are not to have access, but it does not require the CAC to make such a determination.
Amendment 81 allows the Secretary of State to prescribe in secondary legislation the matters to which the CAC must have regard when determining whether access is to be granted to a trade union. As an example, that would usefully allow the Secretary of State to prescribe that the CAC must, when making determinations about access, have regard to the presence of a trade union with existing access to the workplace to which another union is seeking access. In that scenario, the amendment provides reassurances that an access request will not be rejected by default if there is an existing arrangement with another trade union. The Government have consulted on the exact details of what the CAC is required to consider when making determinations about access, and secondary legislation will follow Royal Assent to the Bill. With that in mind, I commend the amendments to the Committee.
Greg Smith
As the Minister said, Government amendment 80 clarifies that if circumstances are specified under new section 70ZF(4)(a), the effect of specifying those circumstances is that it is to be regarded as reasonable of the CAC to make a determination that officials of a union are not to have access, but does not require the CAC to make such a determination. Government amendment 81 would allow the Secretary of State to prescribe matters to which the CAC must have regard when considering an application for a determination about access. Therefore, these amendments set out that if the Secretary of State has specified circumstances in which it would be reasonable to decline union access to a workplace, the CAC must accept those circumstances.
That is all well and good, but the access principles, as they are set out, are incredibly broad and make it very difficult for an employer to refuse access. For example, subsection (2)(a) of new section 70ZF specifies that
“officials of a listed trade union should be able to access a workplace for any of the access purposes in any manner that does not unreasonably interfere with the employer’s business”.
That accepts that access can and should be allowed to cause interference, but what would count as unreasonable interference? Can the Minister give any concrete examples? How will businesses know what they are or are not expected to put up with in terms of inconvenience and disruption to their operations? This all seems to be still particularly woolly and ill-defined. It will cause a lot of headaches and a lot of businesses to scratch their heads to work out what they have to put up with, bear the burden of, or lose profit to in order to enable some of the access that the Bill determines will take place.
The circumstances in which it would be reasonable for officials of a union not to have access will be specified in future regulations, but this is an area where it is incumbent on the Government to be very clear—indeed, crystal clear—about where the Minister or the Department feels these regulations should sit, or the operating window in which they should sit, moving away from woolly language and into real practical detail to allow businesses to begin to prepare. Can the Minister give any examples of matters that might be specified by the Secretary of State to set some constraints on the access principles envisaged by the amendments? I know he will say that he wishes to consult, which is all very well and good, but as I said a moment ago, this is an area where I do not think businesses will simply accept the offer of future consultation; they will instead want an operating window with practical examples and very clear language about what the amendments envisage will happen in the future. It is just not good enough for us to be left in this position of trying to second-guess and wonder what things will be like when the consultation finally happens.
Steve Darling
I will be concise and echo the shadow Minister’s call for clarity.
Justin Madders
I acknowledge the points made by the shadow Minister, but of course, as he has already anticipated, my response is that all of that will be determined in secondary legislation following a consultation. That is the right approach. The sort of detailed questions he is rightly posing are best dealt with in secondary legislation and probably in codes of practice as well. That is the kind of detail that would not normally find its way into a Bill. Of course, for me to prejudge any consultation on the circumstances in which it may or may not be appropriate for unions to gain access would of course, be to predetermine the outcome of the consultation.
Greg Smith
I understand the importance of not predetermining a consultation, but will the Minister not accept that, by definition, the Government have to consult on something? There must be a broad range of circumstances around access being permitted or not that the Government intend to consult on. I believe it is reasonable to ask the Minister to provide some practical examples of the range of options on which the Government intend to consult, so that businesses out there, as they watch this blank cheque of a Bill being signed prior to the secondary legislation coming about at an indeterminable future date, will know what that range is.
Justin Madders
The shadow Minister tempts me to set out the kind of detail that I really cannot supply at this stage. Clearly, a consultation document will ask a series of fairly broad questions. Given that we will deal with pretty much every workplace in the country, the consultation will cover a range of different set-ups, businesses, places of work and working arrangements. The question at the start will necessarily be fairly broad, so we can understand the kinds of effects on their ability to carry on their business that firms are concerned about.
Equally, we want to hear from trade unions about their experiences of where they feel that they have unreasonably been refused access or perceived that that might be a risk. The shadow Minister is trying to get me to draw up a consultation document in the Bill Committee, but I am afraid I will have to decline to do so. Clearly, we will come back to this and talk about it in further detail at a later date.
Amendment 80 agreed to.
Amendment made: 81, in clause 46, page 54, line 27, at end insert—
“(6) The Secretary of State may prescribe matters to which the Central Arbitration Committee must have regard in considering an application for a determination under section 70ZE.”—(Justin Madders.)
This amendment would allow the Secretary of State to prescribe matters to which the CAC must have regard in considering an application for a determination about access.
Justin Madders
I beg to move amendment 82, in clause 46, page 57, line 37, at end insert—
“(c) dismiss the appeal.”
This amendment would clarify that the Employment Appeal Tribunal may dismiss an appeal under new section 70ZK(2) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.
The amendment is straightforward, providing clarity that an Employment Appeal Tribunal can dismiss an appeal under the new section 70ZK(2) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. It is a fairly straightforward and self-explanatory amendment.
Greg Smith
As the Minister said, the amendment clarifies that the Employment Appeal Tribunal may dismiss an appeal under new section 70ZK(2) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. Of course the Opposition agree that this amendment should be accepted and put into the Bill, but it beggars belief that the amendment was necessary in the first place. Of course the Employment Appeal Tribunal should be allowed to dismiss an appeal if it finds that to be necessary, but how on earth was a Bill put before this House of Commons—this Parliament—that only envisaged that the tribunal might quash the order or make an order requiring the person to pay a reduced amount to the CAC? How was this Bill introduced in a form in which the dismissal of an appeal was not even an option?
It is extraordinary that a Bill could have been allowed through the write-around process—the various processes that Government have—without this anomaly being spotted and rectified before the Bill was presented and had its Second Reading debate. I gently ask the Minister to reflect on that and go back through the Bill’s provisions to double-check for any other glaring omissions, which I am sure he never wished to see in the first place and is now correcting by the amendment in his name. Could he ensure that the Bill contains no more of these, frankly, howling errors that could cause so much damage?
Steve Darling
Bill Committees are here to check for snags in the final construction of legislation. I am pleased that this snag has been picked up and will be sorted out by this amendment.
Justin Madders
I am not sure that the shadow Minister wants me to check everything again, because it might lead to further amendments and we may have this debate repeatedly. I would gently push back on the suggestion that this is a “howling error”, as he described it. Of course, the Employment Appeal Tribunal already has the jurisdiction of the CAC to hear appeals. It is probably more a case of making sure it is clear that that applies to this particular provision rather than its being an oversight in the first place.
Amendment 82 agreed to.
Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
Justin Madders
Clause 46 formally provides trade unions with the right of access to workplaces where an access agreement is reached between a trade union and an employer following negotiation. This will make it easier for union representatives to recruit and organise and potentially secure a collective bargaining agreement with an employer. It will not impact existing voluntary access agreements between a union and an employer. For unrecognised unions, access to a workplace is an opportunity to recruit and organise with the aim of gaining formal recognition.
In this framework a union can provide an employer with a request for access, to which the employer can either agree or object within a set timeframe. If both parties agree on the access terms, the Central Arbitration Committee is notified to record the agreement and proceed. In the instance that a union and employer cannot agree on access terms, the CAC can impose an agreement. The decision will be guided by prescribed terms which will be set out in secondary legislation. The CAC will have some discretion when making a determination on whether access should occur, and the decision will be subject to principles set out in the Bill that consider both union and employer interests.
The clause also establishes an enforcement mechanism whereby complaints of breaches of an access agreement can be raised with the CAC. The CAC can then vary the agreement, make a declaration that the complaint is well-founded or not, and issue an order requiring specified steps to be taken to ensure that the agreement is complied with. We recently consulted on some specifics of the enforcement mechanism, which various unions and employers contributed to and which we are now carefully considering. Regulations relating to a union’s right of access, such as notice periods for employers and the terms of reasonable access, will be prescribed in secondary legislation after consultation.
Amendments 72, 73 and 75 to 79 require trade unions applying for access to be certified as independent instead of being only listed as a trade union. This will help independent unions initiate and agree access agreements with an employer. Non-independent bodies’ existing ability to negotiate voluntary access agreements will remain unaffected. Amendment 81 will amend this clause to allow for the Secretary of State to set specific matters that the CAC must consider and have regard to. Amendment 74 will ensure that private dwellings are exempt, as we have discussed. Through the provision of a formal right of access, the Government are delivering on our commitment to modernise outdated and ad hoc access arrangements and align them with the 21st century. I commend clause 46 to the Committee.
Greg Smith
We have covered the bulk of the commentary that the Opposition want to make in the debate that we have had on the amendments. All I will say on clause 46 is that there is still so much left for secondary legislation, and I do not think businesses can have any certainty as to what is truly coming down the line until there have been the consultations we have spoken about and the secondary legislation has been laid, debated and, let’s face it, probably passed given the parliamentary arithmetic we have at the moment. While clause 46 as amended is better than what was first presented to the House, there are still many open-ended questions that businesses and trade unions alike will want to know the answers to. I urge the Minister to ensure that his Department moves at pace to get those consultations out there, so that he and the Department can hear from real businesses, trade unions and workers when it comes to the provisions that they are proposing. Then the questions of uncertainty can be ironed out as quickly as possible and nobody is left in the position of not knowing where this is going.
Justin Madders
The shadow Minister is of course right—we do need to get this right and engage with businesses and trade unions about the detail. That is what we intend to do.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 46, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 47
Conditions for trade union recognition
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Justin Madders
The clause makes amendments to the statutory trade unions recognition process, which is administered by the Central Arbitration Committee. Hon. Members will possibly not all be aware of the current statutory recognition process, so I will just take a moment to detail that. Where an employer refuses to recognise a trade union voluntarily, that union can apply to the CAC to obtain statutory union recognition. On application, unions have to show the CAC that, first, they have 10% membership of the proposed bargaining unit and secondly, that they are likely to have a majority in the subsequent trade union ballot. Where the majority of workers in the bargaining unit are members of the unions, the CAC can decide to automatically recognise the union without holding a recognition ballot. However, the CAC must still hold a ballot if it receives credible evidence from a significant number of union members that they do not want the union to conduct collective bargaining on their behalf, or membership evidence is produced that leads the CAC to doubt whether a significant number of union members want recognition, or if the CAC believes that holding a ballot would help further industrial relations. For the union to win, it must then obtain a majority in a recognition ballot and also in that ballot, at least 40% of the workforce in the proposed bargaining unit must support union recognition.
We are committed to strengthening collective bargaining rights and trade union recognition. We believe that strong trade unions are essential for tackling insecurity, inequality, discrimination, enforcement and low pay. Our view is that the existing legal framework needs to be simplified so that workers have a more meaningful right to organise through their trade unions. To achieve that, the clause therefore removes the current requirement for a union to have at least 40% of the workforce in the proposed bargaining unit supporting union recognition. In future, unions will only need a simple majority in a recognition ballot to win.
The current requirement for a union to demonstrate, at the application stage, that it is likely that there will be a majority for the recognition process is a significant hurdle in modern workplaces, which are increasingly fragmented. That is why the clause deletes the requirement for a union to demonstrate on application to the CAC that they are likely to win a future recognition ballot. Now unions will only need to show that they have 10% membership of the proposed bargaining unit for their application form recognition to be accepted by the CAC. We are also considering whether the current 10% membership requirement upon application should be lowered in future. The clause therefore provides a power to enable the Secretary of State to make affirmative regulations, which we will of course consult on, to amend the 10% membership requirement in future within parameters of 2% to 10% as set out in subsection (10) of the clause.
Greg Smith
I am grateful to the Minister for his detailed explanation. I will focus my remarks predominantly around the proposed new range of 2% to 10%. I would think, to most reasonable people, 10% is already a relatively low number: 10% is, generally speaking and in most walks of life, not a difficult proportion for anybody to reach if they truly believe that right is on their side, and they have wider support, with wider mandates to get on and negotiate within those bargaining units, to deliver a better outcome. I would argue that any union that cannot be kept to 10% really is not clearing the first hurdle and is certainly not passing “Go” or collecting the metaphorical £200. I question why it is in any way, shape or form necessary to lower that.
Michael Wheeler (Worsley and Eccles) (Lab)
Will the shadow Minister give way?
Greg Smith
One moment and I will, of course, give way to the hon. Gentleman.
If unions cannot reach 10%, what is the rationale for saying, “Oh well, we’ll just lower it to 2%”? Surely, if the union cannot get to 10%, they are on a pretty sticky wicket and in a situation that one might describe as a wing and a prayer in the first place, so lowering it to 2% is exposing them further.
Michael Wheeler
I draw attention to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, in particular my membership of the GMB and USDAW.
The shadow Minister is painting a very rosy picture of reasonableness and neutrality, of businesses that sit by and allow these things to happen, and of unions that can wander around and have a nice chat and recruit people. Does he accept that the reality in the world of work is actually one of hostility, of difficulty, and the types of measures that this Bill is trying to address so as to restore the situation to an even keel?
The reality out there is hostility to recognition and trade union membership. Therefore, 10% has proven to be a high and often insurmountable barrier, and not actually reflective of the will of workers, rather than when a proper choice, in reasonable and neutral conditions, is put to them. The threshold should actually be lower, to allow the process to take place and for it not to become a tool for erecting barriers to trade union recognition.
Greg Smith
I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman makes and I appreciate his contribution, through that intervention, to this debate. Where I would gently push back is that there are many provisions in the Bill around allowing union access for recruitment, for example, or other things we have spoken about this morning, such as the regular reminders of the right to join—or not—a trade union. Therefore, my central argument is that to most reasonable people, 10% is still a very low bar—it is not a high proportion of anything. So, if the other provisions in the Bill still cannot allow the trade unions to have reached that very modest 10% threshold, something really isn’t working.
Whether you are a passionate trade unionist or not, it must be accepted, from the perspective of how the clause sits as part of the package of provisions in the Bill, that something much more fundamental and problematic is happening for unions to be unable to reach that 10% threshold. I do not accept the hon. Gentleman’s point that there is universal hostility. I accept that in some workplaces there is hostility; that is unquestionable and clearly something that does happen. However, I can equally think of many examples where the relationship between management and trade union may be—to put it politely—difficult, where it is still one of good will and a wish to engage, negotiate and try to come to an arrangement that works for everyone, rather than the absolute hostility that the hon. Gentleman described.
Michael Wheeler
I thank the shadow Minister for giving way again, because I would not want my words to be misrepresented. In no way was I suggesting that there is universal hostility; I was just talking about the reality on the ground and the way that recognition procedures are often used. Let us bear in mind that voluntary recognition agreements are a thing, so these procedures tend to be used where there is hostility. There is not universal hostility in the workplace. In fact, I worked in a union that had the largest private sector partnership agreement with a large private sector employer, and it was harmonious and beneficial for all involved, so I would not want my words to be taken out of context or misrepresented.
Greg Smith
I do not wish to misrepresent the hon. Gentleman in any way, shape or form, but I return to my central argument. Although I entirely accept what he says—that there are examples of hostility—and I understand why the Government wish to take measures to overrule them, it is impossible to view clause 47 in isolation. It must be looked at as part of the package of measures in the Bill. If, having become law, they still fail at some future point to counteract the problems that he talks about, there is something much more fundamentally problematic occurring, which the clause alone would not solve. I therefore ask the Minister to reflect on how he envisages the other provisions impacting the need for the clause to be implemented in the first place, particularly if an already low threshold of 10% has the potential, under the Secretary of State’s direction, to become even more absurdly low by the test of reasonability and go down to 2%.
If Members were to go to the average high street to do one of those dreaded media-style vox pops and ask, “Is 2% a reasonable threshold to allow in any of these circumstances?” I think the general answer would be that 2% is absurdly low, and that 10% is already low enough. The test of public opinion is important. I dare say that many more consultations are to come, and it is important that they tease out what is reasonable and what is not.
Steve Darling
To me, the clause is all about resetting the culture within our employment world, and I welcome the proposals within it. It is about driving the partnership approach that we should have in the workplace. The more we can achieve that, the better for our economy.
Laurence Turner
In an earlier intervention, I failed to draw the Committee’s attention to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests: I am a member of the GMB and Unite trade unions. There has clearly been some learning loss over the Christmas period.
I rise to make a couple of brief points. The shadow Minister said that 10% was not a high threshold. In one sitting before Christmas he encouraged us to listen to Tony Blair, the former Prime Minister; the debates that accompanied the Employment Relations Act 1999 make it very clear that 10% was put forward at that time precisely because it was a high bar for trade unions to meet. It has now been tested by time, and it is the case that for some high-turnover employers the 10% threshold is hard to meet in practice.
I take the point that there might be different views about whether employers’ approaches to trade unions tend to be genial and welcoming or hostile. As former trade union officials, we have had exposure to some of the most hostile employers. There is scope, where there is a limited number of employees who are known to the employer as individuals, to try to whittle down trade union membership to below the 10% threshold. I would also say that 2% is the threshold for the information consultation regulations, which I believe were introduced by the previous Government, so there is some precedent for that lower number.
Let me get to the heart of why we put forward this proposal. The introduction of a statutory recognition regime was an important step forward—we talked before Christmas about some of the historical injustices that gave rise to the regime as it exists today—but there are flaws within it and, where there are flaws, they must be remedied. I draw particular attention to the case of the Amazon Coventry warehouse site, where the GMB union fought a particularly difficult recognition campaign. Having successfully applied for the recognition campaign to start, it suddenly found that the bargaining unit was flooded with a number of new starters, who were very hard to reach in that recognition campaign. Some of that would be covered by the Bill as it stands.
On a related point, the code of practice on access and unfair practices in relation to recognition disputes at the moment does not apply from day one of an application, and I think it is important that that should be changed. This clause clearly contains important changes, however, that respond to some of the adverse and unfair practices that can occur during a recognition dispute. Some Committee members might want the clause to go further in some areas, but as it stands, it should be very strongly welcomed.
Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and to my membership of Unison and the Writers’ Guild of Great Britain.
I am pleased that the Bill will take significant steps to simplify the union recognition process by removing unnecessary barriers that unions currently face. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield mentioned, recent events at Amazon’s Coventry distribution site, where the unionisation effort was defeated by 28 votes, serve as a reminder of the challenges that workers encounter.
I particularly welcome the flexibility in the Bill to lower the membership threshold required to begin the recognition process from the current 10% to potentially as low as 2%. That will give workers the opportunity to organise effectively from the outset. Ensuring that unions need only a simple majority in favour of recognition will mean that the will of the workers is fairly and clearly reflected without being stifled by unnecessary procedural hurdles.
Justin Madders
We have had a good debate. The main focus of the shadow Minister’s questioning was the 2% issue. The first thing to say is that, as it stands, the 10% figure will remain. We are simply giving ourselves the power to reduce it to 2% following consultation, although as various Committee members have powerfully set out, including my hon. Friends the Members for Worsley and Eccles and for Birmingham Northfield, there is a strong case for it to be reduced from the current 10%. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield pointed out, the previous Government set a precedent in this area with the reduction to 2% in the Employment Rights (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2019, which were introduced not long ago.
The shadow Minister must understand that these measures are about the very worst employers that are actively hostile to trade unions. Most employers recognise the value of a trade union and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles pointed out, enter into voluntary arrangements, but there are examples, such as the GMB-Amazon dispute, of unwillingness to engage. I remember the example of an employer not far from where I live who sacked all the people who joined the trade union. It will not surprise the shadow Minister that no one wanted to join a trade union after that. That is a clear example of why, in the most extreme situations with hostile employers, it is difficult to increase trade union membership. Of course, we also now have workplaces that are much more fragmented, because there is more homeworking and hybrid working, and people are often out in the field.
Greg Smith
I beg to move amendment 126, in clause 48, page 61, line 20, at end insert—
“4A In subsection (1) of section 82 (Rules as to political fund), after paragraph (d) insert—
‘(e) that trade union members who have not opted out of the political fund must signal, in writing, their agreement to continue contributing to the fund at the end of a period of 12 months after last opting into the fund, and
(f) that trade union members must be given an annual notice about their right to opt out of the political fund’
(1B) A notice under subsection (1)(f) must include a form that enables the member to opt out of the fund.”
This amendment would require trade unions to notify their members every year of their right to opt out of the political fund, and to obtain an annual opt-in to the political fund from their members.
Greg Smith
I rise to speak to amendment 126 standing in my name and those of my hon. Friends on the Committee. The amendment would require trade unions to notify their members every year of their right to opt out of the political fund and to obtain an annual opt-in to the political fund from their members.
It is as clear as day that Conservatives believe that it is important for people to have control over the money that they earn, which is why, as part of the Trade Union Act 2016, the Conservative Government made it unlawful to require a member of a trade union to contribute to the political fund if the member had not given that union notice of their willingness to opt in to the fund. The Bill aims to reverse that simple proposition, so that a member of a trade union is a contributor to the political fund of the union unless they have given an opt-out notice to the trade union. It seems that the sentiment underlying this change is that trade unions have more right to their members’ wages than their members do. Otherwise, why would this Labour Government seek to reverse that position?
Our amendment comes in two parts, of which the second part concerns the opt-out process contained in the Bill. It is not clear in the Bill whether there is any requirement for trade unions to remind their members of their right to opt out of the political fund. We think it only reasonable that they should have to do so annually, and that they should provide the necessary paperwork with the opt-out notice, so that those who wish to opt out can do so as easily as possible.
Polling published only this week shows that it has taken just six months—far less than the annual requirement that we are proposing—for a quarter of people who voted Labour last July to regret doing so. That might reflect the number of union members who previously opted in to a political fund but, within a period of months or perhaps a whole calendar year, having seen where their money has been spent and the causes that it has supported, regret having donated to that political fund through their union membership and no longer wish to do so.
I am sure that in the hustle and bustle of our busy daily lives, we have all had the experience of forgetting to cancel that direct debit or unsubscribe from a list or a newspaper—whatever it might be. We need to make that process as easy as possible. Just as companies that are about to increase a subscription on something or change the terms and conditions of a mobile phone contract, for example, are required to inform the customer of those changes in a timely manner, unions should be required to give their members not only a detailed reminder that they have the right to opt out of the political fund, but a clear instructional path through which it is as easy as possible to do so.
I do not see how the Government can object to our simple proposition that union members should be reminded annually of their right to opt out. Should the Minister or any Government Members disagree, I invite them to inform the House whether there will be any requirement on trade unions to remind their members, even in the most vague terms, that they can opt out. If so, how often will they have to remind their members of that right? If there is no requirement for trade unions to remind their members of that, or the Government are not interested in accepting the Opposition’s amendment, it seems to me that the legislation creates a subscription trap—to put it in any other terms would not do it justice.
We Conservatives feel strongly about this issue. In the last Parliament, we passed the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024, which contained two significant and notable proposals on subscription contracts that are directly transferable to the principles of the amendment. First, it contained proposals on reminder notices, which mean that businesses need to provide notices to consumers to remind them that their subscription contract will renew and that their payment will be due unless they cancel. Secondly, it set a precedent to allow consumers to exit a subscription contract in a straightforward, cost-effective and timely way, with proposals that mean that businesses need to ensure that the process for terminating is not unduly onerous and that consumers can signal their intent to end the contract through a single—that is the important part here—communication.
During the passage of that Act, which set the precedent for much of amendment 126, the Labour party, then in opposition, supported those aims—in fact, the Bill did not go far enough for Labour. On Report, the then shadow Minister tabled new clause 29, on which the Labour party divided the House in order to support. It now seems to be arguing the other way on those very principles that apply to consumers, and to all our constituents, when it comes to trade unions and contributions to the political fund.
Greg Smith
I give way to the hon. Member for High Peak, although he now wishes for it to be in Greater Manchester.
Jon Pearce
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Mundell. I refer to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my membership of the GMB. I am interested in the shadow Minister’s proposition, because the number of members of the Conservative party relative to other parties has been in the press over the last few weeks. Does the Conservative party do what he proposes and remind its members of the opportunity to leave on an annual basis, or do its members just do that of their own volition?
Greg Smith
As I alluded to, the hon. Gentleman seems to want his constituency to leave Derbyshire and join Greater Manchester, so he is opening up a can of worms there.
I am happy to tell the Committee that I pay my membership fees to the Conservative party by direct debit and I get that annual email reminding me that my renewal is coming up. I cannot see any circumstance in which I would ever wish to leave the oldest and most successful—most of the time—political party in the country, but it is very clear in those emails how to do so, just as I am sure it is for the Labour party and for some of the smaller parties that exist as well. That is an important principle. It is only to be regretted if we want to stray into the politics of that, which are relevant to the principles outlined in amendment 126 about opting out of political funds.
Of course it will happen time and again that, when an individual signs up to anything at all—be it a trade union political fund, political party, club, society, lobby group or whatever—they change their mind and wish to leave it. The best example that I can give is when the Labour party changed quite significantly on the election of a particularly left-wing leader after the 2015 general election, and many members of the Labour party, including Labour MPs, chose to leave it. Of course, they should have had that right and that freedom to do so, and I do not see why that right and that freedom should not be as equally applicable, as amendment 126 suggests, to the political fund of trade unions.
Labour’s proposed new clause 29 of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 has direct read across to amendment 126, which we are debating today, and it had a two-pronged approach. It required traders to ask consumers whether they wished to opt in to subscriptions renewing automatically, either
“after a period of six months and every six months thereafter, or…if the period between the consumer being charged for the first and second time is longer than six months, each time payment is due.”
The second limb of that new clause would have required:
“If the consumer does not opt-in to such an arrangement, the trader must provide a date by which the consumer must notify the trader of the consumer’s intention to renew the contract, which must be no earlier than 28 days before the renewal date.”
If the consumer did not provide that notification, the subscription contract would not renew.
There seems to have been a considerable shift in the Labour party’s policy position on subscription traps. It seems to believe that consumers should be given every possible opportunity to cancel subscription contracts with businesses, but that it should be as hard as possible to cancel a subscription to a trade union political fund. That is not a coherent position, and that is not something that I think any Labour Member would wish to defend.
It is to keep the Labour party honest that we have tabled the first part of our amendment 126, which would require that, where trade union members have not opted out of the political fund, they must put in writing their continued agreement to pay the fund annually. Given that the Labour party wanted to enforce a more stringent mechanism on businesses taking people’s money through subscriptions, which would have been opted in to originally, I cannot see why the Labour Government would not accept that union members should continue to have to indicate in writing that they wish to continue to be subscribers to the trade union political fund.
This amendment is a simple, straightforward proposition that is entirely consistent with the lines that Labour Members took when they were in opposition in the last Parliament, which they now seem to wish to row back on. When the Minister responds, or when any Labour Member wishes to stand up, it is incumbent on them to say why they believe those subscriptions traps should continue and should be nakedly allowed for trade union political funds.
Laurence Turner
I think we have all followed with interest, and perhaps some entertainment, the shadow Minister’s embrace of red tape and pettifogging bureaucracy in as much as he wishes to apply that to trade unions. It is of course important to state that each trade union member has opted in to the political fund, has the right to opt out at any time and has a means of recourse, through the Certification Officer, if there is a complaint about any attempt to opt out that is not successful.
The comparison drawn by the shadow Minister was completely ill-founded. The amendment not only seeks to inform trade union members of their right to opt out of the political fund—that is already well understood—but requires them to continue to opt in annually. Throughout the history of the Conservative party’s relationship with trade unions, it has repeatedly sought to apply punitive legislation in respect of the political fund. That is what the amendment represents: it is nothing more than a transparent attack on the funding of the Labour party and on the wider political activities of trade unions.
Let us not forget that many trade union political funds are directed towards not only party political activity but welcome campaigns, including some taken up and implemented by the previous Conservative Government. I draw attention to one: the campaign to introduce the Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Act 2018. Had the amendment been in force, that Act would have been much harder to accomplish, and paramedics, prison officers and police officers assaulted in their line of duty would have had less recourse to legal protection.
I am sorry but, to return to the words used by my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles, this is a ridiculous amendment. Were it to be implemented, we would have to look closely to ensure that there was not a two-tier approach to donations made by other entities, such as publicly listed companies. Should there be a requirement for shareholders to be informed of, and be able to veto, any donation in furtherance of a political activity? What about other civil society organisations? That is an enormous can of worms that is not particularly pleasant to smell once opened up, and it is a naked and transparent political attack that should be given short shrift.
Sir Ashley Fox
The amendment is designed to give trade union members the right not to contribute to the political funds. Why does the Labour party want to stop them having that right? It is pure self-interest. Labour wants a conscript army of trade union members to contribute to the funds. Furthermore, I dare say that a good proportion of the political funds end up supporting the campaigns of Labour Members, who one by one in Committee have declared their membership of individual trade unions.
Earlier, we heard the Minister say that, annually, he wanted employers to remind workers of their right to join a trade union, yet he does not want those same members to have the right to opt out, or to be reminded of their right to opt out, of the political fund. I therefore support the amendment, which will assist trade union members to know that they have the right to opt in or out of the political funds.
Michael Wheeler
I might surprise Conservative Members by saying that I welcome the amendment. Before those on the Labour Benches start to panic, I welcome it because it is a reminder that the only place in the country where Conservative Members support increasing red tape is for trade unions.
It is always nice to follow and to be of one mind with my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield, so I will try not to repeat too much of what he said—although I agree with it all. The shadow Minister challenged Labour Members who have spoken, but it is fundamental to point out that the analogy he drew is false. A trade union is a member-based democratic organisation designed to protect those who are part of it. It is not a subscription or an entertainment package on TV. It comes with more rights, more democratic involvement and more control over where money and resources go. A fundamentally false analogy was drawn.
We heard earlier about businesses. I gently push back on what the hon. Member for Bridgwater said; I do not think I heard the Minister say it would be an annual notice. It was up for consultation, but even one notice was described by Conservative Members as onerous. Yet here we have an amendment pushing not just for reminders but for annual reconfirmation, from people who have already given their consent to pay into a political fund, that they are happy for that to happen, as a compulsory measure. That is deemed reasonable by Conservative Members, but it is not. The amendment is a continuation of a decades-long attack on the trade union movement by the Conservative party.
Michael Wheeler
I was one sentence from the end, but I will always happily give way.
Greg Smith
Perhaps I can put to the hon. Gentleman a hypothetical scenario. If his trade union, the political fund of which he had willingly opted in to because in some cases it might support the Labour party, decided, like a quarter of Labour voters, that it regretted that political choice and now wished to go even further to the left and support the Liberal Democrats, would the hon. Gentleman wish to opt out of that political fund and have clear instruction on how to do so should that be the case?
Michael Wheeler
For once in this place I will give a direct answer. Yes, I would. As a paid-up member of a trade union I would know exactly how to do that. I do not need the measures in the amendment to do so. Conservative Members talk about trade union members in the hypothetical, trying to understand what they would like. Other than those of us in this place who are trade union members, I wonder how many they have ever met. As someone who worked for one in the background, I think I know the mind of a trade union member.
Laurence Turner
My hon. Friend and I have both helped to administer the internal democracies of trade unions. Does he agree that the caricature of trade unionists as conscripts who just do as they are told is not based on any kind of reality? There might have been times when he and I wished that was the case, but the reality is that unions are democratic organisations and no one within them takes a particular action because they are instructed to do so.
Michael Wheeler
It could be dangerous for me to admit that sometimes I might have wished to instruct a member, but I can reassure everyone here that the instructions flow the other way when someone is a trade union official acting at the behest of members at all times.
I was one sentence from the end before the interventions. I have been thoroughly derailed by people in this room, so I will wrap up and say that I do not agree with the amendment. I disagree with a lot of what was raised in the debate and the false analogy around subscription models versus membership of a democratic organisation. I will obviously not support the amendment.
Justin Madders
We have had a good debate on the amendment. It is fair to say there is a deep divide in our positions. I will address the amendment and the clause stand part debate.
Amendment 126 would make two changes to clause 48. First, it seeks to retain the requirement on trade unions to provide their members with an annual notice of their right to opt out of contributions to the political fund. Secondly, it seeks to require trade union members to opt in to contributions to the political fund annually. As we have heard, that would place substantial and unnecessary bureaucratic requirements both on trade unions and on their members. As my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles said, this is one of those rare occasions when the Conservative party seems to be in favour of more red tape, which is clearly something that we want to see reduced.
I will start with the change that would retain the requirement for trade unions to send an annual notice to members reminding them that they can opt out of contributing to a political fund. The amendment targets the wrong section. It would amend section 86 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, which relates to ensuring that employers do not deduct contributions through check-off from the member where the union member has opted out of the political fund or where the opt-out notice has been given but is not yet in force.
However, I will respond in terms of the spirit of the amendment tabled by the shadow Minister. The Government have been clear in our intention to repeal the Trade Union Act 2016, which was a clear manifesto commitment. We have a mandate to deliver on that. The amendment seeks to frustrate that clear intention by retaining the substantive effect of section 84A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, as amended by the Trade Union Act 2016.
We should be clear that members are, of course, free to opt out of contributing to a political fund whenever they wish. Clause 48, which I will come to, sets out how that is possible. Currently, alongside the requirement to ballot members on the maintenance of a political fund every 10 years, trade unions must also remind their members of their right to opt out of a political fund. The Government are proposing to remove the ballot requirements. We have consulted on whether to retain a requirement for trade union members to be reminded on a 10-year basis that they can opt out of the political fund.
Greg Smith
I understand the point the Minister is making. On the one hand, he wants everyone to be reminded annually of their right to join a trade union, but he wants them to be reminded of their ability to opt out of the political fund only every 10 years. Surely he can see the inconsistency in that approach. Even though I am sure that he wants the political funds to be as bulging as possible, certainly for those unions that donate to the Labour party, surely he must see that there is an inconsistency between reminding people of their right to join a trade union annually but reminding them of their right to withdraw their support for the political fund on a less frequent basis.
Justin Madders
I thank the shadow Minister for his question. I have not actually said that we will require members to be informed of their right to join a trade union annually—we are simply consulting about the frequency of a reminder. That is the point the hon. Member for Bridgwater raised earlier. We are consulting on that point, and we are consulting on the 10-year reminder about being able to opt out of the political fund. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If the shadow Minister thinks we should not inform people annually of their right to join a trade union, presumably he would also agree that they should not be reminded annually of their right to opt out. The arguments work both ways.
Greg Smith
In the spirit of following that debate through to its natural conclusion, no matter where we stand on the politics, surely the happy medium would be to marry up whatever the consultation ends up concluding for the reminder of the right to join a trade union in the first place with the reminder of the right to opt out of the political fund. Surely that would be the fair and equitable way through this—to simply say that the answer is to marry up the reminder of the right to join a trade union with the reminder to opt out of the political fund, with whatever frequency the consultation says.
Justin Madders
Those are of course two entirely separate requirements. At the moment, trade union members can choose to opt out of contributing to the political fund at any time. Clause 48 sets out clearly how they can do that by post, email or other electronic means. As my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles so eloquently said, most trade union members will be aware of their rights in this area should they wish to exercise them. The comparisons between trade union membership and political funds and Netflix subscriptions and insurance contracts are bogus, because they are not the same thing at all. Membership of a trade union and a political fund is membership of a democratically organised society and independent trade union. The members have control of the organisation because it is democratically organised, so it is not the same thing at all.
Greg Smith
The Opposition stand by our amendment 126. I do not want to repeat all the arguments that I made in my substantive speech. However, I listened very carefully to the Minister’s response and to the other contributions to this debate and I am still utterly lost as to how Labour Members can argue that all these rights should exist when it comes to consumers, but call them red tape, bureaucracy and getting in the way when it comes to trade unions, saying that they are somehow trying to undermine the Labour party.
It will come as no surprise to Labour Members that, generally speaking, Conservatives do want to beat Labour candidates in elections. However, in no way, shape or form would I take away or argue against their ability to go to trade unions and ask for donations or just to willingly receive donations from trade unions, if that is what those trade unions wish to spend their money on. Of course, the rub, the difficulty, is this: where do the trade unions get their money from in the first place? It is from their members; just as those on this side of the Committee willingly pay to be members of the Conservative party and those on the other side willingly pay, I am presuming, to be members of the Labour party—presumption is a dangerous thing.
As we have heard, the opt-outs exist. There are the reminders that come with the annual direct debit, monthly direct debit or however people pay. The position is clear, so why should not the same principle apply to the trade union political fund? It is beyond comprehension that something can be argued for in respect of one sector of society but not the other.
If the Labour party wishes to be funded by the trade unions, that is fine, democratic and clear. But there must be consent from those who put in the money in the first place, on a recurring basis; it must be clear that that is still where they wish their money to go. Those members may change their mind on their political allegiance. They may decide that they no longer wish to support Labour. They may decide that they wish to support another political party, whichever that may be. I think it is a matter of fairness that they are given not just the right to opt out, which I accept exists, but the regular reminder of how to opt out that every other section of society and every other subscription model, be it political, consumer or otherwise, has.
Laurence Turner
I welcome, for the purpose of the record, what was a brave and interesting admission from the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire: in his words, this amendment is motivated by a desire to beat Labour party candidates.
Laurence Turner
If the hon. Member wants to correct the record, I will of course welcome that. He is talking about Labour-affiliated trade unions, but of course many trade unions are not affiliated or do not have a relationship with a political party. Many of them are studiously non-party political in their approach. Has he considered the impact on those unions of the approach that he proposes, and what consultation has he had with unions such as the National Association of Head Teachers?
Greg Smith
I do not think I need to correct the record, in that I made a statement of the obvious, which is that Conservatives wish to beat Labour in elections, but equally I went on to say that, with the right consent, it is perfectly fair, democratic and legitimate for the Labour party to receive funding from those trade unions that wish it to do so. I went even further by saying that that is perfectly fine; so long as it is done transparently and stated on the record—as Labour Members have assiduously done every time they have stood up to speak during this Bill Committee and, indeed, in other debates—there is nothing wrong with it.
This is about the process for members, whether they are contributing to political funds where the unions do donate to Labour, or to any other cause, be it party political or a campaign on this side or the other— the hon. Member for Birmingham Northfield himself recognised and spoke earlier about the very good campaign in relation to attacks on emergency workers. That is a perfectly good, legitimate and worthwhile use of that money, to which I would anticipate—although presumption is a dangerous thing—that most, if not all, contributors to the political fund that supported the campaign would happily continue to contribute. However, there are circumstances and times when trade union members contributing to political funds may not see that money being spent as they would like it to be. It is the ease of being able to opt out, not just having the right to opt out, that the amendment gets to the heart of.
Before the Committee divides on amendment 126, I urge Committee members to reflect on whether they really want to say to the outside world that, while consumers have the right to be reminded on a monthly or annual basis of how to opt out of their mobile phone contract, magazine subscription or whatever else, such a reminder of how to opt out of political funds—not the right to opt out but how—should be denied to trade union members.
Justin Madders
The shadow Minister talks about this being a rule that applies to every other section of society. Is he saying that the principle should apply to every membership organisation, be it the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, the Royal National Lifeboat Institution or any of the many other membership organisations that exist in the country? There will be millions of members of those organisations, so should the principle apply equally to them all? Is he aware that it applies at the moment?
Greg Smith
For the most part, I would say that it does exist. I am thinking of membership organisations outside the world of politics that I have subscriptions to: at the annual point of renewal—most of the ones I have are annual—I do get either an email or a letter saying, “Your direct debit for the next year is going to be £2 higher a month. It will automatically renew unless you do x, y and z.” The x, y and z to opt out, stop or unsubscribe is always very clear.
Greg Smith
The Minister is going to tempt me to say which memberships, isn’t he?
Justin Madders
I am not sure that we need to know about the shadow Minister’s memberships. I have two points: there is not legislation requiring this, and when trade unions raise subscriptions they will send a similarly worded letter out. The analogy the shadow Minister has drawn already takes place.
Greg Smith
I am grateful for that, but there is not an increase every year.
Greg Smith
Well, there is. The Conservative party held our membership at £25 for far too long, which was why the increase was so big a couple of years ago. I appreciate that most Labour Committee members, beyond those on the Front Bench, were not in the last Parliament, but the general point of principle here is that when it came to other legislation in that Parliament, the then Opposition argued vehemently for similar provisions to apply in other parts of business and consumer society that they now wish to deny to trade union members. That is a point that the Government are going to find difficult to defend when going forward with the consideration of the Bill.
To me, it is a simple proposition: the Opposition think it is fair and clear that everybody should get an annual reminder of not just their right to opt out but how to do so in a simple and straightforward way. People change their minds and decide that they no longer wish to support particular causes, parties or campaigns. It is surely right that they get a clear and simple reminder on a frequent basis—annually, or, if we are generous, every two years.
Justin Madders
The clause is relatively simple in that it seeks to repeal section 15 of the Trade Union Act 2016 by amending the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 to remove section 116B. Section 15 of the 2016 Act required trade unions to pay public sector employers where they administered payroll deductions for trade union subscriptions—known as check-off. Section 15 further mandated that the service be made available only where workers had the option to pay their union subscriptions by other means.
The check-off regulations were apparently introduced as a cost-saving measure, with estimated annual savings of £1.6 million, totalling £12 million over the next 10 years. However, as last year’s check-off impact assessment acknowledged, the Trade Union (Deduction of Union Subscriptions from Wages in the Public Sector) Regulations 2024 brought a cumulative cost of £17 million to public sector employers and trade unions over that period, which is far higher than the estimated cost savings.
In the spirit of wanting to save businesses and the public sector from burdens, we think that this is an entirely sensible move. I urge members of the Committee to support the clause.
Greg Smith
Of course we wish to save taxpayers money, particularly when it comes to the public sector, but likewise we do not see why businesses should bear the cost of trade union subscription collections. That should be a cost entirely for the trade unions to bear, just as we would never tolerate—on the Opposition Benches for sure—the public purse or the taxpayer’s pound having to subsidise any other body that should be funding itself.
I understand where the Minister is coming from. As he looks across other parts of the Bill, I urge him to have a similar approach to saving businesses and taxpayers money across the piece.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 49 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Anna McMorrin.)
Employment Rights Bill (Sixteenth sitting)
Tuesday 7th January 2025
(1 year, 2 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Employment Rights Act 2025 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 7 January 2025 - (7 Jan 2025)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 114, in clause 51, page 64, line 9, after “employer”, insert—
“(aa) in relation to a public sector employer, the performance condition is met.”
This amendment paves the way for Amendment 115.
Amendment 115, in clause 51, page 64, line 10, at end insert—
“(3A) The performance condition is met if the Secretary of State is satisfied that the public sector employer is meeting any performance standards set out in a relevant enactment.”
This amendment, together with Amendment 114, prevents facility time for equality representatives being provided unless the relevant public sector organisation is meeting its statutory targets for performance.
Clauses 51 and 52 stand part.
New clause 18—Facility time: cost assessment—
“(1) The Secretary of State must commission an assessment of the cost and prospective cost of—
(a) time off and associated payments under sections 168 to 170 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, and
(b) implementing section 168B of that Act,
in relation to each sector of the economy.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), a sector of the economy means—
(a) an area of the economy in which businesses share the same or related business activity, product, or service, or
(b) in relation to the public sector, a sector which provides similar or related services.
(3) The Secretary must lay a report of the assessment commissioned under subsection (1) before each House of Parliament.”
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to undertake a sectoral cost assessment of trade union facility time, and see also Amendment 113.
Amendment 113, in clause 118, page 105, line 20, at end insert—
“(3A) But the provisions of section 51(2) to (12) may not be brought into force before the report of the cost assessment referred to in section [Facility time: cost assessment] has been laid before each House of Parliament.”
This amendment provides that the amendments made in Clause 51 cannot come into force until after the completion of the review referred to in NC18.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Justin Madders)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Christopher. I wish you a happy new year. As always, I will start by referring to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
I shall attempt to navigate this mega-grouping of clauses, amendments and new clauses. Clause 50 will amend section 168 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 to provide that an employer that permits an employee to take time off for carrying out trade union duties, including as a learning representative, must, where requested by the employee, provide the employee with accommodation and other facilities for carrying out their duties or undergoing training related to their trade union duties, as is reasonable in all the circumstances. “Facilities” could include office and meeting space and access to the internet or intranet. In providing the employee with facilities, the employer should have regard to a relevant code of practice issued by ACAS.
The clause will also strengthen the existing right to reasonable paid facility time for union representatives, including union learning representatives, by establishing a presumption that the employee’s view on what is considered reasonable time off is reasonable in all the circumstances, having regard to any relevant provisions of a code of practice issued by ACAS. The clause will require that the employer show that it was not a reasonable amount of time off at an employment tribunal, in the event of legal proceedings.
Despite the fact that most union representatives receive paid time off, it is often insufficient to allow them to carry out all their trade union duties, and many union representatives use significant amounts of their own time to do so. This Government want to ensure that union workplace representatives can take sufficient paid facility time and have sufficient access to facilities to enable them to fulfil their union representative duties. That will lead to improved worker representation and industrial relations by giving trade unions and workplace representatives the freedom to organise, represent and negotiate on behalf of their workers and to increase co-operation between employers and unionised workers, leading to beneficial outcomes for the economy.
The Government will not support the shadow Minister’s amendments 114 and 115, which would place an unnecessary restriction on trade union equality representatives’ ability to take time off during working hours to carry out their role as equality representatives. Equality representatives have a key role to play in raising awareness and promoting equal rights for all members, as well as developing collective policies and practices that will enable organisations to realise all the benefits of being an equal opportunities employer. Placing a performance condition on the right to paid time off for equality representatives is at odds with existing rights and protections for other trade union representatives, such as union learning representatives.
In addition, the Bill is clear that the amount of time off that an employee is permitted to take, the purposes and occasions for which it is taken and any conditions subject to which it may be so taken are those that are reasonable in all the circumstances, having regard to any relevant provision of a code of practice issued by ACAS or the Secretary of State. The existing code of practice on time off for trade union representatives will be updated in due course to cover equality representatives. The Government would therefore strongly argue that the additional condition is not required for equality representatives.
Clause 51 will insert new section 168B into the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The proposed new section requires that an employer must permit an employee who is a member of an independent trade union recognised by the employer and an equality representative of the trade union to take paid time off during the employee’s working hours for the following purposes: carrying out activities for the purpose of promoting the value of equality in the workplace; arranging learning or training on matters relating to equality in the workplace; providing information, advice or support to qualifying members of the trade union in relation to matters relating to equality in the workplace; consulting with the employer on matters relating to equality in the workplace; obtaining and analysing information on the state of equality in the workplace; and preparing for any of the things mentioned previously.
The above applies only if the trade union has given the employer notice in writing that the employee is an equality representative of the union and has undergone sufficient training to enable them to carry out the activities listed above, or if the trade union has in the past six months given the employer notice in writing that the employee will be undergoing such training—this can be done only once in relation to any one employee—or within six months of the trade union giving the employer notice in writing that the employee will be undergoing such training, the employee has done so and the trade union has given the employer notice of that. “Sufficient training” is that which is sufficient for fulfilling the purposes of an equality representative, having regard to any relevant code of practice issued by ACAS or the Secretary of State.
Clause 51 will also require an employer to permit an employee to take paid time off during working hours to undergo training relevant to their role as an equality representative and, where requested, provide the employee with accommodation and other facilities to enable them to fulfil their role, having regard to a relevant code of practice issued by ACAS. Should an employer fail to permit the employee to take time off or provide the employee with facilities as required, the employee may present a complaint to an employment tribunal, at which it will be for the employer to show that the amount of time off that the employee proposed was not reasonable.
Trade unions have long fought for equality. Equality reps have a key role to play in raising awareness and promoting equal rights for all members, as well as developing collective policies and practices that will enable organisations to realise all the benefits of being an equal opportunities employer. Clause 51 therefore recognises in statute the role of trade union equality representative, which is defined in proposed new section 168B(12) as a person appointed or elected in accordance with the trade union rules and defined by reference to, and in a manner consistent with, the Equality Act 2010.
I turn to the shadow Minister’s amendments 113 and new clause 18. I should start by stating that sections 168 to 170 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 are long-standing provisions that require employers to provide facility time for union representatives and union learning representatives of a recognised trade union.
Our legislation also requires employers to make payments to union representatives for time off for carrying out their union duties. Despite the fact that most union representatives receive paid time off, it is often insufficient to allow them to carry out all of their trade union duties, and many union representatives use significant amounts of their own time to do so. We want to ensure that union workplace representatives can take sufficient paid facility time and have sufficient access to facilities to enable them to fulfil their union representative duties. That is why we are strengthening the rights of trade union representatives in the Bill. As part of that, we are also providing—in clause 51, which will insert new section 168B into the 1992 Act—new rights for time off for union equality representatives. Equality reps have a key role to play in raising awareness and promoting equal rights for all members, as well as developing collective policies and practices that will enable organisations to realise all the benefits of being an equal opportunities employer.
The shadow Minister’s new clause 18 would require Ministers to commission a cost assessment of facility time for trade union representatives and for union learning representatives and the prospective costs of time off for equality representatives across all sectors of the economy. It would also require Ministers to lay a report before both Houses of Parliament once the assessment has been made. Amendment 113 would further require that the provisions of clause 51 could not come into force until after completion of the assessment referred to in new clause 18.
New clause 18 is not necessary. We do not need such a time-consuming assessment across all sectors of the UK economy. Also, union representatives under our legislation are already entitled to reasonable paid facility time to enable them to carry out their duties. As I have said already, we know that many union representatives do not have sufficient time; the Bill is intended to rectify that. I also note that no such assessment of facility time, sector by sector, for the entire UK economy was ever carried out by the previous Government.
Clause 52 will repeal sections 13 and 14 of the Trade Union Act 2016 by removing sections 172A and 172B of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. Regulations made under section 172A, inserted by section 13, require relevant public sector employers to publish information relating to facility time for relevant union officials. Section 172B, inserted by section 14, provided a power—although I do not think that it was ever implemented—to impose a cap on public sector facility time. Repealing these sections will help to ensure that trade union representatives have sufficient time to represent workers, negotiate with employers and conduct training.
The removal of the reporting requirements represents a significant step in resetting the relationship between public sector employers and trade unions by recognising the importance of union representatives and the time needed for them to fulfil their duties effectively. The removal of the regulations will reduce the annual administrative burden on many public sector employers, freeing up more time to focus on delivery for the public.
This Government believe that it is for each employer to work in partnership with their own recognised trade unions to determine the facility time needed to ensure that their trade union representatives can properly represent their members and the workforces within which they operate. It is unnecessary to require annual reporting or to introduce an arbitrary cap on facility time. I therefore ask the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire not to press amendments 113 to 115 and new clause 18. I commend clauses 50 to 52 to the Committee.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I, too, wish you a very happy new year.
I will start with amendments 114 and 115, which stand in my name and those of my hon. Friends on the Committee. The amendments would prevent facility time from being provided for equality representatives unless—this is the important bit—the relevant public sector organisation is meeting its statutory performance targets.
In workplaces in which a trade union is recognised, trade union workplace representatives have a right to paid time off for the purpose of carrying out their trade union duties or to take part in union training. That right currently applies to workplace representatives, health and safety representatives, union learning representatives, and information and consultation representatives. The Bill will extend that right to equality representatives, who will now be allowed paid time off to carry out
“activities for the purpose of promoting the value of equality in the workplace”;
to arrange
“learning or training on matters relating to equality in the workplace”;
to provide
“information, advice or support to qualifying members of the trade union in relation to matters relating to equality in the workplace”;
to consult
“the employer on matters relating to equality in the workplace”;
and to obtain and analyse
“information relating to equality in the workplace.”
I make no criticism or comment about the value of those activities, but what I would say is that they are straightforwardly set out in the law already, and employers already have a duty to consider them. Creating a duty to allow more facility time for this purpose seems to be at cross-purposes with what employers are already, rightly, under an obligation to consider.
The amendments are an attempt to ensure that the taxpayer gets something out of this latest concession from the Labour Government to the trade unions. We would like to make sure that equalities representatives working for public sector employers are entitled to facility time only if that employer is meeting any statutory targets that it has. We suggest that if the employer is not meeting those targets, that is more important to taxpayers than facility time.
New clause 18 and amendment 113 also stand in my name and those of my hon. Friends on the Committee. As the Minister says, new clause 18 would require the Secretary of State to undertake a sectoral cost assessment of trade union facility time. It would require the Secretary of State to undertake an assessment of the cost, and prospective cost, by sector of that facility time. Amendment 113 would provide that clause 51, which will introduce facility time for trade union equalities representatives, could not come into force until after the completion of the review referred to in new clause 18.
That is an eminently sensible step. I cannot see how anyone could object to a cost analysis and assessment being done before provisions come into effect. People need to know what they are dealing with and how much it will cost them, whether that is in the public sector or the private sector, a Government Department or a Government quango, a council, an NHS trust or a private business. It is not reasonable for these things to be asked for without a true assessment and understanding of the cost.
The Opposition are concerned about the increased impetus that the Bill places behind facility time and about extending it to equalities representatives. We would therefore like to make sure that the Government have done their homework and understood the cost to business of these changes before they implement them.
Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Christopher. I draw the Committee’s attention to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am a member of GMB and Unite.
The shadow Minister has set out a number of new restrictions that he is seeking to impose, but in 2014 he brought a motion to Hammersmith and Fulham council that said:
“Council staff will not be paid for any time they spend on trade union activity.”
Is that still what he believes?
Greg Smith
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for bringing that up. He has clearly been doing his homework and researching the wonderful transcripts from my time on that local authority. I have some very happy memories of it—I remember cutting council tax by 20%, which I am very proud of—but he is really going to stretch my grey matter if he wants me to remember that particular motion. However, I am certainly of the view that it is not for taxpayers to fund trade union activities; it is for trade unions to meet their own costs. It is for trade unions, just like any other body, not to require taxpayer subsidy or the state to step in and help them meet their costs. I certainly remember campaigning on the expansion of facility time back then, with many across the Conservative party. From memory, my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Pickles took a particular interest in the issue.
My direct answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question is no: taxpayers should not be funding trade union facility time. That is for the trade unions themselves to fund out of their membership fees and other income streams, where they have them, so that they can go about doing their work. I repeat that it is really not for taxpayers to fund that. There needs to be wider reform to protect taxpayers from indirectly—or directly, in this case—funding third-party organisations such as trade unions.
We have to consider the extra burden to employers in the round. Along with other elements of the Bill, such as the provisions on unfair dismissal, and the growth-stunting hike to employers’ national insurance contributions in the Budget, this is another straw that may yet break the camel’s back for a number of businesses. The Government are carelessly piling cost and red tape on employers with this Bill and other measures, and are just expecting those burdens to be absorbed. We would like to be reassured that it is possible to find a better way that does not burden the taxpayer or private businesses with the provisions that we find in this Bill. We have tabled these amendments to rectify that and to put those protections in place.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
Happy new year, Sir Christopher. I have a small amount of sympathy with the shadow Minister—I understand the cost to business, so I welcome that element of the amendments—but I have great fears. One need only have listened to the radio this morning to have heard about the issues for McDonald’s workers that have not been sorted out. I accept that that is the private sector, and the amendments are about the public sector, but it demonstrates that if equalities issues are not taken seriously in the workplace, it can cause major harm to employees and to the culture of improvement that we need to see.
Greg Smith
Nobody is suggesting that equalities issues should not be taken seriously. The point that I was making about our amendments is that the law is already very clear about equalities, and employers should be held to that law. There is no need to place this additional burden on the public sector or the private sector. Equalities are incredibly important—nobody in the Opposition is denying that—but we must find the right vehicle to ensure that equalities duties are enforced. This Bill is not it.
Steve Darling
I am concerned that the hon. Gentleman is taking a Panglossian approach that all in the world is perfect. It is far from perfect, which is why I welcome large tracts of the Bill, as long as we are supporting employers on the journey.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
It is good to see you in the Chair, Sir Christopher.
I rise to speak in support of Opposition amendments 113 to 115 and new clause 18. These are modest proposals to ameliorate the additional costs and burdens that the Bill is will place on employers and the public sector. It seems extraordinary that the Government want to introduce this new facility time without any thought about what the cost will be. It strikes me that the measures the Government are bringing forward are simply a bung to their trade union friends to provide extra money to employ extra trade union officials to do work that genuinely does not need doing.
The law is clear and should be enforced. We do not need the state to impose further burdens by employing trade union officials to effectively double up as Government inspectors. I shall therefore support the amendments and vote against the Government’s new clauses. A pattern is being followed through this Bill, whereby Ministers rise and say that each individual proposal is reasonable and modest, yet each one is an additional burden on the taxpayer and/or employers. The net result is £5 billion in additional costs, which will make this country less competitive, efficient, and effective.
Justin Madders
I will respond briefly to some of the points that have been made. I was asked why we need to put equality representatives on statutory footing. I think the hon. Member for Torbay gave just one example of the ongoing issues of discrimination in many workplaces up and down the country but, of course, this Bill also seeks to expand family friendly rights. Anyone who takes cognisance of local authority matters—I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield does so more than most—will be aware that equal pay is still a huge issue in many local authorities. This is over 50 years since the Equal Pay Act 1970 was brought into force, so there is a strong case for allowing equality reps to bring their value to the workplace.
The amendment on performance targets is particularly unfair. In effect, the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire is seeking to punish trade union members for the failings of their employer if they do not hit performance targets. None of those targets have been specified in the legislation. Perhaps it is a reflection of the fact that under his party’s Administration, most public services did not meet performance targets, and he was hoping that if they got back into power he would be able to use that to deny facility time to all trade union representatives.
Sir Ashley Fox
Does the Minister really expect us to believe that his Government has not costed these proposals? Does he believe that providing additional facility time to trade unions will improve public sector performance? What we have said is that in cases where Departments are not meeting their targets, the Department should use taxpayer money to meet those targets before granting additional facility time to trade union officials.
Justin Madders
I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point but I refer him to the impact assessment, which sets out the cost of these individual measures and their cumulative impact. For facility time, the amount is very small indeed. It has been green-rated by the Regulatory Policy Committee, and studies by the predecessor Department of the Department of Business and Trade showed that facilities time did lead to significant savings and reduced dismissals, reduced employment tribunals, reduced voluntary exits and enhanced productivity. We are talking about figures in the region of hundreds of millions of pounds here. I accept that it is an old study, but the principle remains the same. We heard repeatedly during evidence that strong engagement from trade unions is a good thing for employers, because it helps to engage the workforce and improve productivity. Therefore, I do not accept the premise of his argument.
Regarding the general thrust of what is coming from the Opposition about the use of facilities, the Trade Union Act 2016 was designed to make it more difficult for trade unions to perform their duties by increasing the amount of investigation and focus on their time, but the reported figures in terms of the percentage of the public sector pay bill were the same at the start of the reporting requirements as they were at the end, which was 0.07%—007; we are back to James Bond again. That shows that the requirements of the 2016 Act were simply burdens that added nothing. I therefore urge hon. Members to reject the Opposition amendments and to support the clauses.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 50 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 51 and 52 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 53
Blacklists: additional powers
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Justin Madders
The clause will enable us to strengthen the protections against blacklisting. The Consulting Association scandal, in which thousands of union workers were blacklisted, underscored the need for strong anti-blacklisting laws. Blacklisting persists, yet the rules have not been updated for over a decade. That is why we are taking steps to modernise them.
The clause amends section 3 of the Employment Relations Act 1999. It will enable regulations to be made that extend prohibitions to lists that are not prepared for the purpose of discrimination, but are subsequently used for that purpose. Secondary legislation and guidance can then make clear that blacklisting prohibitions extend to lists created by predictive technology.
The clause also extends the scope of the powers, so that prohibitions no longer have to be limited to employers or employment agencies. First, the reference to employers or employment agencies is removed from section 3(1)(b) of the 1999 Act. Secondly, an amendment to section 3 adds a power for the Secretary of State to make regulations in relation to third party use of blacklists. It is important that the Government continue to make it clear that blacklisting is unacceptable, and updating the law supports that.
Greg Smith
This is one of the less contentious clauses in the Bill. The Minister is right to say that something that has not been updated for a decade probably should be looked at again, especially in the light of some of the technology that we see emerging. We will not oppose clause 53 standing part of the Bill.
Steve Darling
I strongly welcome this modernisation of approach.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 53 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 54
Industrial action ballots: turnout and support thresholds
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clauses 55 and 56 stand part.
New clause 32—Workplace intimidation in regard to balloting—
“(1) The Employment Relations Act 2004 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 54 (12) (c) insert—
‘(d) measures are in place to prevent workplace intimidation.’”
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to consider whether there are sufficient measures to be in place to prevent workplace intimidation before they make any order to allow balloting to take place by a means other than by postal ballot.
New clause 33—Balloting in the workplace—
“(1) The Employment Relations Act 2004 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 54 (12) insert at end—
‘(12A) No order may be made under this section that would permit balloting to take place in the workplace.’”
This new clause would prohibit the Secretary of State from making an order to extend the means of voting in trade union ballots and elections that would allow the ballot to be held in the workplace.
New clause 43—Industrial action: impact assessments and family tests—
“In Part V of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, before section 234A (and the italic heading before it), insert—
‘Industrial Action: impact assessments and family tests
234ZA Impact assessments and family tests
(1) No ballot for industrial action may take place unless the trade union has taken the following steps—
(a) published a report containing an economic impact assessment of the industrial action;
(b) published a report containing a family test on the impact of the industrial action; and
(c) informed members of the trade union of the publication of reports required under paragraphs (a) and (b).
(2) For the purposes of this section, a “family test” is defined as an assessment on the impact of industrial action on family relationships.’”
This new clause would require trade unions to carry out an impact assessment and a family test, for the reports of these to have published, and trade union members informed of their publication, before a ballot for industrial action can take place.
Justin Madders
This is a large group of measures, comprising clauses 54, 55 and 56 and new clauses 32, 33 and 43. Clause 54 seeks to repeal sections 2 and 3 of the Trade Union Act 2016 by amending section 226 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 to reverse the changes made by sections 2 and 3 of the 2016 Act. This will mean that trade unions will no longer have to meet a minimum turnout or support threshold for a ballot for industrial action to be successful. The trade union will only need a simple majority of those voting in the ballot to vote in favour of industrial action, as was the case prior to the 2016 Act being passed.
Greg Smith
This is another bumper grouping for us to debate. As the Minister said, new clause 32 would require the Secretary of State to consider whether sufficient measures are in place to prevent workplace intimidation before making any order to allow balloting to take place by any means other than a postal ballot. The Bill liberalises the law on balloting and industrial action, and I am normally very much in favour of deregulation and liberalisation, but on this occasion, there are considerable concerns, which is why the Opposition tabled this new clause.
The Bill lowers turnout and support thresholds and allows electronic balloting on industrial action. It is important that there are protections in place for workers in that. We want to make sure that, before allowing electronic balloting for industrial action, the Secretary of State is reassured that unions have sufficient measures in place to prevent workplace intimidation.
If balloting can take place electronically, it can take place in workplaces, where it is much easier for pressure to be put to bear on union members in terms of casting their ballot—that hand on the shoulder, that peering over to see what someone is doing, or the potential requirement from those up to no good to demand proof of the way that someone has cast their ballot, be that on their mobile phone, iPad, tablet, laptop or computer, or whatever it might be. These are practices that I am sure every Member of this House would condemn and say are totally unacceptable and inappropriate, but that I can see happening without robust measures in place to prevent them.
We want the Secretary of State to be able to reassure the House that sufficient protections are in place to ensure that ballots are free fr.om intimidation and coercion before they are allowed to take place electronically. I listened carefully to the Minister’s appeal to the Opposition not to move our new clauses, but I am yet to hear a compelling and reasoned argument why the Government cannot support new clause 32. Surely, we all wish to ensure that intimidation and coercion have no place in any part of our society, least of all in the workplace. I do not understand why the Government are so reticent to take what I would argue is a very moderate and reasonable step to strengthen the Bill and tackle intimidation and coercion.
New clause 33 would prevent voting in trade union ballots and elections from being done in the workplace. Many of the arguments I made on new clause 32 very much apply here; in a similar spirit, we have tabled new clause 33 to create a little more balance and protection in the Bill. It is important that all those exercising their right to vote on industrial action can do so free from pressure from colleagues or trade union members, and that is why the new clause would stipulate that voting in trade union ballots and elections should not happen in the workplace. We also do not believe that workers should spend time when they are being paid to do their jobs voting on trade union matters. Such voting should be done in members’ personal time outside the workplace, and employers should be protected from having to pay for it.
Before I move on to new clause 43, I want to emphasise that while that last point is important, it is a matter of principle that in this country, we believe in the secret ballot. If there was any suggestion that any of our elections, whether elections to this House, council elections or police and crime commissioner elections, could take place on someone’s phone in front of other people without the protections we all enjoy at the ballot box, there would be outcry—there would rightly be outrage. When it comes to something as significant as voting for or against industrial action in a trade union ballot, it is absolutely the same principle: the integrity of the secret ballot should be upheld, in the same way that we would expect in any other walk of life.
Indeed, we have protections in the 1922 Committee in this House. We have the occasional leadership election, and mobile phones are not permitted into the room in which we vote, to stamp out the very possibility of people looking over others’ shoulders and the secret ballot being compromised. I am not sure what the parliamentary Labour party does. The secret ballot is an important principle enshrined in our democracy that should apply equally to trade union ballots. This moderate, measured request to ensure that those ballots do not take place in the workplace is an important step to protect the secrecy of the ballot.
Laurence Turner
The shadow Minister talks about the 1922 Committee, which I think my predecessor as representative of Birmingham Northfield knows more about than me. A few years back, the Conservative party membership effectively elected the Prime Minister through an electronic ballot. That is a comment on the process and not the merits of the outcome. Why do the shadow Minister’s arguments against electronic balloting in industrial matters not apply to that situation too?
Greg Smith
I think we were still on paper ballot papers, for the large part, the last time there was a change of leader of the Conservative party while we were in government. The election of the current Leader of the Opposition did happen by electronic ballot, but that is not the point of new clause 33. It does not seek to prevent electronic balloting; it seeks to prevent it from taking place in the workplace—the very place where trade union organisers, or other colleagues or employees, could put pressure on those who have a vote. They might bully their way into seeing how someone has voted, or put pressure, either nakedly or slightly less visibly, on someone to vote in what they might consider to be the right way or otherwise. If ballots could only take place outside the workplace, while not a perfect solution, it would take away the pressure that might be brought to bear in the workplace on the way individuals vote. That could—I emphasise “could”—lead someone to vote in a way that they do not want to, for fear of the way that their vote might be perceived by others in the workplace.
Michael Wheeler (Worsley and Eccles) (Lab)
Does the shadow Minister accept that the strikes he talks about happened under an incredibly restrictive regulatory and legislative regime? The measures in the Bill seek to foster a better industrial relations environment, which will lead to fewer strikes, not more. Under the previous Government, we saw an incredibly restrictive environment, which ratcheted up the tension and resulted in more strikes.
Greg Smith
I hear the hon. Gentleman’s argument, but the proof of the pudding is in the eating. I gently ask him how a no-strings-attached bumper pay rise for the train drivers worked out in practice when it came to strikes over the Christmas period. We have heard repeatedly from Labour party politicians that they will prevent or stop strikes. The most visible example of that in our newspapers and on our television screens was the Mayor of London, who made some pretty bold promises about stopping strike action. Londoners and those coming into London for work, pleasure or hospital appointments have suffered multiple times during his tenure. I am not sure I fully accept the hon. Gentleman’s point that the Bill will somehow magically reduce the number of strikes, when the reality on the ground has been very different.
Given the prolonged and repeated strike action made easier by the Bill, it could almost certainly lead to large costs across the economy. We think it is only right that a level of transparency similar to that applied to Government Departments should be applied to trade union decisions. Trade unions should exercise some responsibility and consider the consequences of their decisions to undertake strike action. We would therefore like trade unions to assess the likely impact that their going on strike will have on real people and their lives, journeys, hospital appointments, theatre tickets, enjoyment, pleasure or whatever it might be that the strike action will prevent them from doing—and, of course, on our children’s education, which is so important.
New clause 43 would require trade unions to carry out impact assessments and family tests, to publish the reports of those, and to inform members of the trade union about their contents, before a ballot for industrial action can take place. It is hardly a controversial position that people should know what they are voting for before they are asked to cast a ballot on it, and that they should understand the consequences of the strike action not just for them, but for the wider economy and people’s health, education, and so much more across our great country. We think it is only right that trade union members should be fully informed of the consequences before they cast their votes. Such information would provide some public transparency about the cost and inconvenience that trade unions are willingly inflicting on the British public.
Steve Darling
I have some sympathy with the desire to understand the cost, but to me, the vast majority of the Government proposals before us today are about modernising the system appropriately. I am concerned that this afternoon we have seen the official Opposition one minute say that all in the garden is rosy and there is no need for equality, and the next flip over and catastrophise about the Government’s proposals. We need to get a firm hand on the tiller and see that the vast majority of these proposals simply entail modernisation. I welcome them.
Justin Madders
The shadow Minister asked why we cannot support new clauses 32 and 33. The simple answer is that there are already legislative protections in section 54(12) of the Employment Relations Act 2004, which sets out the conditions that must be adhered to in order to ensure that balloting is done in a secure and safe manner. He made some interesting points about people peering over others’ shoulders when votes are taking place. Clearly, his colleagues in the parliamentary Conservative party cannot be trusted to behave themselves when electronic voting takes place. That is something he will no doubt address with his colleagues in private.
If the shadow Minister is concerned about the impact of electronic balloting in all spheres—I am sure there are sometimes reasons in his own party to question the outcome of the electronic ballot—we can look at that, but there is already clear provision in law about how any trade union ballot is to be conducted. The working group will be considering that. If the Conservative party thought there were concerns about the use of electronic ballots for industrial disputes, they might not have commissioned the Knight review back in 2017 to consider the matter. That they did so suggests that they considered that it is right and appropriate that we modernise trade union practices to allow for electronic balloting for industrial action.
Moving on to the assessments the shadow Minister is requesting, the Government are pretty clear that, through new clause 43, the Opposition seek to add another administrative hurdle for a trade union that wants to take industrial action. There is no doubt that any such tests or assessments that were undertaken would lead to a multitude of satellite litigation, delay resolution of disputes, and divert both parties’ focus from resolving the disputes to arguing about impact assessments. I am not quite sure what the family test is. I think there is a family and friends test that some organisations use. It is a little vague. It is also unclear who would be the arbiter of whether these tests and assessments were being done sufficiently accurately. It is also fair to say that trade union members know, when they take industrial action, that there will be consequences. They are well aware. They do the job every day, they know the impact, and that is why they always take these matters very seriously.
The central point that the Bill will lead to more industrial action is counterintuitive, given that we are, in the main, reversing provisions of the 2016 Act. As we know, there has been more industrial action in recent years than there has been for decades. Perhaps there is not a cause and effect relationship between that and the 2016 Act, but I would suggest that the evidence points to it.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 54 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 55 and 56 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 57
Industrial action: provision of information to employer
Greg Smith
I beg to move amendment 167, in clause 57, page 69, line 16, leave out “seventh” and insert “twenty-first”.
This amendment would increase, from seven to 21 days, the notice period that trade unions are required to adhere to when notifying employers that they plan to take industrial action.
The amendment would increase from seven to 21 days the notice period that trade unions are required to adhere to when notifying employers that they plan to take industrial action. As we noted in the debate on the previous group, the Bill liberalises trade union law and repeals legislation passed by the last Conservative Government that brought some balance to the relationship between employers, the British public and trade unions. We think it is fair to require trade unions to provide 21 rather than seven days’ notice to employers that they plan to take industrial action, particularly given that the Bill repeals the minimum service levels legislation passed by the last Conservative Government to ensure sufficient levels of critical public services during strike action.
Given that the British public no longer have that protection, we think it is only fair that employers should have more time to prepare to mitigate some of the damage that occurs during strike action, particularly in vital public services such as ambulance and rail services. When strike action takes place, while of course employers have to prepare to mitigate its effect and put in place other steps to ensure that people still get their healthcare, education or critical services such as transport, the general public also need to make considerable preparations. Preparing properly and putting in place other ways of doing things often cannot be done at the last minute.
I would rather the minimum service levels legislation remained in place and, indeed, was strengthened, but when there is strike action on the railway, for example, it takes place at the drop of a hat—I consider seven days’ notice as at the drop of a hat. I think of the number of children in my constituency who get on at Wendover and Stoke Mandeville stations to travel to Dr Challoner’s grammar school in Amersham, and the number of my constituents who rely on the railway to get to hospital appointments, often in London. Some 7% of Buckinghamshire cancer referrals are to Mount Vernon, which is within London, and most of my constituents who go there for chemotherapy try to travel by train. To put in place a different route to that key chemotherapy appointment, or for parents to mitigate against or make different arrangements for their child to get to school, takes more than a handful of days.
I appeal to the Government to listen to us on what I argue is a moderate and reasonable amendment. Increasing the time limit would give people a fighting chance to put in place different ways of getting to their hospital appointment and getting their kids to school.
Greg Smith
I will come up with another example when the hon. Member for Birmingham Northfield is finished.
Laurence Turner
I thank the shadow Minister for giving way; he has been characteristically generous in the number of interventions that he has taken. Can he name a single country that applies a limit of 21 days or more? Was it his intent to propose a limit higher than that which the International Labour Organisation Committee on Freedom of Association has found is consistent with freedom of association?
Greg Smith
My straightforward and simple reply is that I want to get this right in the United Kingdom’s interest. No, I cannot name another country that has 21 days’ notice, but that does not mean we should not do it ourselves. It would give all our constituents a fighting chance to find a way through the challenges that they face when there are train strikes, doctors’ strikes and industrial action in our schools. It would help them to find alternative provision to ensure that their children are looked after, so that they themselves can still go to work and meet their commitments. It would ensure that life can still go on around strikes, particularly in critical services such as healthcare and education, which I am sure no Member of the House wants their constituents to be denied; I certainly do not. I could easily propose a period longer than 21 days, but I have not done so in the interests of trying to reach a compromise and appealing to the Minister’s better instincts. I want to get on the table something that we can work with and that gives all our constituents a fighting chance.
Justin Madders
As the shadow Minister eloquently set out, amendment 167 seeks to increase from seven to 21 days the notice that a trade union must give an employer of industrial action after it has secured a ballot mandate and before any such action is taken. As we know, the Trade Union Act 2016 brought in a requirement for unions to provide 14 days’ notice to employers. As we are committing to repealing the 2016 Act through this Bill, it stands to reason that if the clauses are agreed to, the seven-day notice period that was required prior to the 2016 Act will apply in its place.
We want to reset the relationship with both employers and unions to resolve disputes through meaningful negotiations. Far from supporting the economy, the effect of the legislation in recent years has been an increase in strikes. In 2023, close to 2.7 million working days were lost to strikes, up from 2.5 million in 2022. Both those figures were the highest since the 1980s.
However, we recognise the importance of striking a balance between allowing for effective strike action and ensuring that employers can reasonably prepare. That is especially important in public services such as the NHS, as the shadow Minister has mentioned, where managers need adequate time to plan for periods of industrial action, and that includes adequate time to agree patient safety mitigations with unions. That is why we have given employers, workers, and trade unions the opportunity, through a consultation, to comment on what notice of industrial action should be provided to employers. That consultation closed on 2 December 2024 and our response will be published in due course.
It seems to me that the shadow Minister’s proposal of a 21-day period is effectively a finger-in-the-air job rather than something considered. If he had tabled an amendment to keep it at 14 days, that would at least have been consistent with his party’s previous position. His statement that it is important to change this in the light of the repeal of the minimum service levels legislation is slightly erroneous given that, to our knowledge, no one has ever actually used the provisions of that Act. When we consider the consultation responses, we will look at whether there is a case for changing the length of the notice period from seven days. I therefore suggest that the amendment is unnecessary, and I ask the shadow Minister to withdraw it.
Greg Smith
I accept the Minister’s point about where precisely the number of days should sit. I slightly take issue with him when he says that the 21-day proposal was a finger-in-the-air job. Most people would describe that three-week window as a reasonable notice period to enable people in many walks of life to make plans, such as alternative provision for childcare.
If the Minister is offering up 14 days, we might well take him up on that, but I suspect he is teasing us rather than making a firm offer. Therefore, we stick with our belief that all our constituents deserve fair and reasonable time to plan and make provision in their daily lives to mitigate against strike action and industrial action, which have such a devastating impact on our economy and on people’s healthcare and their children’s education. We wish to see amendment 167 in the Bill, and we will press it to a Division.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Justin Madders
I will not detain the Committee long, because we have kind of had the debate already. Clause 57 seeks to repeal section 8 of the Trade Union Act 2016 by amending section 234A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. This will revert the notice period that trade unions need to provide, after securing a successful mandate, from 14 days to seven days.
As I have said, the Government are committed to modernising employment laws, striking a balance between enabling effective industrial action and ensuring that employers can reasonably prepare for such action. We have sought views on what notice period is suitable for modern working patterns and practices through a formal consultation, which closed last month, and we will be reporting on its outcome in due course. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Greg Smith
The bulk of the argument to be had on the clause was made in the debate on amendment 167. The Opposition still believe that the time period stated in this clause is insufficient to enable real people to plan. I therefore urge the Government to go back and consider this, and to see what more reasonable compromise they might be willing to offer our Great British public on Report.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 57 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 58
Union supervision of picketing
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Justin Madders
The clause seeks to reverse the effect of section 10 of the Trade Union Act 2016, thereby removing the requirement under section 220A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 for trade unions to appoint a picket supervisor and to meet other bureaucratic and administrative burdens in relation to the supervisor, such as taking reasonable steps to provide their name to the police. As the period of disruption between 2022 and 2024 has shown, administrative requirements and bureaucratic hurdles do not prevent strikes; they only make it more difficult for trade unions to engage in good faith negotiations with employers. These changes will bring trade union law into the 21st century and fix the foundations for industrial relations that have not delivered for workers, employers or unions in decades, costing the economy £3.3 billion in lost productivity in the last two years alone.
The Government recognise that regulations governing picketing lines are important, however. That is why the Bill repeals only those measures introduced by the Trade Union Act 2016 in relation to the role of the picket supervisor. Other legislation and an amended code of practice on picketing will remain in place. We are returning the law on picketing to what it was prior to 2016, when I believe that it was working well and was clearly understood by all parties. I therefore commend clause 58 to the Committee.
Greg Smith
I will not take much of the Committee’s time on this. The Opposition do not understand why the Government wish to remove perfectly sensible measures from the statute book, other than that the trade unions have clearly demanded that the change be made. It does not seem proportionate or reasonable to us, and we think that those picket supervisors should instead remain on the statute book, as they are the status quo.
Justin Madders
Our view was that the legislation was not required when it was introduced in 2016. There was no evidence at the time that there were issues with picketing, and there was already a code of practice in place to deal with abuse and intimidation on picket lines. Therefore, we believe that reverting to the pre-2016 position, when in most people’s opinion everything was working as it should, is an entirely reasonable move.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 58 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 59
Protection against detriment for taking industrial action
Amendment made: 83, in clause 59, page 71, line 4, leave out “three” and insert “six”.—(Justin Madders.)
This amendment would increase the time limit for bringing proceedings under the new section 236A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 from three months to six months.
Greg Smith
I beg to move amendment 166, in clause 59, page 72, line 21, at end insert—
“236E Actions short of a strike: exemption
(1) The right of a worker not to be subjected to detriment under section 236A does not apply in cases where the worker is involved in one or more of the following activities—
(a) intimidation at picket lines;
(b) protests organised by trade unions in furtherance of a dispute—
(i) at the premises of a company;
(ii) at the private residences of senior managers; or
(iii) at the premises of other organisations that are connected with the dispute;
(c) harassment or bullying of non-striking workers, or those who are covering for striking workers;
(d) victimisation or harassment of senior managers; or
(e) action aimed at damaging property or disrupting business contingency planning.
(2) The Secretary of State must ensure that the circumstances under subsection (1), in which the right of a worker not to be subjected to detriment do not apply, are set out in a code of practice.”
This amendment would disapply the right not to suffer detriment as a result of industrial action in certain circumstances.
Amendment 166, which was tabled in my name and those of my hon. Friends the Members for West Suffolk, for Bridgwater and for Mid Leicestershire, would disapply the right not to suffer detriment as a result of industrial action in certain circumstances. This amendment is designed to target what has become known as leverage, which is action taken by a trade union other than traditional industrial action to put pressure on an employer to settle a dispute or meet various demands. When describing leverage in the context of the Grangemouth dispute, Unite said:
“Leverage targets all areas of weakness of an employer, group of employers or sector—both direct and indirect. Leverage is an extension of the understanding that ‘weight of argument’ does not change the position of an employer. Leverage analyses what will change the position of the employer. Leverage is the translation of an organising mind-set into the planning and implementation of a campaign strategy, underpinned by the escalation of pressure to create uncertainty.”
Those are not my words, but the words of a spokesperson for Unite the union. Unite was also of the view that in a leverage campaign
“the employer is routinely treated as a target to be defeated not a friend to be convinced.”
I am not sure that is the good faith relationship between trade union and employer that Labour Members have tried to paint as the normal back and forth between the two. I would certainly condemn as unacceptable any relationship between a trade union and an employer in which
“the employer is routinely treated as a target to be defeated not a friend to be convinced”.
That is not good faith.
Laurence Turner
Even if I accepted the hon. Gentleman’s perspective, which I do not, does he accept that there are some issues with the amendment as drafted? For example, subsection (1)(b)(i) is about protests organised by trade unions in furtherance of a dispute at the premises of a company. I have been part of protests at the premises of a company that were not on land owned by the company but were immediately adjacent, on the public highway. If that were tested in court, that could conceivably fall under the definition of “at”.
Similarly, the amendment seeks to carve out an exemption to the protection of protests at the private residences of senior managers. Conceivably, protests could be organised outside the home of a middle manager or someone lower down the organisational structure. I am sure that is not what the hon. Gentleman is seeking to achieve.
Greg Smith
I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s constructive approach. If he accepts the principle of what we are saying, we will work with the Government to polish it, and to ensure the amendment gives the maximum protection and protects junior managers as well as senior managers, and land adjacent to a premise that may not be owned or leased by the company. I will happily work with him and the Minister in a constructive tone to ensure the protections against leverage are as strong as possible. I will happily withdraw the amendment if the Minister commits the Government to working with us and coming up with a stronger amendment on Report that will stamp out the practices I have outlined. I dare say that we will see in a few moments whether he does so.
Justin Madders
I think it would be helpful if I set out why we are seeking to address the issue of detriment within the Bill. The reason is that new section 236A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 is required because of the Supreme Court’s ruling in April 2024 that section 146 of the 1992 Act is incompatible with article 11 of the European convention on human rights, because it fails to provide any protection against detriments intended to deter or penalise trade union members from taking part in lawful strike action organised by their union. Hopefully, Members will accept as a starting proposition that we cannot continue to be in breach of our international obligations under the ECHR.
The intention is to rectify that situation by inserting new section 236A into part V of the 1992 Act. This will provide that a worker has the right not to be subject as an individual to detriment of a prescribed description by an act, or any deliberate failure to act, by their employer, if the act or failure to act takes place for the sole or main purpose of preventing or deterring the worker from taking protected industrial action, or penalising the worker for doing so. The prescribed detriments will be set out in secondary legislation following consultation, which will take place after the Bill gains Royal Assent.
The shadow Minister made some interesting points in his speech. However, his amendment seeks to prejudge the consultation on this issue. He made some valid points and I am sure that we will discuss this issue again in future, because there is a need for us to clarify what is considered a detriment, for the reasons that I have outlined.
Some of the examples that the shadow Minister gave are of things that are already catered for in the law. The protection from prescribed detriment only applies where the sole or main purpose of an act or a failure to act is to subject the worker to detriment, to prevent them from or penalise them for taking protective industrial action. For example, if a worker is subjected to detriment solely because, for example, they have damaged property, the protection would not apply. That is the existing position.
Of course the criminal law would still apply to pickets, just as it applies to everyone else, so no person involved in activities associated with pickets or organising pickets has any exemption from the provisions of the criminal law as it applies, for example, to prevent obstruction and preserve public order, or to regulate assemblies or demonstrations. There is already a relevant code of practice in place for that. Consequently, although I understand the points that the shadow Minister is making, I say to him that this issue will be dealt with in detail in a forthcoming consultation. I therefore ask him to withdraw his amendment.
Laurence Turner
The Minister raised the Fiona Mercer case, which was brought by Unison. As he said, the final judgment in that case found that new protections are needed to prevent the victimisation of workers who undertake lawful industrial action. Can he confirm that, as a result of the changes that we are making here today, the UK should now be compliant with international law?
Justin Madders
My hon. Friend is correct. That is indeed the purpose of the—well, we will get to the clause stand part debate shortly, when we will hopefully deal with that issue. However, this measure is about dealing with a particular ECHR judgment. Therefore, as I say, I ask the shadow Minister to withdraw his amendment.
Greg Smith
I understand the point that the Minister makes about prejudging any consultation, notwithstanding the points he makes about international obligations, but this is one of those areas where we have a particular identified problem in leverage that is not being challenged. I should be grateful if the Minister would provide further detail, not in Committee this afternoon but perhaps in writing, on where he thinks that protections exist around this.
From our perspective, it looks very much like this practice is happening and there are no protections against it. If there are protections against it, they are not being enforced. If they are not being enforced, there needs to be a mechanism to enable and allow that enforcement to take place. In good faith, I will withdraw the amendment for now and reserve the right to bring it back on Report, but notwithstanding some of the legitimate points made by the Minister, it is incumbent on us to properly stamp down on this practice and see it as very separate and distinct from the more traditional form of industrial action—strike action. The public understand that in a way that means that there would be even less sympathy when it comes to leverage. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
Justin Madders
We touched on this in our debate on the shadow Minister’s amendment. Clause 60 addresses the Supreme Court ruling made in April 2024 that section 146 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 is incompatible with article 11 of the European convention on human rights, in so far as it fails to provide any protection against detriments intended to deter trade union members from or penalise them for taking part in lawful strike action organised by their union. Clause 59 therefore amends the 1992 Act by inserting new section 236A into part V of the Act.
New section 236A provides that a worker has the right not to be subject as an individual to detriment of a prescribed description by an act, or any deliberate failure to act, by the worker’s employer if the act or failure takes place for the sole or main purpose of preventing or deterring the worker from taking protected industrial action or penalising the worker for doing so. The prescribed detriments will be set out in secondary legislation following consultation, which will take place after Royal Assent of the Bill. I will write to the shadow Minister with further detail on that in due course. However, the power in the Bill enables the Secretary of State to prohibit all detriments in secondary legislation should that be the preferred approach following consultation. Employers will continue to be able to deduct pay from workers in proportion to hours taken by strike action.
If a worker or former worker believes that they have been subject to a detriment by an employer in contravention of new section 236A, they may present a complaint to an employment tribunal within six months of the detriment occurring, or later if the tribunal is satisfied that it was not reasonably practicable for the complaint to be presented within that time period. On complaint to the employment tribunal, it is for the employer to show what was the sole or main purpose for which the employer acted or failed to act. If the tribunal finds that the complaint is well-founded, it must make a declaration to that effect and may make an award of compensation to be paid by the employer. The approach taken in the Bill addresses the ruling by the Supreme Court and, once the relevant secondary legislation has been made, will ensure that our legislation is compatible with the ECHR and ensure that protections against some forms of detriment for trade union representatives and members extend to industrial action.
Section 238A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act currently provides that workers can claim unfair dismissal if they are dismissed for taking protected industrial action and the dismissal takes place within 12 weeks of the worker starting the industrial action. The strike action could be intermittent rather than continuous. The worker will also be automatically regarded as unfairly dismissed if they are dismissed after the 12-week period but had stopped taking action before the end of that period or the employer had not taken reasonable steps to resolve the dispute. Industrial action is protected if it is official action for which the union has immunity under section 219 of the 1992 Act.
Clause 60 amends section 238A of the 1992 Act so that protection against dismissal will apply whatever the length of the strike action. Should the employer wish to dismiss an employee as a result of a long-running protected industrial action, the dismissal would have to be for reasons other than participating in industrial action. The clause also makes consequential amendments to sections 229 and 238B of the 1992 Act and sections 26 to 28 of and schedule 1 to the Employment Relations Act 2004. I commend the clauses to the Committee.
Greg Smith
We debated clause 59 at length in the debate on amendment 166, so I will not dwell on it further, but I am grateful for the Minister’s commitment to write to me on the provisions around leverage.
I will focus my remarks on clause 60 and the removal of provision for a 12-week protected period, with the result that the period would be extended indefinitely. I worry about the potential to create a bit of a lawyers’ charter, where someone will for evermore be challenged, if they are dismissed, on whether it was because they once took part in some form of industrial action. There needs to be some protection and commitment around that, to ensure that employers who have a legitimate reason for dismissing an employee that is not related to their participation in industrial action, are still able to dismiss the employee without fear of industrial action and of constantly being dragged back by lawyers, or potentially trade union representatives, seeking to exploit the removal of the 12-week period.
I accept that this is a niche and hypothetical point, but so much of the law and regulation that we pass in this place can be open to pretty wide interpretation. I think it is important, during line-by-line scrutiny of the Bill, that commitments are made by the Minister that the courts can look back on in years to come to see the true meaning of what the Government are trying to bring about with clause 60. Without those commitments, which in my opinion can be given verbally as part of the debate, some might find themselves in a very sticky spot.
Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship once again, Sir Christopher. I know that the shadow Minister likes us to draw attention to our union membership, so I again draw attention to my membership of Unison.
I welcome clause 59 because it addresses the critical issue of protecting workers taking part in industrial action, ensuring that they are safeguarded not just against dismissal but against other forms of detriment. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield has previously mentioned, the case of Fiona Mercer, a care worker suspended after participating in legal industrial action, highlights why the reforms are needed. Like so many care workers, Fiona dedicated her career to supporting some of the most vulnerable in our society—in Fiona’s case, adults with learning difficulties. Yet she faced suspension for standing up for fair pay and better conditions. Her case is a pertinent reminder of the vulnerabilities faced by workers in critical sectors such as social care when their legal rights are not adequately protected.
Therefore, I welcome the clause’s introduction of protections against detriment, ensuring that employers cannot punish workers like Fiona for exercising their right to strike. This provision is essential to safeguard the ability of care workers and others to advocate for fair treatment without fear of suspension, demotion or other retaliatory measures. The removal of the arbitrary 12-week protected period for unfair dismissal means that workers like Fiona can continue to fight for justice without compromising on protections.
Justin Madders
I will start by recognising the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby; the reason we are debating this clause is the case of Fiona Mercer and the quest for justice that my hon. Friend highlights. I will try to put the shadow Minister’s mind at ease about lawyers’ charters. As a former employment lawyer, I stand in the peculiar position of not wanting to see matters go to tribunal if we can avoid it. If we can resolve things before they get to that stage, it is always better. His fears are misplaced about the likelihood of creative lawyers going back many months or even years to link a particular dismissal to a period of industrial action.
There are many other potential claims that people can bring that relate to an act or something they may have done; whistleblowing is a very good example of that. Clearly, the further it is from the protected act and the dismissal, the harder it is to show that there is a connection, particularly, as will probably be the case for most dismissals that take place many months or years after the initial action, if there is an intervening event that causes the dismissal to take place. We do not want to get into the details of what those may be, but there are many intervening reasons why a dismissal might take place that have nothing to do with industrial action, but these are matters of law and fact for a tribunal to determine. We need to move away from a situation where we could have a particularly unscrupulous employer who wished to take advantage of the current law and seek to dismiss those who took part in industrial action 12 weeks and one day after that action had finished. That is not a state of affairs we want to defend.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 59, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 60 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 61
Repeal of provision about minimum service levels
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 27—Section 61: impact assessment—
“(1) The Secretary of State must carry out an assessment of the likely impact of section 61 of this Act on the ability of the services listed in section 234B(4) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Consolidation Act 1992 to provide minimum service levels during strike action.
(2) The Secretary of State must lay a report setting out the findings of the assessment before each House of Parliament.”
This New Clause requires the Secretary of State to assess the impact of the provisions of Clause 61.
Amendment 133, in clause 118, page 105, line 20, at end insert—
“(3A) But no regulations under subsection (3) may be made to bring into force section 61 of this Act until the findings set out in the report under section [section 61: impact assessment] have been approved by a resolution of the House of Commons on a motion moved by a Minister of the Crown.”
This amendment is linked to NC27.
Justin Madders
The clause seeks to repeal the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023, which provides powers for the Government to make regulations to set minimum service levels during strike action in some essential services. The previous Government introduced regulations to implement minimum service levels in rail, border security, fire and rescue, and ambulance services. No work notice, however, has ever been issued by an employer to require individuals to work to meet the minimum service level during strike action. This demonstrates the futility and misguided approach of the Act and I urge Members to support its repeal. Minimum service levels unduly restrict the right to strike and undermine good industrial relations. As a result, our plan—it is a clear manifesto commitment—pledged to repeal the Act to give trade unions the freedom to organise, represent and negotiate on behalf of their workers.
The clause amends the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. Subsection (1) repeals provisions of the 1992 Act as inserted by section 1 of the Strikes Act, with sections 234B to 234G falling away. A number of further amendments are made by the clause to the 1992 Act to reverse other changes made by the Strikes Act. As a result, all associated powers, regulations, provisions and defined terms related to minimum service levels will also fall away. We want to reset the relationship with both employers and trade unions to resolve disputes through meaningful negotiations, and repealing the Strikes Act will help us to achieve that.
I will now turn to new clause 27 and amendment 133, which were tabled by the hon. Member for Mid Buckingham- shire. The Government will not support his proposals, which unnecessarily ask for an assessment of the ability of essential public services to provide minimum service levels during industrial action, and to lay a report containing the findings before the House. The Government have already produced a comprehensive set of impact assessments, including an assessment covering the repeal of the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023. This was published alongside the Bill at Second Reading and is based on the best available evidence about the potential impact on business, workers and the wider economy. The assessment is hamstrung by the fact that the Act has never been implemented, so we are in some difficulty in seeing whether there was an impact from it.
The analysis we undertook, however, included labour market and broader macroeconomic analysis, including sectoral analysis on industries providing essential services, potential influence on collective bargaining and dispute resolution processes, while also addressing the balance between employer needs and union representation. We want to reset the relationship with both employers and trade unions to resolve disputes through meaningful negotiations, and believe that the Act was a hindrance to doing so. I therefore ask the shadow Minister not to move his new clause or amendment.
Greg Smith
I will focus my remarks predominantly on new clause 27 and amendment 133, which stand in my name and those of my hon. Friends. New clause 27 would require the Secretary of State to assess the impact of clause 61, which, as the Minister outlined, repeals legislation passed by the last Conservative Government that implemented minimum service levels in vital public services during periods of strike action. Amendment 133 would specify that regulations could not be laid to repeal minimum service levels legislation until the reports required by new clause 27 had been approved by a resolution of the House of Commons on a motion moved by a Minister of the Crown.
We think that is fundamentally right because, with no justification or explanation, the Government will repeal legislation designed to ensure that, during a strike, levels of service are maintained to ensure public safety. We consulted on minimum levels of service for the ambulance service, fire and rescue services and passenger rail services during the last Parliament. It is an important principle that members of the public, who pay through their taxes for lifesaving public services such as ambulance and fire services, should be able to rely on those services at all times, including when members of those services choose to take strike action. Equally, members of the public depend on rail services and in many cases will have already paid for them through season tickets. They have a right to an acceptable level of service, even when members of unions decide to take strike action.
Therefore, before the Government can commence the repeal of the minimum service levels legislation, we think it is only right that the Secretary of State should demonstrate and reassure the House that, in the sectors that the Conservatives specified as suitable for requiring minimum service levels during strike action—to recap, because I think it is important that we get this back on the record, those are health services, fire and rescue services, education services, transport services, services involved in the decommissioning of nuclear installations and management of radioactive waste and spent fuel, and border security—minimum levels of acceptable service can be provided to the public. I make that point not on a whim, but as a matter of public safety and public convenience, and I would be grateful for reassurance from the Minister on it.
If I may humanise it for a moment, this is not about simply saying that people should not be allowed to strike, or taking away rights or anything, although I am sure it will be painted as that; it is about expanding an established custom and precedent in this country about certain sectors, such as the police, being unable to strike. My father was a police officer for 31 years before he retired. We have always accepted as a country that the police should not be able to strike, because they are there for the fundamental purpose of public safety. We know that when we need them, they will be there and available. The same core public service, which we all pay for through our taxes, is provided by the other professions I outlined, not least fire and rescue services, border security and the niche but important services involved in the decommissioning of nuclear facilities, and there absolutely must be minimum service levels there too. Any one of us could need an ambulance at any point at no notice. Whether or not that minimum service level is in place is quite literally the difference between life and death. This is a serious issue.
The Labour party has always been opposed to minimum service levels. It opposed the legislation in the previous Parliament, and through this clause it is taking the quickest action possible to repeal it. I urge Labour Members to consider the practical, life-and-death consequences of not ensuring minimum service levels for fire, ambulance and border security services. If they have issues with some of the detail of the minimum service levels legislation, they should by all means strengthen it, but it would be simply negligent to allow the minimum service levels to drop and to leave any of our constituents—even just one—in a position of potentially life-and-death danger by repealing the legislation.
Justin Madders
I understand the points that the shadow Minister has made, but they would carry rather more weight if we had seen the minimum service levels Act operate in practice. The reality is that not a single day of industrial action has been prevented as a result of that legislation. The Government’s own impact assessment at the time indicated that it would have a detrimental impact on industrial relations, and the increase in strike days in the past couple of years has proved that to be the case.
It is also true that all the public sector bodies the shadow Minister referred to that are covered by the Act had voluntary arrangements in place to ensure that there was no endangerment to life. Trade unions and their members have and always will work with employers during periods of industrial action to ensure that life is not endangered. That is absolutely right. Indeed, there is potential criminal liability for those who do not. The evidence given by all at the time—including employers, who saw that the legislation was designed to drive a wedge between employers and trade unions—was that the existing voluntary arrangements worked and ensured that vital services were able to continue during periods of industrial action.
The minimum service levels Act drove a coach and horses through decades of agreement and understanding about how sensitive issues were dealt with during periods of industrial action. The proof is in the pudding: the fact that the Act was never used by any of the organisations that were empowered to use it shows that it was simply a bad piece of legislation, done purely for cosmetic political purposes, and had no meaningful impact. Therefore, its repeal will have no impact on the issues the shadow Minister has raised. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 61 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 62
Annual returns: removal of provision about industrial action
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clauses 63 to 69 stand part.
New clause 44—Certification Officer: growth duty—
“When discharging its general functions, the Certification Officer must, so far as reasonably possible, act in such a way as to advance the following objectives—
(a) the international competitiveness of the economy of the United Kingdom; and
(b) its growth in the medium to long term.”
This new clause would require the Certification Officer to advance the objectives of the international competitiveness of the economy and its growth in the medium to long term.
Justin Madders
Clause 62 seeks to reverse the effect of section 7 of the Trade Union Act 2016. It will remove the additional reporting requirements imposed on trade unions for their annual returns to the Certification Officer regarding details of industrial action taken during the reporting period. Specifically, trade unions will no longer be required to include information on any industrial action taken during the reporting period, the nature of the trade dispute relating to the industrial action, the type of industrial action taken or when it was taken, or confirmation that the relevant thresholds covering industrial action ballots have been met. Additionally, trade unions will no longer be required to include information regarding the results of industrial action ballots—for example, the number of votes cast and the number of those who voted yes or no.
Subsection (1) removes section 32ZA from the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, which sets out the additional reporting requirements on trade unions. Trade unions will still be required to submit an annual return to the Certification Officer. However, the amount of information they will be required to include will be reduced. By removing these additional administrative burdens on trade unions, we are freeing up their time to engage in bargaining and negotiation with employers and allowing them to devote more time to representing their members’ interests.
Clause 63 seeks to repeal amendments made to the 1992 Act by section 12 of the Trade Union Act 2016 and thereby remove the requirement for trade unions to include political fund expenditure in their annual return to the Certification Officer. Currently, this information must be provided where a union spends more than £2,000 per annum from its political fund. Subsection (2) removes section 32ZB from the 1992 Act, which sets out the information to be included in a union’s annual return on political expenditure.
Other subsections of clause 63 make other amendments to the 1992 Act that are consequential on the removal of section 32ZB, including as to its enforcement and its application to employers’ associations. Section 12 of the 2016 Act itself is repealed by subsection (7). Trade unions will still have to report to the Certification Officer on their income and expenditure. That includes reporting on the income and expenditure of the political fund. Moreover, all political parties will still be subject to the reporting requirements in the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, which requires certain donations and loans to be recorded and reported to the Electoral Commission.
Clause 64 seeks to repeal the remainder of the effect of section 18 of the 2016 Act. It removes the power of the Certification Officer to publicise a trade union’s failure to include the required industrial action data in its annual return. Clauses 62 and 63 remove the requirement for trade unions to include details of industrial action and political expenditure in their annual returns, so there is clearly no need for the Certification Officer to retain powers to enforce such a requirement.
Enforcement relating to details of political expenditure is addressed in clause 63, and enforcement relating to details of industrial action in clause 64. Therefore, clause 64(2) removes section 32ZC of the 1992 Act, thereby removing the powers of the Certification Officer to enforce the additional annual return requirements relating to industrial action. The Certification Officer will retain the powers to enforce the remaining annual return requirements in relation to a union’s financial affairs and governance.
Clause 65 seeks to reverse the effect of section 17(1) and (2) of the 2016 Act, which inserted schedule A3 to the 1992 Act. It will repeal the enhanced investigatory powers of the Certification Officer, including the power to launch investigations by inspectors, the ability to compel trade unions to produce documents, and the related powers of enforcement. Schedule A3 to the 1992 Act sets out the details of the Certification Officer’s investigatory powers as introduced by the 2016 Act.
Clause 65(5) removes section 256C of the 1992 Act and subsection (6) removes schedule A3 from the 1992 Act. Subsections (2), (3) and (4) make more minor amendments that relate to the removal of schedule A3. Consequentially, subsection (7) removes section 17(1) and (2) of the 2016 Act, and schedule 1 to that Act, and makes further minor amendments to schedule 4 to that Act and to section 43 of the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Act 2014.
The enhanced powers created by the 2016 Act were unnecessary. There was no evidence of regulatory failure, and unions have consistently complied with their statutory obligations in relation to their finances, governance and reporting requirements. Since their introduction, the Certification Officer has never used those additional powers. Removing onerous regulatory burdens from trade unions is part of the Government’s commitment to bringing in a new era of partnership that sees employers, unions and Government work together in co-operation and through negotiation.
Clause 66 seeks to remove the powers of the Certification Officer to investigate trade unions proactively without first having received a complaint from a member of that trade union. Those powers were added to various provisions of the 1992 Act by schedule 2 to the 2016 Act. The enhanced investigatory powers created by the 2016 Act were unnecessary. There was no evidence of regulatory failure, and unions have consistently complied with their statutory obligations in relation to their finances, governance and reporting requirements. In fact, since their introduction, the Certification Officer has never used those additional investigatory powers either.
Subsections (2) to (9) of clause 66 remove the ability for the Certification Officer to proactively investigate a range of issues, reverting to the position pre-2016, when the Certification Officer could only consider and act upon a complaint from a member. Trade unions are voluntary associations, run by and for their members. We are returning the Certification Officer’s role to one of adjudicating when it receives members’ complaints in relation to a union.
Clause 67 seeks to reverse the effect of section 19 of the 2016 Act to remove the ability of the Certification Officer to impose financial penalties on trade unions. The previous Government presented no evidence as to why the Certification Officer needed those additional powers. Since they have come into force, no financial penalties have been imposed on any trade union.
Schedule A4 to the 1992 Act sets out the detail of the power to impose financial penalties. Clause 67(2) removes section 256D of the 1992 Act, which gave effect to the schedule, and subsection (3) removes the schedule. As a result, the clause removes subsections (1) to (3) of section 19 of the 2016 Act and schedule 3 to that Act. The Certification Officer will retain the power to issue enforcement orders, and if those orders are not complied with, the union may be found in contempt of court.
Clause 68 will repeal sections 257A and 258(1A) of the 1992 Act, as inserted by section 20 of the 2016 Act. That will remove the levy charged by the Certification Officer on employers’ associations and trade unions. Furthermore, the Certification Officer will no longer be required to report on the levy as part of its annual report to Parliament. The levy is an impediment to the rights of voluntary associations, and it attracted criticism from international bodies, including the International Labour Organisation.
Clause 68(2) removes section 257A of the 1992 Act, which sets out the requirements for a levy to be paid to the Certification Officer by trade unions and employers’ associations. Subsection (3) removes the requirement in section 258(1A) of the 1992 Act for the Certification Officer to report on the levy. The Government believe that we should interfere as little as possible in the activities of social partners, which are voluntary associations.
Clause 69 seeks to reverse the changes made by section 21 of the 2016 Act to the 1992 Act so that the right of appeal against decisions of the Certification Officer to the Employment Appeal Tribunal is on questions of law only, rather than on questions of law and fact. That brings the appeals process back in line with the position before the 2016 Act and with many other enforcement bodies of employment law. For example, appeals against the decisions of employment tribunals are considered only on points of law, not points of fact. I hope hon. Members were keeping up with that; I shall be asking questions later.
New clause 44 would place a new duty on the Certification Officer, the regulator of trade unions and employers’ associations, by requiring it to advance the objectives of the international competitiveness of the economy and its growth over the medium to long term when carrying out its statutory functions.
It is helpful at this stage to set out the role of the Certification Officer. It has been the regulator of trade unions and employers’ associations since 1975 and not only carries out regulatory functions, but has administrative and supervisory functions and a significant quasi-judicial function, where it adjudicates on complaints raised by trade union members and other parties. As part of our repeal of the provisions of the Trade Union Act, we will be repealing the Certification Officer’s enhanced investigatory and enforcement powers and the levy imposed on trade unions and employers’ associations. As such, we will be returning the role much to what it was before the Trade Union Act was implemented.
The Certification Officer’s primary role is to ensure that both unions and employers’ associations adhere to the statutory requirements in relation to their finances and governance that Parliament has decided they are required to observe. Its statutory functions are to maintain lists of trade unions and employers’ associations; determine complaints from union members against their unions relating to alleged breaches of statutory duties and some other types of union rules; determine union independence; ensure that annual returns are made; supervise mergers, political fund ballots and members’ superannuation schemes; and investigate alleged financial irregularities and breaches in relation to trade union membership. The Certification Officer therefore has no locus in relation to industrial action and no role in making assessments of how unions and employers’ associations impact the economy. It has no economists or statisticians on its payroll.
In view of the Certification Officer’s functions and role, the new clause is not appropriate. It is not clear how the Certification Officer, in making decisions on whether a union or employer association has breached its statutory obligations, will act to advance the objectives of international competitiveness of the economy and its growth in the medium to long term. Hopefully the shadow Minister will set out how that would work in practice, because it is not obvious to me how the Certification Officer could take those factors into account when determining the statutory obligations that unions and employers’ associations have to observe under Acts of Parliament. For that reason, I ask him not to press his new clause, and I commend clauses 62 to 69 to the Committee.
Greg Smith
I congratulate the Minister on his marathon run through clauses 62 to 69. I will focus my comments particularly on new clause 44, which, as the Minister has outlined, would require the Certification Officer to advance the objectives of the international competitiveness of the economy and its growth in the medium to long term.
Justin Madders
I am grateful to the shadow Minister for taking slightly less time than I did on this grouping. For the record, I am fully supportive of the Prime Minister’s action plans, milestones, missions and all other types.
Justin Madders
I am afraid that would be out of scope of the Bill Committee. I hear what the shadow Minister says. His essential argument is that we should be able to judge the actions of trade unions in terms of the damage or disruption they cause to the UK economy. Of course, we want to see growth and we want to see industrial action minimised. We believe that by having a more harmonious set of industrial relations, we will see that.
Unfortunately, the shadow Minister’s new clause really mischaracterises the Certification Officer’s role. He is not, as the hon. Gentleman said, there to preside over strikes; he is there to preside over the governance, finances, reporting requirements and statutory obligations of trade unions and employers’ associations—I noted that the hon. Gentleman did not mention employers’ associations. The Certification Officer is not there to preside over industrial disputes and strikes. There are courts to intervene if a party feels aggrieved about the way industrial action has been observed, whether lawfully or not. I can see the intention of the new clause: the shadow Minister wants the Government to succeed in their growth mission. We all do, but I do not think the Certification Officer is the right or appropriate vehicle for that to take place.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 62 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 63 to 69 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 70
Regulations subject to affirmative resolution procedure
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Justin Madders
The clause amends section 293 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, with which I am sure all Members are now very familiar, to require that regulations made under the following new sections of the 1992 Act are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. This therefore will apply to the following regulations: section 70ZC, on access agreements, response period and negotiation period; section 70ZE, on access agreements and the period to make an application to Central Arbitration Committee; section 70ZF, on access agreements and determinations by the Central Arbitration Committee; section 70ZI, on the enforcement of access agreements and the maximum penalty; and section 236A, on detriment for taking industrial action. Any other regulations made under section 293 will continue to be subject to the negative resolution procedure. I therefore commend clause 70 to the Committee.
Greg Smith
I will not detain the Committee with a commentary on this clause.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 70 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 71
Devolved Welsh authorities
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 30—Repeal of Trade Union (Wales) Act 2017—
“The Trade Union (Wales) Act 2017 (anaw 4) is repealed.”
This new clause repeals the Trade Union (Wales) Act 2017.
The Minister for Equalities (Dame Nia Griffith)
We now turn to clause 71 and will resist Opposition new clause 30. Clause 71 is the final of the package of clauses to repeal the Trade Union Act 2016. It makes a consequential amendment to the Trade Union (Wales) Act 2017 following the repeal of the Trade Union Act 2016. Section 1 of the 2017 Act disapplied some of the provisions of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) 1992 Act, as introduced by the Trade Union Act 2016, from applying to devolved Welsh authorities. As the Trade Union Act 2016 and the relevant provisions of the 1992 Act are being repealed, section 1 of the 2017 Act is now redundant. There are also consequential amendments to the 1992 Act to remove the relevant references to devolved Welsh authorities.
New clause 30 seeks to repeal the Trade Union (Wales) Act 2017 in its entirety. Section 1 of this Act disapplies certain provisions of the Trade Union Act 2016 to devolved Welsh authorities. Repealing the Trade Union Act 2016 means that these provisions are no longer necessary. It is for that reason that we are repealing section 1 of the Trade Union (Wales) Act 2017 through clause 71 of this Bill. Section 2 of the 2017 Act is not impacted by the repeal of the Trade Union Act 2016. It prevents a devolved Welsh authority from using agency workers to replace striking workers. This Government support a prohibition on using agency workers to cover industrial action and therefore we are content to leave this in the Trade Union (Wales) Act 2017. New clause 30 is therefore unnecessary and I ask the shadow Minister to withdraw it. I commend clause 71 to the Committee.
Greg Smith
I will focus my remarks on new clause 30, tabled in my name and that of my hon. Friends the Members for West Suffolk, for Bridgwater and for Mid Leicestershire. It is good to see the Minister in her place on her first outing in the Committee of the day, and as she said, new clause 30 would repeal the Trade Union (Wales) Act 2017. Prior to the 2017 Act, there was legal ambiguity in post-devolution case law of the degree to which trade union legislation was a reserved or devolved competence. Following the passage of the Trade Union Act 2016 in the UK Parliament, the Labour-led Welsh Government then passed Welsh legislation—the Trade Union (Wales) Act 2017—to disapply a number of trade union measures in Wales in relation to devolved public services. The Wales Act 2017 was subsequently passed with cross-party and cross-institution agreement, and re-established that industrial relations were a reserved competence.
The Conservative-led UK Government at the time pledged to unwind the Welsh Government’s Act and reapply the full 2016 Act to Great Britain following the passage of the Wales Act 2017. However, re-asserting such common trade union law across Great Britain would require primary legislation in the United Kingdom Parliament. Given that the Wales Act 2017 established industrial relationships as a reserved competence, we would like to understand when the Government intend to resolve the changes implemented by the Welsh Government’s Act, which disapplied some of our 2016 Act. I do not think it is an unreasonable ask of the Government that we seek to resolve through the new clause.
Dame Nia Griffith
The point is very clear, isn’t it? In the legislation we are providing now, we are making the first part of the Trade Union (Wales) Act unnecessary, and therefore it is perfectly appropriate to put through a clause in this Bill to keep things in line with what we are doing across the UK. It is perfectly in order to have a clause that seeks to bring that particular legislation in line with the situation in which we now find ourselves.
On the second part of that legislation, as I have just said, that is already something on which we agree with the Welsh Government. We therefore see no particular reason why there should be a repeal of that legislation in the Bill, and we do not propose to do so. I suggest that the shadow Minister’s new clause is not necessary in the current Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 71 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Anna McMorrin.)
Employment Rights Bill (Seventeenth sitting)
Thursday 9th January 2025
(1 year, 2 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Employment Rights Act 2025 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 9 January 2025 - (9 Jan 2025)
The Chair
Would everyone please ensure that all electronic devices are turned off or switched to silent mode? We will now continue line-by-line consideration of the Bill. The grouping and selection list for today’s sittings is available in the room and on the parliamentary website. I remind Members about the rules on the declaration of interests, as set out in the code of conduct.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Mundell. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I seek your guidance on the status of a document circulated to Members by the Scrutiny Unit. It says it is submitted by a Professor Mitie, but I believe that the document is in fact from Mitie, the organisation, and perhaps we do not know its author. Could I ask that we be told who the author is? It is Professor Somebody Else, I suspect. The document also has tracked changes in it, and I seek your guidance on whether those are comments inserted by the Scrutiny Unit or, perhaps, by the author. It is sometimes difficult to know when documents are circulated at the last minute.
The Chair
Thank you, Sir Ashley, for giving notice of that point of order. The issue you have raised is obviously on the record. It will be raised with the Scrutiny Unit and there will be a report back to the Committee on the outcome of that inquiry.
Clause 72
Enforcement of labour market legislation by Secretary of State
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Justin Madders)
I beg to move amendment 84, in clause 72, page 79, line 15, at end insert—
“(4A) Accordingly, in the case of the exercise by an enforcement officer of an enforcement function of the Secretary of State, any reference in an enactment to the Secretary of State in connection with that function is to be read as, or as including, a reference to that officer or any other enforcement officer.”
This amendment ensures that, where an enforcement officer is exercising an enforcement function of the Secretary of State by virtue of clause 72(4), references in legislation to the Secretary of State in connection with that function will include references to enforcement officers, so that the legislation will apply in relation to the enforcement officer as it would apply to the Secretary of State if the Secretary of State were exercising the function.
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this morning, Mr Mundell. I start by making the customary reference to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
Clause 72 is the first in relation to the fair work agency, and it is one of the building blocks of the agency. I will explain the main elements of the clause, as that will help us to understand the amendment. The clause confers an overarching function on the Secretary of State to enforce certain legislation set out in part 1 of schedule 4, which the clause introduces. The clause provides flexibility for the Secretary of State in how to deliver that overarching enforcement function. It enables them to appoint enforcement officers to carry out the function on their behalf, and it provides that enforcement officers will be able to exercise any of the enforcement functions of the Secretary of State and will have the enforcement powers conferred on them as set out in the terms of their appointment by the Secretary of State.
As I said, the Secretary of State has the function of enforcing the legislation set out in part 1 of schedule 4. The legislation contains references to the Secretary of State having functions and powers in connection with the enforcement of the rights set out in that legislation. It is important that those references can be read as references to the enforcement officers the Secretary of State appoints to act on their behalf; otherwise, enforcement officers may not be able to properly exercise the enforcement functions of the Secretary of State. That would make their appointment, and potentially their enforcement activity, less effective.
Government amendment 84 inserts a new subsection after clause 72(4) to ensure that references to the Secretary of State are read as references to enforcement officers where necessary. The practical effect is that the legislation will apply to enforcement officers as it would to the Secretary of State. This is a technical change, but I hope that Members will see that it is necessary.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair once more, Mr Mundell.
Government amendment 84 looks to us like a drafting correction. We will not rehearse the arguments we have had so many times in the Committee about drafting corrections, but I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm whether the powers in the Bill, which are directly related to the amendment, for enforcement officers to enter and search business premises are any wider in scope than current enforcement powers and, if so, how and why.
Justin Madders
I am grateful to the shadow Minister for not rehearsing the arguments, as we may end up having them every five minutes, given the number of technical amendments we will deal with today. He raises an important question about the enforcement powers and powers of entry. There are a number of clauses that deal with that. My initial understanding is that, generally speaking, we are not seeking to widen the remit of current enforcement powers. I will endeavour to write to him if there are any changes or exceptions to that. It may be something that becomes apparent when we debate the clauses in question.
Amendment 84 agreed to.
Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
Justin Madders
Clause 72 is important, as it sets out the principles of a major part of the Bill. The UK’s labour market enforcement system is fragmented. The enforcement of core rights such as the minimum wage, domestic agency regulations and the gangmasters licensing scheme is split between three different agencies. That often means that workers do not know where to go when they think they might not have received what they are due. That makes enforcement ineffective. It is not fair for workers or businesses.
Clause 72 is a vital building block in the creation of the fair work agency. It is worth noting from the outset that the FWA will be established as an executive agency of the Department for Business and Trade, which means that it will not have its own distinct identity in legislation. The Bill therefore vests responsibility for enforcement of labour market legislation in the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State intends to discharge those responsibilities through the fair work agency, which will be created in administrative documents.
Clause 72(1) places responsibility for enforcing a set list of labour market legislation on the Secretary of State and introduces part 1 of schedule 4, which sets out the list of relevant labour market legislation that the Secretary of State will be responsible for enforcing. There is a general power in clause 118(3) to make regulations that commence different aspects of the Bill at different points. Exactly when the Secretary of State will take on responsibility for enforcement will depend on the detail of those commencement regulations. However, creating the fair work agency is about more than simply moving things around; the agency will also take on the ability to enforce workers’ right to paid holiday and their entitlement to statutory sick pay.
Clause 72(2) explains that part 5 of the Bill confers powers on the Secretary of State and enforcement officers to carry out the purpose of enforcing the labour market legislation in schedule 4. Clause 72(3) makes it clear that an enforcement officer includes anyone whom the Secretary of State has appointed to carry out enforcement of that legislation on his behalf, and clause 72(5) clarifies that enforcement officers appointed by the Secretary of State have only the powers conferred on them when they are appointed. Practically speaking, that means that whether the Secretary of State or an enforcement officer is carrying out this work, they will have the enforcement and investigatory powers they need to do the job effectively. Those powers are set out in later clauses.
Clause 72(5) is also a particularly important safeguard. As I have already said, the responsibility for enforcing legislation and the powers to carry it out will be vested in the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of State will then confer them on the enforcement officers he appoints. However, the FWA’s remit will also include the serious issue of modern slavery and labour abuse, for which certain specially trained enforcement officers will have extensive police-style powers, as set out in section 114B of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. Certain officers in the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority are trained to use those powers, which are subject to additional oversight, including by the Independent Office for Police Conduct. The powers should continue to be reserved for tackling the most serious issues handled by the FWA. That is why we have included clause 72(5), through which the Secretary of State will specify what powers enforcement officers will have access to when appointing them. We will ensure that powers are conferred only on officers who are sufficiently qualified to use them and who genuinely need them to do their job.
Sir Ashley Fox
The Minister is talking about granting officials of the state extensive powers currently reserved to police officers. Can he tell us how many additional officials will be granted those additional powers?
Justin Madders
What we are doing is transferring existing powers and responsibilities from the existing agency. There are no new police-style powers being created for these officers; it is simply a transfer over to the fair work agency.
Clause 72 is key to delivering the much-needed upgrade to the enforcement of workers’ rights so that it is more effective and fair for workers and businesses. It brings together enforcement functions currently split between several different enforcement agencies and gives the fair work agency the flexibility to respond to a rapidly changing labour market. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Greg Smith
A lot of the detail is in the clauses that follow this one; as the Minister said, this is very much a building-block clause. Although I totally understand and appreciate the rationale for taking enforcement powers that are currently fragmented across multiple different agencies and consolidating them into one, the devil is always in the detail.
Although it might seem sensible to consolidate the powers that are currently so spread out into one agency, this is very much a centralisation of power. The crux of clause 72 is about directly providing the Secretary of State with the overall function of enforcing labour market legislation. Whenever I see such provisions in any legislation, I cannot help but be reminded of the late, great President Reagan’s famous quote about the nine most terrifying words in the English language:
“I’m from the Government, and I’m here to help.”
As my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater suggested in his intervention on the Minister, the serious detail is about the practical workings of the fair work agency as it is set up. What will be the total number of enforcement officers, employees and ancillary staff required—admittedly, some will be brought across from other agencies—to form it? What will be the cost to the taxpayer of putting that together? How many people are we actually talking about? I think that, as opposed to the powers that they will hold, was the crux of my hon. Friend’s intervention.
As I said, we accept the rationale for bringing these powers together under one agency, but whenever such powers are granted to a Secretary of State, no matter what the field, there is always uncertainty and scope for never-ending expansion of the new agency, and of the size of the state, to do what is, in many cases, important enforcement work—I do not doubt that. Given the presumption that the Bill will become an Act of Parliament and that the agency will be set up in the way envisaged in clause 72, it would be good to have clarity about the plan for just how big the agency will be and whether the Secretary of State will put any cap on that from the get-go. How far does the Minister envisage the agency going?
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
It is a pleasure to work under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I broadly welcome the bringing together of powers under the fair work agency. I note that the Secretary of State is due to publish an annual report, but I am sure that businesses in Torbay would be interested to know where in the Bill the critical friend is to hold the Secretary of State to account and ensure that they are being light of foot and driving the agenda we all want to see in this area, so I would welcome the Minister’s sharing that.
Michael Wheeler (Worsley and Eccles) (Lab)
As is customary, I draw the Committee’s attention to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am a member of the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers and the GMB.
I warmly welcome this clause and the subsequent clauses, and the establishment of the fair work agency. I remind the Committee of the evidence we heard of the broad support for the agency, including from Helen Dickinson, the chief executive of the British Retail Consortium, who said:
“I think everybody is supportive of and aligned on proposals like a single enforcement body.”––[Official Report, Employment Rights Public Bill Committee, 28 November 2024; c. 99, Q95.]
Jamie Cater, the senior policy manager for employment at Make UK, said:
“The important thing for levelling the playing field is the fair work agency, and making sure that we have an approach to enforcement of labour market policy and regulation that is properly resourced and does have that level playing field.”––[Official Report, Employment Rights Public Bill Committee, 26 November 2024; c. 54, Q53.]
Jim Bligh, the director of corporate affairs for the Food and Drink Federation, said:
“For me, it is about enforcement and having a really strong, well-resourced enforcement agency.”––[Official Report, Employment Rights Public Bill Committee, 26 November 2024; c. 55, Q53.]
Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)
As always, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Mundell. As is customary, I draw attention to my declarations in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my membership of the GMB and Unite trade unions. It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles. I will make two brief complementary points.
First, the establishment of a single enforcement body was one of the core recommendations of the Taylor review. We were told over the last two Parliaments that an employment Bill was coming. Now that it is here, it is welcome that that recommendation is being acted on.
Secondly, in the Australian system of industrial relations, the Fair Work Commission is a long-standing and effective enforcement body that has survived multiple changes of governing party, so there are good international comparators to draw on, as well as the support we heard in the evidence sessions. The resourcing questions that have been raised are valid, and I am sure that those of us who come at this from a trade union background and point of view also take a close interest in the resourcing of the fair work agency. I make those two additional points in support of this measure.
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
I want to add my support in principle for the idea of a single labour market regulator. I have written about that in the past in different ways and can claim a small amount of credit for the commissioning of the Taylor review into the gig economy when I was working in 10 Downing Street. These issues are very important to me. Hopefully that will reassure the Minister and Labour Members of my cross-party credentials when that might be necessary.
We can all think of ways in which different kinds of labour market exploitation—non-payment of the national minimum wage or living wage; breaches of terms and conditions, health and safety or holiday rights; and illegal working, among many other examples—can be difficult to address if the laws are tough but the enforcement is poor. Those on both sides of the Committee can agree on that.
I want to add to the questions that have already been raised. I think the Minister said that the idea is that no additional powers will be granted and that this is just a consolidation. My understanding is that the fair work agency will not be a single monolithic agency; it is more about different strands of work being brought under a single leadership. If that is the case, presumably the different agencies that exist will do so until this legal change comes into effect. Presumably, the powers of the officers in each of those agencies differ in certain ways. Will that remain the case under the one body, or will there be interoperability and transfer of officers within the different sections under the single regulator? Or is the idea that the officers across those different entities will all assume the maximum powers that exist at the moment so that they can operate across all the different responsibilities of the new agency? I think that would still mean a net increase in powers across those people. What work has been done in the Department to give us an idea of the numbers we are talking about? If the Minister could answer that and then write to us with some more detail and statistics, I would be grateful.
Justin Madders
It is pleasing to hear generally broad support for this measure. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield pointed out, and as the hon. Member for West Suffolk will know better than most, this was previously a Conservative party manifesto commitment, and we are pleased to be able to move it forward.
Some detailed operational questions were asked. At this stage, how the agency will work in practice is still being fleshed out. The current understanding in the impact assessment is that this is about the consolidation of existing resources and having a single point of leadership. Members will recall that, in her evidence to the Committee, Margaret Beels, the Director of Labour Market Enforcement, talked about how her role would be much easier if she were able to combine the powers of different agencies.
The shadow Minister asked whether we will require extra staff. That will be part of discussions with the Treasury. As he will know, there is a spending review on the horizon and Departments have been asked to look at savings. Clearly, we hope that the combining of resources will lead to some efficiencies, but there is certainly a view from a number of stakeholders that enforcement is not at the level it ought to be—
Greg Smith
I fully acknowledge and appreciate the Minister’s point about negotiation with the Treasury, but even if we take it as read that it is right to bring powers into a single enforcement agency, there is always a cost to creating anything new, even if it is a consolidation. Surely, the Department for Business and Trade has a cost for that. There is legislation live, in front of us right now, that seeks to create the agency, so surely he must know the broad cost of setting it up and consolidating those powers.
Justin Madders
Yes, the impact assessment sets out the one-off set-up costs. I am sure the shadow Minister can spend the lunch break looking at the detail. In terms of the current enforcement framework, as I say, there is a view that more needs to be done. Of course, we will be adding holiday pay and social security to that, and there is a power to add further areas. We know that generally, when resources are combined, we can deliver more—the sum is greater than the parts.
The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Torbay, asked about the critical friend. This Government are always ready to have critical friends—more on the “friend” side than the “critical” side. We will come shortly to a clause about an advisory board, which will have a broad range of stakeholders able to take that role.
Greg Smith
Does the Minister not agree that for any power held by any Secretary of State in any Department, the critical friend is a very simple concept? It is called Parliament—it is all of us.
Justin Madders
Indeed it is, and the usual parliamentary scrutiny will apply, but I was talking specifically about the role of the fair work agency. There will be that role, and no doubt as more detail emerges there will be more parliamentary opportunities to talk about the role and functions of the agency.
My hon. Friends the Members for Worsley and Eccles and for Birmingham Northfield talked about the broad support for the agency’s establishment, as indeed did the hon. Member for West Suffolk. I have a list of all the supportive witnesses at the oral evidence sessions, and it is a broad and impressive cast. It includes the CBI, the British Chambers of Commerce, the British Retail Consortium, the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, the Recruitment and Employment Confederation, the Food and Drink Federation, the Co-op, Margaret Beels, and of course all the trade unions. There is support across the board for this single enforcement body.
Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. There are a few points about the creation of the agency that I would like the Minister to address. I am broadly supportive of synergies and of the rationalisation of public bodies, particularly to ensure that the taxpayer is getting value for money, but have the Government considered the cost of this new body and whether it will result in savings for the taxpayer? Will they consider locating it outside London so that it is more broadly reflective of the country at large?
Justin Madders
As a regional MP—a north-west Member—I am always looking to see where we can get more Government agencies out into the rest of the country. It is probably too early to say, but those kinds of decisions are being looked at.
At the moment, His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs deals with minimum wage enforcement. Moving such a specific task across to another body will take some time, so there may well be a period during which HMRC continues to undertake that work, albeit that it is within the remit of the fair work agency. Such operational details will be discussed and dealt with in due course.
The hon. Member for West Suffolk made a point about the powers of individual officers. Initially, we envisage that officers will move into, effectively, their existing roles. It will be a matter for operational consideration in due course whether it is beneficial to extend people’s remits. It will not be required of anyone without sufficient training and safeguards in place, but as the agency develops, it may well be considered advantageous to broaden the role of enforcement officers. One of the rationales for the body is that there are often several aspects to an employer’s breach of obligations, so we want the fair work agency to be able to tackle these things as a whole. However, that is an operational matter that will be dealt with in due course. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 72, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 4
Legislation subject to enforcement under part 5
Justin Madders
I beg to move amendment 169, in schedule 4, page 127, line 29, leave out paragraph 3 and insert—
“3 Section 151(1) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 (employer’s liability to pay statutory sick pay).
3A Regulations under section 153(5)(b) of that Act (requirement to provide statement about entitlement).”
This amendment clarifies the specific obligations relating to the payment of statutory sick pay which will be enforceable under Part 5 of the Bill.
Justin Madders
As we have discussed, the current enforcement system for workers’ rights is fragmented. By creating the fair work agency, we intend to bring enforcement into one place. We have been clear that we also want the fair work agency to enforce individual rights to statutory sick pay, because we want to upgrade the enforcement of workers’ rights and stand up for the most vulnerable in our workforce, including those who are unable to work owing to sickness. That is why part 1 of schedule 4 to the Bill, as introduced on 10 October 2024, includes part 11 of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992—one of the main pieces of legislation setting out the statutory sick pay regime—in the body of relevant labour market legislation. Government amendment 169 further clarifies the obligations concerning the payment of statutory sick pay under the Act and regulations made under it, which will be enforceable under part 5 of the Bill.
However, there is a wider body of statutory sick pay legislation containing details about the entitlements bestowed on workers and the duties of employers. After further work, we noted that some of those provisions needed to be included under the fair work agency. That led us to amendment 170, which will add the following legislation to part 1 of schedule 4: regulations made under section 5 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992, in so far as they relate to statutory sick pay, which deal with claims for, and payment of, benefits; section 14(3) of the Act, which establishes the duty on employers to provide employees with certain information about their sick pay entitlement; and regulations made under section 130 of the Act, in so far as they relate to statutory sick pay. Those provisions will be considered relevant labour market legislation, which makes them part of the Secretary State’s enforcement function. We will proceed with them once the fair work agency is ready to enforce them effectively. Amendments 169 and 170 are therefore necessary for the fair work agency to deliver its remit on statutory sick pay.
Greg Smith
Amendment 169 clarifies the specific obligations relating to the payment of statutory sick pay that are enforceable under part 5. Similarly, amendment 170 will ensure that those additional obligations relating to statutory sick pay that are imposed on employers by the Social Security Administration Act 1992 are enforceable under part 5. This goes back to our old friend, drafting errors being corrected that should really have been sorted out before the Bill was presented to Parliament in the first place.
Justin Madders
We will probably have this conversation a number of times. It is probably a little harsh to say that this was an error, but it would be fair to say that, given the complexity of social security legislation, not every provision was identified when the Bill was first introduced.
Amendment 169 agreed to.
Amendment made: 170, in schedule 4, page 127, line 30, at end insert—
“Social Security Administration Act 1992
3B Regulations under section 5 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 (regulations about claims for and payments of benefit), so far as relating to statutory sick pay.
3C Section 14(3) of that Act (duty of employers to provide certain information to employees in relation to statutory sick pay).
3D Regulations under section 130 of that Act (duties of employers), so far as relating to statutory sick pay.”—(Justin Madders.)
This amendment ensures that additional obligations relating to statutory sick pay that are imposed on employers by the Social Security Administration Act 1992 are enforceable under Part 5 of the Bill.
Greg Smith
I beg to move amendment 118, in schedule 4, page 128, leave out lines 11 to 16.
This amendment is consequential on NC20 and removes those regulations from the list of legislation subject to enforcement under Part 5 of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 119, in schedule 5, page 130, leave out lines 16 and 17.
This amendment is consequential on NC20 and removes an enforcement authority within the meaning of regulation 28 of those Regulations from the list of persons to whom information may be disclosed under Clause 98 of the Bill.
New clause 20—Revocation of the Working Time Regulations 1998—
“(1) The Working Time Regulations 1998 (S.I. 1998/1833) are revoked.
(2) The following regulations are also revoked—
(a) the Merchant Shipping (Working Time: Inland Waterways) Regulations 2003 (S.I 2003/3049);
(b) the Fishing Vessels (Working Time: Sea-fishermen) Regulations 2004 (S.I. 2004/1713);
(c) the Cross-border Railway Services (Working Time) Regulations 2008 (S.I. 2008/1660);
(d) the Merchant Shipping (Maritime Labour Convention) (Hours of Work) Regulations 2018 (S.I. 2018/58).
(3) In consequence of the revocations made by subsection (1) and (2)—
(a) omit the reference to regulation 30 of the Working Time Regulations in Schedule A2 to the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (tribunal jurisdictions to which section 207A applies)
(b) omit section 45A of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (protection from suffering detriment in employment: working time cases);
(c) omit section 101A of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (unfair dismissal: working time cases);
(d) omit section 104(4)(d) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (assertion of working time rights);
(e) omit section 18(1)(j) of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996 (which refers to regulation 30 of the Working Time Regulations among proceedings to which conciliation is relevant);
(f) omit section 21(1)(h) of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996 (jurisdiction of the Employment Appeals Tribunal in relation to the Working Time Regulations);
(g) omit the reference to regulation 30 of the Working Time Regulations in Schedule 5 to the Employment Act 2002 (tribunal jurisdictions to which section 38 applies);
(h) omit the reference to regulation 28 of the Working Time Regulations in Schedule 1 to the Immigration Act 2006 (person to whom director etc may disclose information);
(i) omit paragraph 141(h) of Schedule 7A to the Government of Wales Act 2006 (specific reserved matters), but this omission does not confer any jurisdiction on the Senedd or Welsh Government.
(4) The power of the Secretary of State to make consequential amendments under section 113(1) must be exercised to make such further consequential amendments as are necessary in consequence of subsections (1) and (2).”
This new clause revokes the Working Time Regulations 1998 together with other Regulations which give effect to the Working Time Directive in UK law, and makes consequential provision.
Amendment 117, in clause 118, page 105, line 20, at end insert—
“(3A) But if the provisions of section [Revocation of the Working Time Regulations 1998] have not been fully brought into force before the end of the period of 12 months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, that section (so far as not already in force) comes into force at the end of that period.”
This amendment is consequential on NC20 and provides that the revocation must have effect within a year of the passing of this Act.
Greg Smith
I rise to speak to amendments 117, 118 and 119 and new clause 20, which stand in my name and in the name of my hon. Friends on the Committee. I make it clear that they are probing amendments; it will become clear over the next couple of minutes why we seek to probe the Government on the issue.
The amendments would repeal the working time directive within one year of the Bill’s coming into force. Our reason for tabling them is not that we intend to abolish entitlement to holidays, lunch breaks and so on—far from it, and nobody is suggesting that. However, the working time directive has had a troubled history. One example is the difficulties that occurred between the Commission and member states when the Court of Justice of the European Union ruled that employers—all of them public health and emergency services—did not calculate time spent on call as working time, when they should have done. The CJEU consistently declared that practice incompatible with the directive, arguing that inactive time spent at the disposal of the employer must be counted in its entirety as working time. Then, in 2019, the Court ruled:
“Member States must require employers to set up an objective, reliable and accessible system enabling the duration of time worked each day by each worker to be measured.”
The result of that judgment was never formally brought into British law, but as a result of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, it became part of retained EU law.
Last year, the Conservative Government legislated to clarify that businesses do not have to keep a record of the daily working hours of their workers if they are able to demonstrate compliance without doing so; to amend the WTR so that irregular hours and part-year workers’ annual leave entitlement is pro-rated to the hours that they work; to introduce an accrual method for calculating holiday entitlement for certain workers; to revoke the covid regulations—it seems odd that we are still saying that—and to introduce rolled-up holiday pay for irregular hours and part-year workers. Consultation requirements under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 to allow smaller businesses to consult directly with employees would be another measure. That is just the start of how it might be possible to simplify the working time directive. I would be grateful to hear the Minister’s thoughts on how well the working time regulations are working, and on whether any further changes might be made for the benefit of businesses to enable growth in this country.
Justin Madders
The working time regulations have had a relatively long history in our legal framework. They provide vital rights: a maximum working week of 48 hours, rest breaks of 20 minutes every six hours, rest periods of 11 hours each day and at least 24 hours each week, and 28 days of annual leave each year. The regulations implement the EU working time directive; the then Government deliberately designed them to provide maximum flexibility for both employers and workers. For example, workers can choose to opt out in writing from the 48-hour week maximum. We believe that the regulations have benefited millions of workers and their families over the years. They afford workers a better balance between work and other responsibilities, as well as improvements in health and wellbeing.
A 2014 review by the previous Government of the impact of the working time regulations on the UK labour market found that since 1998 there had been a decline in long-hours working in the UK and a general trend towards shorter working hours, which is probably not a surprise. The findings also suggested that the impact of the regulations was mainly through increased employment of workers doing shorter working weeks, rather than through a reduction in total hours worked. Annual leave entitlements have increased since the introduction of the working time regulations; many workers now enjoy a more generous leave entitlement than is prescribed by law.
Limitations on working hours and entitlement to a minimum number of days’ holiday can contribute to improvements in health and safety. Most employers accept that a minimum holiday entitlement contributes to physical and psychological wellbeing. Reductions in stress and fatigue caused by excess hours can provide many benefits, including less pressure on health services and better performance at work, with fewer accidents. By establishing minimum standards, the working time regulations also support a level playing field that discourages competition that relies on poor working conditions and a race to the bottom.
New clause 20 would revoke the Merchant Shipping (Maritime Labour Convention) (Hours of Work) Regulations 2018, which provide for adequate rest for seafarers and support the management of onboard fatigue and the wellbeing of seafarers. Revoking the regulations would negatively affect the ability of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency to enforce safe and healthy working conditions for seafarers.
The new clause would also revoke the Fishing Vessels (Working Time: Sea-fishermen) Regulations 2004, which require the UK to implement the International Labour Organisation’s work in fishing convention, which underpins the safe operation of vessels. Fishing is one of the most dangerous sectors in the UK, with 50 injuries per 100,000 workers compared with a UK average of 0.4. We believe that the 2004 regulations are critical to ensuring that workers take the appropriate hours of rest to prevent fatigue-related incidents.
The new clause would also revoke the Merchant Shipping (Working Time: Inland Waterways) Regulations 2003. The Maritime and Coastguard Agency is in the process of conducting a post-implementation review of those regulations. The initial responses to the consultation have indicated a generally positive view from stakeholders.
The new clause would also revoke the Cross-border Railway Services (Working Time) Regulations 2008, which provide enhanced rights and worker protections for those engaged in cross-border rail services, such as train crew for Eurostar services through the channel tunnel. The revocation of the regulations would erode those enhanced protections.
The Government believe that the minimum standards in the Working Time Regulations 1998 and other sector-specific working time regulations have supported millions of workers and their families by enabling them to better balance work and other responsibilities. The Government have no plans to revoke the working time regulations or any of the other sector-specific regulations.
I understand what the shadow Minister says about whether we consider the regulations to be beneficial to businesses, but he will know that there was ample time under his Government to undertake those reviews. Indeed, one was undertaken just over a decade ago, as I said. We have no plans to erode workers’ rights in this area; indeed, one of the fair work agency’s main functions will be to enforce rights to holiday pay, which evidence to the Committee suggests are not being enforced properly.
The shadow Minister says that he has no intention of revoking the working time regulations and that his amendment is probing, but I can only speak to what is before the Committee. If he had tabled an amendment seeking a review of the operation of the working time regulations, that might have been more appropriate in the circumstances. This feels to me like a dog-whistle amendment, so I am pleased to hear that he will not be pressing it.
Greg Smith
I am always pleased to delight the Minister in these debates. It was a probing amendment, and I can confirm that we will not be pressing amendments 117 to 119 or new clause 20 to a Division. However, I will briefly comment on the Minister’s response. I entirely respect him for it, but it was a full-throated defence of the status quo.
Something that goes deep within my view of politics, of government and of public administration is there is always room for improvement in pretty much everything. I say that as much about measures passed by previous Conservative Governments as about those passed by current or past Labour Governments. I refuse to accept that something is as good as it possibly can be and is working as well as it possibly can in the interests of businesses and workers alike. There is some disappointment from the official Opposition that the Government do not seem to want to look again.
Justin Madders
Does the shadow Minister not accept that his party undertook this exercise, which is why regulations were introduced last year to amend the working time regulations?
Greg Smith
I fully and totally accept that, but it is our job as the official Opposition, here and now in January 2025, to press the current Government on further measures that could be taken to work in the interests of everybody in our country—workers and businesses alike. Perhaps I accept the Minister’s point; perhaps we could have tabled an amendment to call for a review. Who knows? Perhaps on Report we might. But the fundamental position that I come back to is one that does not just accept the status quo, but is always challenging, always reviewing and always seeking to make things better in the interests of everyone.
When the Minister goes back to the Department and prepares for the remaining stages of the Bill in the main Chamber and in the other place, may I gently urge him to consider in the round, with the Opposition’s support, whether there are tyres to be kicked and measures to be improved in the operation of the working time directive? May I also urge him to ensure—now that we are a sovereign country once more, having left the European Union—that this Parliament can make improvements should it so wish? I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Justin Madders
I beg to move amendment 85, in schedule 4, page 128, line 13, at end insert—
“( ) regulations 13 to 15E (entitlement to annual leave, etc);”
This amendment would enable the Secretary of State to enforce the entitlements to annual leave conferred by the Working Time Regulations 1998.
Government amendment 85 will add to schedule 4 the additional holiday pay and entitlement regulations: regulations 13, 13A, 14, 15, 15A, 15B, 15C, 15D and 15E of the Working Time Regulations 1998. It will enable the fair work agency to take enforcement action in relation to incorrect payment or non-payment of a worker’s holiday pay and incorrect payment or non-payment in lieu of annual leave entitlement, ensuring that a wider range of complaints can be dealt with more effectively. I commend it to the Committee.
Greg Smith
This is another example of a tidying-up exercise that we really should not have to be discussing in Committee. It should have been sorted before the Bill was introduced.
Amendment 85 agreed to.
Question proposed, That the schedule, as amended, be the Fourth schedule to the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 23—Review of the effectiveness of enforcement of labour market legislation—
“(1) The Secretary of State must establish an independent review providing for—
(a) an assessment of the effectiveness of enforcement of, and compliance with, relevant labour market legislation requirements as specified in Part 1 of Schedule 4 of this Act;
(b) an assessment of the performance and effectiveness of following bodies in enforcing labour market legislation—
(i) Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority;
(ii) Employment Agencies Standards Inspectorate;
(iii) His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs; and
(iv) Health and Safety Executive; and
(c) recommendations on strengthening labour market legislation enforcement.
(2) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report of the review in subsection (1) not more than 18 months after the day on which this Act is passed and before a new single labour market enforcement body is established.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to establish a review of enforcement of labour market legislation and to report findings to Parliament before a new labour market enforcement body is established.
Justin Madders
The UK’s labour market enforcement system is fragmented, as we know. The enforcement of core rights such as the minimum wage, the domestic agency regulations and the gangmaster licensing scheme is split between three different agencies, so workers often do not know where to go when they think they might not have received what they are due. That makes enforcement ineffective.
Clause 72 is a vital building block of the fair work agency. Clause 72(1) will place on the Secretary of State a responsibility to enforce a set list of labour market legislation. It introduces part 1 of schedule 4, which sets out the list of relevant labour market legislation that the Secretary of State will be responsible for enforcing— the national minimum wage, domestic agency regulations, the gangmasters licensing scheme, parts 1 and 2 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 and the administration of the unpaid employment tribunal award penalty scheme.
Creating the fair work agency is about more than simply moving things around. That is why we have also taken steps to enforce workers’ rights to paid holiday and statutory sick pay. We tabled two sets of amendments to part 1 of schedule 4 to ensure that the fair work agency delivers the policy intent in relation to enforcing holiday pay and statutory sick pay. As we have discussed, our amendment on holiday pay will ensure that the FWA can take action in relation to incorrect payment or non-payment of a worker’s holiday pay and incorrect payment or non-payment in lieu of annual leave entitlement; our amendment on statutory sick pay will ensure that all relevant statutory sick pay provisions that contain entitlements for workers or impose duties on employers are in scope of enforcement.
Part 2 of schedule 4 grants the Secretary of State a delegated power to make affirmative regulations to add new legislation to part 1 of the schedule. The Secretary of State can use the power to bring in scope legislation that relates to the rights of employees and workers, the treatment of employees and workers and requirements on employers, and legislation on trade unions and labour relations. It is a broad power but a necessary one: if we are to deliver the policy intent of genuinely upgrading enforcement, the fair work agency needs to be able to respond to changes in the labour market. We believe that a power to make affirmative regulations, which Parliament will of course have to approve, will ensure proper parliamentary scrutiny for any further changes.
New clause 23 is well intentioned, but it is unnecessary and would be counterproductive. It would impose a lengthy and redundant review process that largely duplicated the statutory duties that are already undertaken by the director of labour market enforcement. She already oversees the enforcement landscape and provides an annual strategy and annual report on the effectiveness of the activities of the bodies that will make up the fair work agency. New clause 23 would do nothing to add to those mechanisms. In fact, it would slow down the creation of the fair work agency.
I turn to clause 75—
Justin Madders
Okay. I have nothing further to say, except that the shadow Minister’s new clause 23 is a duplication of existing requirements that would add nothing to the process.
Greg Smith
I hear what the Minister says about slowing things down, but it would be remiss of me not to comment that if the Government had perhaps taken their time a bit on the drafting of the Bill, we would not be spending so much time in this Committee considering the absolute deluge of Government amendments that tidy things up that should have been right in the first place. Sometimes it is best not to rush things. Sometimes it is better not to dive in head first and just go for the first thing available, but to be cautious, to review and to fully understand all the implications that new legislation such as this will have in the real world.
That is what new clause 23, which stands in my name and those of my hon. Friends, seeks to double-check. It seeks to ensure that the Government are getting this right—not in our interests or those of anyone in the House of Commons, but in the interests of businesses and workers in the real world, trying to get on with their daily lives, get their jobs done and get their businesses growing and providing the growth and prosperity that we all want to see in the country.
As I have said previously, we do not have a problem in principle with the establishment of a new body to oversee the enforcement of labour market legislation. I have made that clear, and hon. Friends who have spoken have made it crystal clear. But we also made a challenge in the previous debate, and that is what new clause 23 is all about. It is about ensuring that we fully understand the scope, cost and effectiveness of this new body.
Any new body, be it a Government body or in the private sector—although the creation of new bodies in the public sector tends to be slower and often cost more than the private sector would manage—will take time and resources, and we would like to be reassured that this is a good use of time and resources. I repeat that our instinct is that it probably is. Our instinct is that it does seem to make sense, but we can never rely on instinct or on that which might look good on paper as the absolute cast-iron test. It is about the real evidence.
Laurence Turner
We heard from the hon. Gentleman earlier in the main Chamber about sustainable aviation fuel; I wonder whether he might share with us the shadow ministerial equivalent that he seems to have discovered, because we are covering a huge amount of ground. I just say this to him. We did have the Taylor review, which looked at these matters, including the functioning of the individual enforcement agencies, so I am just wondering: does he think that something has changed, in terms of their effectiveness, since then? We have already had an assessment of the nature that he is calling for.
Greg Smith
Yes, Mr Mundell. I am genuinely struggling to find the connection between my questions in transport orals this morning on sustainable aviation fuel and this Bill. I will gladly offer to have a coffee with the hon. Member for Birmingham Northfield to discuss my passionate view on synthetic fuel in the future, but it really is not relevant to this Bill.
I accept the hon. Gentleman’s latter point, about previous reviews, but new clause 23 is specifically looking at the creation of this new body and is about ensuring that that is the right thing to do and that the cost of it will actually bring the benefit that the Minister and other Government Members have explained that they believe it will. It is incumbent on all of us, whether we sit on the Government or Opposition Benches or for the smaller parties, that we challenge everything put in front of us. Any culture in any organisation that does not challenge what is put in front of it is often weaker for it. That is what new clause 23 is seeking to do.
Inherent in that, notwithstanding the Taylor review, is the aim to ask and double-check whether the rationale takes into account how effectively labour market legislation is currently being enforced and understand what research this Government—not former Governments, but this one—have undertaken on what will be done more effectively or efficiently with the creation of this new body. We would like the Government to assess how effectively the labour market legislation that will be enforced by the new body is currently working in that fragmented sense that the Minister spoke about earlier, and how effective the enforcement of it is, before setting up any new quango.
Generally speaking, new quangos fill me with dread and fear, but this one may be worth while. However, we need the evidence. Will the Minister expand on how matters will change for businesses through the new labour market enforcement authority? What will feel different for them and what changes might they need to make as they prepare for it? New clause 23 tries to get to the heart of that.
Steve Darling
I know from my surgeries and casework in Torbay that discrimination is sadly alive and well. I ask the Minister to reflect on some of the evidence from the Equality and Human Rights Commission, which talked about the provision leading to fragmentation and the possibility of some of its standard work falling between two stools. What reassurances can the Minister give that the good work will proceed appropriately either through the fair work agency, or in a partnership approach with the Equality and Human Rights Commission?
Sir Ashley Fox
I want to speak in support of new clause 23 and to ask the Minister whether he is familiar with Parkinson’s law. It states that the number of workers in any public administration will tend to grow over time, regardless of the quantity of work done. The corollary is that work expands to fill the time available for its completion.
Although Conservative Members are in favour of the creation of the fair work agency, there is a risk that, over time, it will seek to have more staff and more power, will consume a great deal more of taxpayers’ money and resources, and will impose more on employers’ time, without great result. That is why a review is necessary. We want to ensure that any new authority is lean and efficient. We also want the Government to take the same approach to regulations.
Unfortunately, the Bill is a hefty document. It will impose £5 billion-worth of costs on employers, which will probably result in fewer people being employed, higher inflation and lower growth. It is therefore perfectly reasonable for the Opposition to ask the Government to reflect after 18 months and ascertain whether they can find anything in this weighty tome that they could do better or more efficiently.
The working time directive is immensely complicated and imposes burdensome record keeping on employers. In the past, it has resulted in retained firefighters in rural areas having to count the time when they sit at home, not doing anything, as working time. It has been a difficult and troublesome measure, and perhaps my party should have done more to simplify it when we were in office, but that is not an excuse for the Government to say, “Because you didn’t do enough, we intend to do nothing.” It is reasonable for us to ask the Government, at the end of 18 months, to take another look and see whether they can do anything to reduce the burden on businesses.
Justin Madders
I am beginning to wonder whether the Opposition’s support for the fair work agency is as strong as I thought. They now appear to want to make sure that creating it is the right thing do, despite its featuring regularly in Conservative manifestos and despite the support of the breadth of stakeholders who gave evidence to the Committee. The current Director of Labour Market Enforcement made it clear in her evidence to the Committee that the creation of the fair work agency would make her role much easier and more effective. She spoke about the recommendations in her most recent report:
“The ones that relate to having a better joined-up approach, to greater efficiency and to better sharing of information among bodies are the things that I think the fair work agency will do a lot better.” ––[Official Report, Employment Rights Public Bill Committee, 28 November 2024; c. 153, Q159.]
I think that almost half of the recommendations from her most recent report contained an element of that.
The Chair
For clarity, the question on new clause 23 will be put at a subsequent point in the proceedings.
Question put and agreed to.
Schedule 4, as amended, accordingly agreed to.
Clause 73
Enforcement functions of Secretary of State
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Justin Madders
Clause 73 specifies which functions are considered enforcement functions of the Secretary of State for the purposes of part 5 of the Bill. It defines enforcement functions widely and then carves out certain functions that are not enforcement functions.
Clause 73(1) specifies that the enforcement functions of the Secretary of State include the following: any functions granted under part 5 of the Bill; functions in the relevant labour market legislation that they are responsible for enforcing; and any other functions that they perform to support enforcing labour market legislation.
Clause 73(2) goes on to set out exceptions. It lists specific functions that are not enforcement functions for the purposes of part 5 of the Bill. These are generally functions that relate to the arrangements for state enforcement of labour market legislation, and the overall governance of the fair work agency. These overarching governance functions include: appointing officers under clause 72; delegating functions under clause 74; setting up the advisory board under clause 75; publishing the annual reports and enforcement strategies under clauses 76 and 77; providing for transfer schemes to move staff into the Department under part 1 of schedule 7; and powers to make subordinate legislation.
The effect of clause 73 becomes clear when it is read in conjunction with clause 72. First, the enforcement functions that are listed in clause 73(1) can be performed by enforcement officers appointed under clause 72. Under clause 72(4), the powers of an enforcement officer include the power to exercise any enforcement function. Those powers can be limited further by the terms of the appointment of those officers.
Clause 74 gives the Secretary of State flexibility about how they carry out the functions of labour market enforcement. It provides the option to delegate functions to another public authority. Clause 74(1) gives the Secretary of State the power to make arrangements with the public authority so that it can exercise the delegable function. It also enables the Secretary of State to make arrangements to appoint a public authority’s staff as enforcement officers. The Secretary of State can delegate the enforcement functions listed in clause 73(1), all of which have been highlighted already. Those functions relate to arrangements for state enforcement of labour market legislation or the overall governance of the fair work agency. The Secretary State can also delegate powers relating to the licensing of gangmasters under sections 7 or 11 of the Gangmasters (Licensing) Act 2004. The arrangements the Secretary of State makes with public authorities can also include an agreement to make payments in respect of the performance of any function by either the public authority or their staff.
Clause 74(5) means that delegating an enforcement function does not strip the Secretary of State of responsibility or control in enforcing labour market legislation. The Secretary of State can still carry out functions even when they have arranged for another public authority to do that on their behalf.
The Bill is about bringing enforcement and employment legislation into one place in order to make enforcement more effective and efficient by ensuring the better use of resources. It is about creating the right powers to carry out investigations and take enforcement action where necessary. However, it does not set out a specific approach to implementing that more joined-up enforcement, because operational flexibility will be the key to the success of the fair work agency. The clause helps to provide that flexibility by enabling the Secretary of State to delegate certain functions to other public authorities or to make arrangements for staff of other bodies to be appointed as enforcement officers. Both clauses are integral to the effective functioning of the fair work agency in the future.
Greg Smith
On the face of it, the clauses are not problematic: they are quite clear, and it is important that those things that are considered as enforcement functions are clearly defined. That is all well and good—until we get to clause 74(5), which states:
“Arrangements under this section do not prevent the Secretary of State from performing a function to which the arrangements relate.”
Therefore, a body with certain powers—admittedly in the Secretary of State’s name—is created; essentially, a quango is put in place, and people are given the clear job of carrying out the enforcement functions in the Bill. However, if the Secretary of State is not prevented from performing one of those functions, what is the mechanism by which they can overrule the quango they themselves set up to perform them? Of course, the ultimate buck must stop with the Secretary of State, but it is a pretty established convention that where a quango is set up and has powers delegated to it—I think of Natural England within the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and many other quangos—it is very rare for a Secretary of State to intervene, overrule and perhaps come to a different conclusion from that quango.
We will not oppose the clauses, but I would be grateful if the Minister could reflect on the circumstances in which he believes clause 74(5) would come into effect, to make clear the procedures a Secretary of State would need to follow to bring that subsection into effect.
Steve Darling
I broadly welcome the proposals in the clauses, and I look forward to the Minister’s explanation of the issues outlined by the shadow Minister.
Justin Madders
I hear what the shadow Minister says. He is possibly over-egging the pudding or taking us on a ride on the ghost train in terms of what clause 74(5) means. It simply means that if the Secretary of State delegates powers to another body, they are still the responsible person for the overall operation. This is not about overruling different bodies; it is about where the final responsibility lies. I hope I have put the hon. Gentleman’s mind at rest to some extent.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 73 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 74 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 75
Advisory Board
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Justin Madders
I know you have been eagerly awaiting this clause, Mr Mundell. It concerns an important part of the fair work agency, and something that the Liberal Democrat spokesperson touched on earlier. The agency has a big job on its hands to restore trust among workers that they will get the rights that they are entitled to and that Parliament has laid down. It also important that the agency is trusted by businesses, and that they know they will be treated fairly and that if they follow the law, they will not be undercut by those who seek to avoid it. That is an important job for the fair work agency and it is important that we get it right. It must reflect the concerns of businesses and workers.
The Low Pay Commission has served the country well since the last Labour Government created it to advise on the national minimum wage. That is because it is a social partnership, comprising equal voices of workers, businesses and independent experts, and can reflect the perspectives of all those bodies when making recommendations. We want the FWA to replicate that success.
The clause requires the Secretary of State to create an advisory board for the fair work agency. Subsection (2) specifies that the board must consist of at least nine members appointed by the Secretary of State. Subsection (3) provides that board members must hold and vacate their position in accordance with the terms and conditions of their appointment. Subsection (4) provides for the advisory board to have a social partnership model, requiring equal representation of businesses, trade unions and independent experts.
We know this is a complex area that is constantly changing, but we believe that the model and approach that has proved so successful with the Low Pay Commission should be replicated here. I therefore commend the clause to the Committee.
Greg Smith
I hear what the Minister says in his explanation of the clause. Often, advisory boards are perfectly good and useful bodies, but I return to my earlier point that where a power rests with a Secretary of State, the accountable body to which any Secretary of State must submit themselves is the House of Commons, where they are a Member, or the House of Lords, in the rare case that they sit in the other place. Parliament is the advisory body—the critical friend—that the Secretary of State should submit themselves to.
However, accepting that an advisory board is going to be established, I want to ask the Minister about its make-up. While the Bill seems to be quite clear, there are some gaps, and some unanswered questions that the public, businesses, employees and the trade union movement will no doubt wish to have answered.
Probably the clearest definition in clause 75(4) is that in paragraph (a):
“persons appearing to the Secretary of State to represent the interests of trade unions”.
I think we can all understand that that means representatives of the trade union movement.
Greg Smith
There is my first question, prompted by my hon. Friend: does that include right hon. and hon. Members of Parliament who themselves are members of trade unions? Could that be the case?
We are less clear on paragraphs (b) and (c). Paragraph (b) states:
“persons appearing to the Secretary of State to represent the interests of employers”.
That is a far less easily defined body of people. On the one hand, I can hear some potentially arguing that that is the representative bodies that gave evidence to the Committee, such as the Confederation of British Industry and the Institute of Directors. That would be a legitimate answer, until somebody came forward and made a compelling case that, as an individual employer, they should be considered to sit on the board.
Greg Smith
I will be delighted to in one second, when I have finished my train of thought.
Can someone be classed as independent if they are an academic or a university professor, perhaps with considerable knowledge of and expertise in employment law and matters relating to the Bill—someone we should all respect—but also a member of a trade union? Does their membership of a trade union count towards whether they are independent? Would that be at odds with paragraph (a)?
Michael Wheeler
I apologise for interrupting the egging of the pudding—we were definitely in the “over” area of the egging. Does the shadow Minister accept that despite what we have heard, and despite the picture that he is trying to create, this model works? It is not novel; we have the Low Pay Commission. It is an established fact. Despite the many layers and convolutions that we see being built in front of us, we are actually considering something quite straightforward here.
Greg Smith
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and for what appears to be his support for the British egg industry. I encourage him to eat as many British eggs as possible and to support our farmers.
Greg Smith
I always bow to your advice, Mr Mundell. I will try to save the Minister the embarrassment of having that recorded in Hansard.
Let me try to return to my point. While I accept that advisory boards of Government Departments often follow this formula, we have a particular definitional problem with this one. The problem is whether, in the example I gave before the intervention of the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles, the independence of a seemingly independent expert—most reasonable people would say a university academic, professor, doctor or whoever would normally fall into that category—would be influenced if they were a member of a trade union, and whether in that case their membership of the board would be compliant with the provision for an “equal number” of independent experts and those representing the trade union movement on the board.
This is an important problem for the Minister to acknowledge. He must be very clear to the Committee whether the word “independent” in paragraph (c) would disallow anyone who is a member of a trade union from being a member of the board under paragraph (c), for fear of contradicting paragraph (a).
Alex McIntyre (Gloucester) (Lab)
I refer the Committee to my membership of the GMB and Community unions. The shadow Minister is keen for us all to stress our trade union membership, and we do so at the start of every sitting. He makes the point about trade union membership potentially impacting independent experts, but he will be aware that many university professors are funded by private limited companies to support their research, just as some Opposition Members are supported by private limited companies and employers for campaign purposes, none of which is declared in this Committee. Would he not say that might impact those professors’ independence too? Would that not need to be declared to ensure that the numbers are balanced?
Greg Smith
I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point. I believe in freedom; I have no problem with any hon. or right hon. Government Member being a member of a trade union. The point here is clarity and transparency. We have a Bill in black and white in front of us that refers to equal numbers but fails to define whether a member of a trade union could sit as an independent expert or would have to be categorised under subsection (4)(a) as representing the interests of trade unions. This is a matter of information on which the Committee and the general public deserve to have clarity before we allow this clause to become part of primary legislation in our country. As in all walks of life, there will be points of debate on that. I want to hear from the Minister’s own mouth whether he deems it to contradict the “equal number” provision. We could dance on the head of a pin all day, but when we are seeking to pass legislation, clarity is very important, and I look to the Minister to give it.
Steve Darling
I am concerned about the heavy weather that colleagues on the Opposition Benches are making of this. For me, this measure is about driving a positive culture in employment, and the board’s balance is entirely appropriate. I welcome the clause.
Sir Ashley Fox
I have a number of concerns about the establishment of the advisory board for the enforcement of labour market rules. I do not believe that such an advisory board is necessary and I am convinced that its creation would represent an expensive and bureaucratic exercise that would be redundant at best and a tool to disguise the Government’s intentions behind a veil of unnecessary consultation at worst. Let me explain why.
Let us first address the central issue: the need for advice. It is not as if there is a shortage of expert opinions on labour market matters; far from it. If the Secretary of State is seeking guidance from trade unions, he need look no further than the extensive and loud representation of trade union interests on the Benches behind him. There seems to be no shortage of trade union representatives in key positions, be it MPs with close ties to the unions or those with—
Michael Wheeler
Does the hon. Member accept that there is a difference between “member of” and “represents” when it comes to trade unions?
Sir Ashley Fox
Yes, I do. Indeed, “funded by” trade unions is another distinction. The point I am making is that this advice is available for free. There is no need for the Secretary of State to commission a board and pay representatives of trade unions to give him advice. The notion that three members of trade unions are needed on the advisory board seems, to put it bluntly, quite redundant. The Secretary of State can obtain that advice from any number of trade unions, their experts, or any of the MPs that sit on the Government Benches, who will all freely give it. Let us not forget that there are already plenty of independent experts contributing to various public bodies and providing high-level advice to the Government—there is certainly no shortage of them dotted throughout Whitehall.
If the Government require business perspectives, they certainly need not search too far for that advice either. If they wanted to, they could listen to the CBI or, if they preferred, to the Federation of Small Businesses, which provide ample insights and recommendations on policy matters relating to labour and employment. Those bodies represent businesses large and small, and have extensive networks of experts available to advise on any issues regarding the labour market. The problem—I suspect the Federation of Small Businesses would agree—is that the Secretary of State does not listen to them, so what difference would it make if he were to put one of them on a board of nine or 12? Do we need more voices from the same sectors giving advice?
Who might we see the Secretary of State appoint to this board? I am sure Sir Brendan Barber would get a look in, or perhaps Baroness Frances O’Grady. I wonder what Len McCluskey is up to these days—I am sure he has vast experience in employment rights matters.
Sir Ashley Fox
Mr Mundell, you are as fortunate as Mr McCluskey.
I am sure that those are just the independent experts that the Secretary of State will be considering appointing to this board. This highlights another crucial point: the Government designation of independent experts is incredibly vague. The Government define “independent expert” as anyone who is neither a trade union representative nor an employer representative. There is no requirement in the Bill for someone to have any particular expertise; they just must not fall into one of those two categories. Nowhere does it say that that expert cannot be a member of a trade union; nowhere does it say that they cannot be a former leader of a trade union; nowhere does it detail what qualifications or experience these experts are expected to bring. Let us not forget that these experts will be paid substantial sums of money—potentially hundreds of pounds per day—and the Government want us to take it on trust that they will be appointing the best people for the job.
As is often the case with such bodies, it is not a risk, but a total certainty that the advisory board will be appointed disproportionately to represent one end of the political spectrum. I suspect the Government will make every effort to ensure that those appointed align with the views they already hold—or, if we have a board of nine, that at least eight of them are firmly in the camp of the Labour party. The most likely outcome in my view is that this board will be packed with individuals whose perspectives on labour markets are perfectly aligned with Government policy and with the trade unions that this Government represent. It might be more straightforward for the Government simply to ask the TUC for instructions on how to go ahead, rather than to go through this cumbersome and expensive process. It would certainly cost the taxpayer less, and I would argue it would be more honest too. The fact is that this board’s purpose seems more to provide a cover for a Government agenda that is already in place than to genuinely provide diverse input. It looks like an expensive way to present the façade of consultation without delivering anything meaningful at all.
If the idea of this surplus of readily available advice was not bad enough, we have not started to talk about the cost of setting up this quango and the board. Having served on two public bodies, I know that advisory bodies are expensive and time-consuming ventures that require significant administrative resources in terms of staff, time and finance. Not only do the members of those bodies need to be compensated—perhaps the Minister will advise us whether they will be paid £300 a day, or £400 or £500 a day—but there is also the cost of setting up the selection process, conducting interviews and managing the day-to-day operation of the body. We are talking about at least nine members being appointed—probably more—which will consume considerable amounts of civil service time and taxpayers’ money. The selection process alone will involve a long list of procedures: advertising positions, longlisting, shortlisting, interviewing, and ultimately appointing the individuals—all, inevitably, to end up with the appointment of the nine people that the Secretary of State wanted to appoint in the first place.
What will this board ultimately do? It will advise the Secretary of State on drafting a strategy. We all know how these things go: the result will be a glossy document full of attractive photographs, distributed widely to people who will never read it, and it will have little or no practical impact on the ground. It will be yet more time and money wasted by this Government. We do not need more reports or strategies; we do not need an advisory board. Labour market rules are already there and they need to be enforced. The person responsible politically is the Secretary of State. He should take responsibility for the political decisions he makes in enforcing those laws, and not hide behind an advisory body.
Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Anna McMorrin.)
Employment Rights Bill (Nineteeth sitting)
Tuesday 14th January 2025
(1 year, 2 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Employment Rights Act 2025 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 14 January 2025 - (14 Jan 2025)
The Chair
Will everyone please ensure that all their electronic devices are turned off or switched to silent mode? We will now continue line-by-line consideration of the Bill. The grouping and selection list for today’s sittings is available in the room and on the parliamentary website. I remind hon. Members about the rules on declarations of interest, as set out in the code of conduct.
Schedule 6
Consequential amendments relating to Part 5
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Justin Madders)
I beg to move amendment 183, in schedule 6, page 135, line 6, leave out “‘Secretary of State’.” and insert
“‘Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority or the Secretary of State’.”
This amendment would ensure that section 12(2) of the Gangmasters (Licensing) Act 2004, which makes it an offence for a person to be in possession or control of a “relevant document” that is false or has been improperly obtained with the intention of inducing someone to believe that the person has a licence under that Act, continues to apply in respect of documents issued by the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority in connection with a licence before its abolition.
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this morning, Mr Mundell. As is customary, I refer to my declaration of interests and to the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
The amendment is essential to upholding legal continuity and to preventing any ambiguity or loopholes in enforcement. It will ensure that provisions under the Gangmasters (Licensing) Act 2004 remain enforceable. Without the amendment, there is a risk that any improper conduct in relation to documents issued before the abolition of the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority could fall outside the scope of enforcement.
Fraudulent licences have been used to exploit vulnerable workers and to mislead employers, particularly in industries such as agriculture and food processing. The amendment will strengthen deterrence against document fraud and ensure that enforcement agencies retain the tools that they need to protect workers effectively.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship once more, Mr Mundell.
As the Minister has outlined, Government amendment 183 will ensure that section 12(2) of the Gangmasters (Licensing) Act 2004, which makes it an offence for a person to be in possession or control of a relevant document that is false or has been improperly obtained with the intention of inducing someone to believe that the person has a licence under the Act, continues to apply in respect of documents issued by the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority in connection with a licence before its abolition.
Clause 109 will abolish the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority, a non-departmental public body that investigates reports of worker exploitation and illegal activity such as human trafficking, forced labour and illegal labour provision, as well as making offences under the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 and the Employment Agencies Act 1973. Significantly, the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority also issues licences to employment agencies, labour providers or gangmasters who provide workers in the sectors of agriculture, horticulture, shellfish gathering and any associated processing or packaging. That is important work; we do not in any way, shape or form deviate from that.
The Government amendment will rightly ensure that providing false licences remains an offence, including where that was identified before the Bill receives Royal Assent and becomes an Act at some point this year, but I would like to be reassured about the work of the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority in connection with the provisions of the Bill. For example, what will happen to the staff at the authority once it has been abolished? The Bill provides for the transfer of staff, property rights and liabilities to the Secretary of State. Does the Secretary of State envisage redundancies or envisage that the same staff will continue to do the same work under a different ultimate authority? Will the reorganisation lead to any disruption? I think we all accept that any change will bring with it some level of disruption, but how can the disruption be minimised?
Likewise, the amendment appears to ensure continuity with existing legislation once the Bill has passed. I will be grateful if the Minister can confirm that that is the case. If any new powers are being taken, please could they be explained?
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I welcome the clarity offered by the Government in the amendment.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell.
The amendment will ensure that the provisions of section 12(2) of the Gangmasters (Licensing) Act 2004 remain effective even in the context of the changes proposed in the Bill. Section 12(2) will make it a criminal offence for an individual to be in possession or control of a relevant document that is false, is forged or has been improperly obtained with the intention of deceiving others into believing that the individual holds a valid licence under the Act. It is essential that that provision continues to apply to documents issued by the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority before its abolition, ensuring that any fraudulent documents issued before the GLAA is dissolved can still result in prosecution. Maintaining that provision is crucial to preventing exploitation and ensuring that individuals and businesses cannot evade accountability with fraudulent documentation.
Clause 109 proposes to abolish the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority, which plays a significant role in tackling issues such as labour exploitation, human trafficking and forced labour in certain sectors. The dissolution of the GLAA marks a significant shift in how those matters will be managed. Given the importance of its work, the transition raises important questions about how those responsibilities will be carried forward under the new structures set out by the Bill. The GLAA has played a vital role in regulating the labour market in high-risk industries, so the Government’s proposal to abolish it must be accompanied by a clear plan to ensure continuity of its crucial work.
The GLAA is a non-departmental public body that has been responsible for investigating and addressing serious forms of worker exploitation such as human trafficking, forced labour and illegal labour practices. Additionally, it monitors compliance with regulations under the National Minimum Wage Act and the Employment Agencies Act. By issuing licences to employment agencies, labour providers and gangmasters in high-risk sectors, including agriculture, horticulture, shellfish gathering and associated processing and packaging, the GLAA has been instrumental in safeguarding vulnerable workers and preventing exploitation.
Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
For the four years before I was elected to this place, I worked in Scotland on combating human trafficking and labour exploitation, and I did a lot of work with the GLAA. Quite properly, the hon. Gentleman lists the industries with which it was associated, such as shellfish, agriculture and horticulture. Although the GLAA was set up to address those things, in Scotland we had only one member of staff inspecting all that coastline and all that land, and the authority was not really equipped or able to do the job that it was set up to do.
Having reflected on how the GLAA has operated and on its lack of power and capacity—that is absolutely not a comment on the ability of the staff, who are severely overworked—and given the scale of the crisis, I would argue that it is appropriate to look at how effective the GLAA is and then bolster that by putting it into a fair work agency, rather than having a very small group of people unable to deal with the task that they face. Things like labour exploitation and human trafficking have not gone down as a result of the GLAA, which tells us that we do need to revisit and restructure the organisation.
Sir Ashley Fox
The hon. Member makes a number of valuable points. The proposed removal of the GLAA raises concerns about how its important functions will be handled. It is imperative that a robust alternative structure be put in place to address those critical issues and to continue protecting workers’ rights and preventing exploitation.
The GLAA’s work is crucial in specific sectors in which workers are at a heightened risk of exploitation. They include agriculture, horticulture, shellfish gathering and the associated processing and packaging industries. Such sectors often rely on seasonal or temporary labour, which makes workers more vulnerable to abuse. The GLAA has been tasked with ensuring that employment agencies and gangmasters in those areas are properly licensed and comply with legal and ethical standards. Without a continued effective regulatory body, there is a risk that workers in those sectors could face greater vulnerability to exploitation. The amendment ensures that even after the GLAA is abolished, protections relating to fraudulent licences remain in place to help to prevent future abuses in those critical sectors.
Although the amendment will rightly ensure that the offence of providing false licences will continue, including for cases identified prior to the passage of the Bill, there remains a need for reassurance about the future of the GLAA’s core responsibilities. The work of the GLAA in investigating and responding to incidents of worker exploitation is vital. As the Bill progresses, it is crucial that there is a clear and publicly communicated plan for transferring and maintaining those functions under the new framework. The question remains of how those critical duties will be continued effectively under the new system. What mechanisms are in place to ensure that the same level of oversight and enforcement will be maintained without compromising workers’ protections?
One significant issue that arises from the abolition of the GLAA is the future of its staff. The Bill stipulates that staff, property, rights and liabilities will be transferred to the Secretary of State. However, there is a need for further clarity on the fate of staff members, who have been dedicated to the GLAA’s mission. Will there be redundancies, or will staff members be reassigned to continue their work under a new authority such as the fair work agency? In the latter case, it will be essential to understand how that transition will be managed. Will those staff members continue to do the same work, or will there be changes to their roles? Furthermore, will the reorganisation cause any disruption to the ongoing work of tackling labour exploitation and illegal labour practices? Minimising disruption in that process is crucial to ensure that there is no gap in the important regulatory and enforcement work carried out by the GLAA.
Government amendment 183 appears to be designed to ensure that existing legislation, particularly in relation to worker protections and the regulation of labour providers, continues to apply once the Bill passes. It would have been reassuring to have confirmation that the intention behind the amendment is to maintain the existing legal framework and obligations. The continuity of those provisions is critical to ensuring that workers remain protected and that the work of tackling exploitation and human trafficking continues without interruption. I would be grateful for the Minister’s confirmation that the amendment will ensure that the key elements of existing legislation remain in force.
Finally, if the Bill introduces any new powers, it is important that the need for those powers be fully explained and understood. The amendment and the Bill more broadly implement changes that could have significant implications both for employers and for their employees. It would be helpful to have clarification on whether the new powers will be used to expand the role of the Secretary of State or the fair work agency in monitoring and regulating sectors previously overseen by the GLAA. How will those new powers affect existing regulations? What safeguards will be in place to ensure that they are used appropriately and effectively?
Justin Madders
That was quite a lengthy debate for a technical amendment. This amendment to schedule 6 will ensure continuity of function, which was one of the main points that the shadow Minister and the hon. Member for Bridgwater made. We are alive to their concern that there is a hole through which provisions can fall: there are a number of amendments to make sure that there is continuity of legal force and in the ability to carry out the functions of the predecessor authorities.
Both hon. Members asked about redundancies. It is premature to talk about operational matters of that nature. The impact assessment is being carried out on the basis of the existing budgets of the relevant agencies. No reduction in staff members is anticipated, but as we move forward, efficiencies and duplications may become apparent when the agencies are merged, which may lead to other changes to the way in which matters are carried out, and those will clearly be dealt with.
There was a concern that the reorganisation could lead to disruption, which is certainly not our intention. We expect the agencies to be able to continue to carry out existing investigations—indeed, many of the amendments are being made with that in mind to ensure that continuity is preserved. I remind Opposition Members that the purpose of the fair work agency is to ensure that intelligence is shared and resources are pooled so that we can be more effective in our labour market abuse enforcement mechanisms. That has been widely supported across the entire group of stakeholders.
In terms of oversight, there will be an advisory board, reports and strategies and the Secretary of State will be answerable to Parliament for the work of the fair work agency. We will no doubt return to that on a number of occasions as the detail is fleshed out. I commend the amendments to the Committee.
Amendment 183 agreed to.
Amendments made: 102, in schedule 6, page 137, line 13, at end insert—
“(3A) In the italic heading before paragraph 10, omit “of Authority”.”
This amendment makes a minor drafting correction.
Amendment 103, in schedule 6, page 137, line 15, leave out “the heading and”.—(Justin Madders.)
This is consequential on amendment 102.
Justin Madders
I beg to move amendment 104, in schedule 6, page 140, line 26, leave out “and (4)” and insert “, (4), (8) and (9)”.
This amendment, and amendments 105 and 106, make further minor amendments of section 114B of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 as a result of the replacement of labour abuse prevention officers by enforcement officers under Part 5 of the Bill.
Justin Madders
Schedule 6 outlines consequential amendments to other legislation and will ensure consistency with the provisions introduced by the Bill. It will also ensure that our legislative framework is cohesive and functional.
The amendments will make essential technical adjustments to section 114B of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 to reflect the replacement of labour abuse prevention officers with enforcement officers, as defined in part 5 of the Bill. They will update references, revise definitions and ensure consistency between this Bill and existing legislation. The amendments will avoid confusion and ensure that our statutory framework functions effectively. I commend these minor technical amendments to the Committee.
Greg Smith
I am grateful to the Minister for explaining these further minor amendments to section 114B of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, being made as a result of the replacement of labour abuse prevention officers with enforcement officers under part 5 of the Bill. The amendments are another consequence of centralising the different enforcement agencies that operate under the auspices of the fair work agency.
I would be grateful to have the Minister’s reassurance that all current enforcement work will still be able to be carried out to the same standard during the period of reorganisation. In the previous debate, he indicated that he did not expect disruption; I gently put it to him that that is probably on the optimistic end of the scale. No matter the good intention behind any reorganisation, or the will, endless planning and everything that goes into it from a lot of good people putting in a lot of hard work, the reality is that any reorganisation can cause disruption, either in its own right or through unexpected events.
I will give a parallel closer to home. In my constituency, Buckinghamshire unitary council was created to go live just as the pandemic was starting. Four district councils and a county council were put together at the point at which we were all sent home, so everyone was working from home and having to rise to a local authority’s duties to put in place resilience measures to support people through the pandemic.
Sir Ashley Fox
Amendments 104 to 106 propose minor but necessary changes to section 114B of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, arising from the changes introduced under part 5 of the Bill, particularly the replacement of labour abuse prevention officers by enforcement officers. The intention behind the change is to streamline and update the regulatory framework in response to the restructuring of enforcement roles. By introducing enforcement officers under the new structure, the Government aim to enhance the effectiveness of labour abuse prevention while ensuring that there is no gap in oversight and enforcement. These minor amendments are crucial to align existing legislation with the nearly structured responsibilities and authority of enforcement officers, who will now take on the duties previously held by labour abuse prevention officers.
The centralisation of enforcement agencies under the fair work agency is part of a broader effort to centralise and co-ordinate the various enforcement agencies that currently operate. By bringing the enforcement bodies together under a single umbrella, the Government aim to create a more co-ordinated, efficient and consistent approach to tackling labour abuses and ensuring that workers’ rights are upheld across different sectors. The centralisation process is designed to improve the effectiveness of enforcement and simplify the regulatory landscape for both businesses and workers, but as we move through the reorganisation period, it is essential that all enforcement activities continue to be carried out seamlessly, without any disruption or decrease in the standard of oversight. That is particularly important as the new system is put in place, as workers rely on enforcement mechanisms to protect their rights.
I seek reassurance on the continuity of enforcement standards during the reorganisation. Given the significant structural changes involved, I ask the Minister to assure me that all current enforcement work will continue to be carried out to the same high standard during the transition period. The centralisation of enforcement agencies is a significant undertaking, and it is vital that the effectiveness of enforcement operations is not compromised during the restructuring process. Workers and businesses must be confident that the protections afforded by the existing enforcement framework will remain intact, and that enforcement officers will have the tools, resources and authority that they need to address breaches of the law effectively. I would appreciate clarification on how the Government plan to ensure that no enforcement gaps occur during the reorganisation, and that current and future enforcement work will be conducted at the same high level of competence.
Justin Madders
It seems we have a little double act developing on the Opposition Front Bench. It reminds me a little bit of Waldorf and Statler, without the puns. Both the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire and the hon. Member for Bridgwater sought similar and important assurances that the work of the agencies would be able to be carried out effectively during this period of transition. I note what the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire mentioned about the Mid Buckinghamshire reorganisation.
Justin Madders
All of Buckinghamshire, yes—with the hon. Member right in the middle where he truly belongs. I do recall that the previous Government decided to set up the UK Health Security Agency in the middle of the pandemic, which was a challenging time to do that. It has been shown that the people doing the job day to day can continue to do it while the institutional reform carries on, making it more likely that they will be effective in carrying out their work through the sharing of resources, evidence and expertise, as well as, hopefully, a more unified approach to enforcement. Clearly, we want those doing the day-to-day work to be able to carry on doing that and a number of these amendments enable them to do that. We hope that, as the agency forms and more joint working is developed, they will become more effective.
Amendment 104 agreed to.
Amendments made: 105, in schedule 6, page 140, line 26, at end insert—
‘(4A) In subsection (10), for “Any other” substitute “A”.’
See the explanatory statement for amendment 104.
Amendment 106, in schedule 6, page 140, line 27, leave out sub-paragraph (5) and insert—
‘(5) For subsection (11) substitute—
“(11) In this section—
“enforcement officer” has the meaning given by section 72(3)
of the Employment Rights Act 2025;
“labour market offence” has the same meaning as in Part 5 of that Act (see section 112(1) of that Act).”’—(Justin Madders.)
See the explanatory statement for amendment 104.
Justin Madders
I beg to move amendment 184, in schedule 6, page 141, line 7, at end insert—
“Employment Tribunals Act 1996
70A In section 19A of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996 (conciliation: recovery of sums payable under settlements), omit subsection (10A).”
This amendment provides for a minor consequential amendment relating to Part 5 of the Bill.
Justin Madders
Schedule 6 makes consequential amendments to existing legislation to ensure consistency with the new provisions introduced by the Bill. The amendments make essential technical adjustments to the Employment Tribunals Act 1996 and the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015, updating references and ensuring consistency between the Bill and existing legislation.
Government amendment 184 omits section 19A(10A) of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996, which makes provision for the disclosure of settlement terms to an enforcement officer appointed under section 37M of the same Act. Section 37M is repealed by the Bill, as it has been superseded by the new provisions of the Bill on the appointment of fair work agency officers. Clauses 98 and 99(1) of the Bill provide gateways for the disclosure of information to fair work agency officers. Government amendment 184 repeals section 19A(10A), as the provision is no longer required in the light of the new provisions introduced by the Bill. Government amendment 188 is consequential to Government amendment 184. The amendment prevents confusion and ensures our statutory framework continues to function effectively.
Greg Smith
For the next part of the double act —I will casually ignore the Minister’s comparison—I will speak to Government amendments 184 and 188. Amendment 184 is a minor amendment relating to part 5 of the Bill and amendment 188 is consequential on amendment 184. As the Minister said, amendment 184 removes section 19A(10A) of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996. Section 19A concerns the
“recovery of sums payable under settlements”
and subsection (10A) provides that the court may make provision as to the time within which an application to the county court for a declaration under subsection (4) is to be made. Subsection (4) states:
“A settlement sum is not recoverable under subsection (3) if—
(a) the person by whom it is payable applies for a declaration that the sum would not be recoverable from him under the general law of contract, and
(b) that declaration is made.”
Notwithstanding the Minister’s explanation, it is still not entirely clear to the Committee, or indeed to the whole House, why it is necessary to delete subsection (10A) from the Employment Tribunals Act 1996. I am sure there is a very convoluted reason for it out there somewhere, but it seems to us that the will of the Government in putting this legislation before Parliament does not need that deletion in order to function. I would be grateful if the Minister gave a fuller explanation of the need for that deletion in his summing-up.
Sir Ashley Fox
Amendment 184 proposes the removal of subsection (10A) from section 19A of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996, which deals with the recovery of sums payment under settlements, specifically addressing situations in which a party seeks a declaration from the court regarding the recoverability of a settlement sum.
Under subsection (10A), the court has the discretion to make provisions regarding the timeframe within which an application must be made to the county court for a declaration under subsection (4). Subsection (4) essentially provides that a settlement sum will not be recoverable if the person liable to pay the sum seeks a declaration from the court that, under general contract law, the sum is not recoverable from them. The removal of subsection (10A) raises important questions about the implications of the timing and procedure of such applications.
Given that the removal of subsection (10A) may have significant consequences for how significant settlement sums are handled and claims are processed in the future, will the Minister explain why this provision is being deleted? Understanding the reasoning behind the change is important for assessing its potential impact on workers and employers. Will the removal of this provision simplify the process for parties seeking a declaration regarding the recoverability of settlement sums or will it introduce new challenges or delays in the legal process? Furthermore, how will this change affect the ability of individuals to seek a fair resolution in cases where disputes over settlement sums arise? Clarification from the Minister on these points would be appreciated as it would help ensure that stakeholders fully understand the intended effects.
Justin Madders
Hopefully, I can put Opposition Members’ minds at rest about the need for the amendment. It is about simplifying the legislative framework. Section 19A(10A) of the 1996 Act is about disclosure of settlement terms to enforcement officers who are appointed under section 37M of that Act. As that is now being repealed by and superseded by the provisions in this Bill, particularly clauses 98 and 99, that provision is no longer required in the 1996 Act. That is why it is being removed; the current arrangements remain in place, but they will all be in one place, in this Bill. We hope that will provide clarity and certainty for those who wish to avail themselves of the rights and obligations under this legislation.
Amendment 184 agreed to.
Justin Madders
I beg to move amendment 185, in schedule 6, page 141, line 33, leave out from “2025)” to end of line 2 on page 142 and insert
“acting in the exercise of functions conferred on them by virtue of section 114B of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984;”;”.
This amendment is consequential on amendment 186.
Justin Madders
The amendments make essential adjustments to the Employment Rights Bill ensuring that there is a process for appropriate oversight of police powers used by officers within the fair work agency. There will be a subsection of enforcement officers within the fair work agency who will be able to use police powers under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. It is important that there is appropriate oversight of officers using these powers as part of their investigations.
This is not a new power. Currently, Labour abuse prevention officers within the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority are able to use these Police and Criminal Evidence Act powers. Any complaints or allegations of misconduct are investigated by the Independent Office for Police Conduct, thereby ensuring that enforcement officers use their powers responsibly and within legal boundaries. The amendments ensure that the existing oversight arrangements with the IOPC can continue with the fair work agency on abolition of the GLAA. On that note, I hope the Committee will accept amendments 185, 186 and 187.
Greg Smith
I am grateful for the Minister’s brief explanation of Government amendments 185 to 187, which enable the Secretary of State to make regulations enabling the director general of the Independent Office for Police Conduct to deal with complaints and misconduct relating to enforcement officers who exercise police powers. Amendments 186 and 187 allow the Secretary of State to make regulations to deal with complaints. Misconduct relating to enforcement officers created by the Bill who exercise the powers in amendment 185 is consequential to amendments 186 and 187. Amendment 186 states that the Secretary of State
“may make regulations conferring functions on the Director General in relation to enforcement officers acting in the exercise of functions conferred on them by virtue of section 114B of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.”
Can the Minister provide examples of the sorts of functions it is envisaged the Secretary of State will confer by regulations and how those powers will be used? Probably more significant to this debate and to give us the full picture, will the Independent Office for Police Conduct be granted greater powers to investigate misconduct claims? Will it have additional sanctions compared to that which it is already able to impose? If so, what are they and what will be the resourcing implications for the Independent Office for Police Conduct to take on oversight of the reorganisation?
We can all accept that many elements of the public sector are incredibly stretched. Whenever any reorganisation comes about or there is a need to oversee new bodies, there will be a resource implication. No matter how well intentioned the provisions of the Bill and the three amendments are, there will be a resource implication, even if it is a minor one. It is important that the Government acknowledge that and make a clear, unambiguous commitment to the resourcing of the Independent Office for Police Conduct to take on oversight of the reorganisation and future enforcement officers and their functions.
Sir Ashley Fox
Amendments 186 and 187 propose important changes that would grant the Secretary of State the power to make regulations enabling the director general of the Independent Office for Police Conduct to handle complaints and misconduct related to enforcement officers who exercise police powers. This would involve granting the IOPC the authority to oversee complaints regarding enforcement officers as they carry out their duties, particularly when acting within the scope of the powers given to them under section 114B of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.
Amendment 185 is consequential to those changes, ensuring that the necessary legislative framework aligns with the proposed regulations. Specifically, amendment 186 outlines that the Secretary of State will have the authority to make regulations that will confer specific functions on the director general of the IOPC. Those functions would relate to enforcement officers when they exercise powers granted to them through section 114B of the 1984 Act, which provides enforcement officers with certain powers, and this amendment ensures that there are appropriate mechanisms in place to address any complaints or allegations of misconduct arising from their use of these powers.
I would be grateful if the Minister provided further clarification on the scope of these regulations. Specifically, it would be helpful to understand what types of function the Secretary of State is likely to impose on the director general of the IOPC. For instance, will the regulations specify procedures for investigating complaints, the methods of oversight, or protocols for handling disciplinary actions against enforcement officers? What types of misconduct or complaint are anticipated to fall within this framework? Moreover, how do the Government envisage the IOPC’s role evolving, with the additional responsibility for overseeing enforcement officers under these amendments?
Understanding the intended use of these powers will help stakeholders anticipate the practical effects of these changes and their potential impacts on enforcement officers’ accountability. A key concern is whether the IOPC will be granted greater powers under this proposed framework. The IOPC’s current remit covers complaints and misconduct relating to police officers, but the introduction of enforcement officers who possess police powers raises important questions about whether the IOPC will have the authority to investigate misconduct claims against those officers in a similarly robust manner. Will the IOPC be granted expanded investigatory powers to ensure that complaints involving enforcement officers are handled thoroughly and impartially?
Additionally, will the IOPC have the authority to impose sanctions on enforcement officers found to have committed misconduct? If sanctions are available, it would be useful to understand what types of action the IOPC could take, such as recommending disciplinary measures, issuing fines or referring cases for criminal prosecution.
Providing clarity on the scope of the IOPC’s powers in relation to enforcement officers will be crucial for ensuring that those officers remain accountable for their actions while exercising their police powers.
Justin Madders
I am grateful to Opposition Members for raising those questions. I can reassure them that this is not about creating new powers, either for enforcement officers or for the IOPC. It is about transferring the existing responsibility that the IOPC has for designated officers with police-style powers to the fair work agency. The discussions have been on the basis that there would not be any additional resource implications for the IOPC. Obviously, if that were to change in due course, when the fair work agency is under way, there would be discussions about that. It is simply about the existing powers under section 114B of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act being applicable to the enforcement officers of the fair work agency on exactly the same basis as they are now. I hope that that has put Opposition Members’ minds at rest. On that note, I commend the amendments to the Committee. ‘Employment Rights Act 2025 section 90 labour market enforcement order labour market offence within the meaning of Part 5 of that Act.’”
Amendment 185 agreed to.
Amendments made: 187, in schedule 6, page 142, line 3, after “(3)” insert “—
(i) after paragraph (bc) insert—
‘(bca) any regulations under section 26CA of this Act (enforcement officers appointed under Employment Rights Act 2025);’;
(ii)”.
See the explanatory statement for amendment 186.
Amendment 186, in schedule 6, page 142, line 3, at end insert—
“(2A) After section 26C insert—
‘26CA Enforcement officers appointed under Employment Rights Act 2025
(1) The Secretary of State may make regulations conferring functions on the Director General in relation to enforcement officers acting in the exercise of functions conferred on them by virtue of section 114B of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.
(2) In this section “enforcement officer” means a person appointed by the Secretary of State under section 72 of the Employment Rights Act 2025.
(3) Regulations under this section may, in particular—
(a) apply (with or without modifications), or make provision similar to, any provision of or made under this Part;
(b) make provision for payment by the Secretary of State to, or in respect of, the Office or in respect of the Director General.
(4) The Director General and the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration may jointly investigate a matter in relation to which—
(a) the Director General has functions by virtue of this section, and
(b) the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration has functions by virtue of the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967.
(5) The Secretary of State or an enforcement officer may disclose information to the Director General, or to a person acting on the Director General’s behalf, for the purposes of the exercise by the Director General, or by any person acting on the Director General’s behalf, of a relevant complaints function.
(6) The Director General and the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration may disclose information to each other for the purposes of the exercise of a function—
(a) by virtue of this section, or
(b) under the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967.
(7) Regulations under this section may, in particular, make—
(a) further provision about the disclosure of information under subsection (5) or (6);
(b) provision about the further disclosure of information that has been so disclosed.
(8) A disclosure of information authorised by this section does not breach—
(a) any obligation of confidence owed by the person making the disclosure, or
(b) any other restriction on the disclosure of information (however imposed).
(9) But this section does not authorise a disclosure of information that—
(a) would contravene the data protection legislation (but in determining whether a disclosure would do so, the power conferred by this section is to be taken into account), or
(b) is prohibited by any of Parts 1 to 7 or Chapter 1 of Part 9 of the Investigatory Powers Act 2016.
(10) In this section—
“the data protection legislation” has the same meaning as in the Data Protection Act 2018 (see section 3 of that Act);
“relevant complaints function” means a function in relation to the exercise of functions by enforcement officers.’”
This amendment and amendment 187 would enable the Secretary of State to make regulations enabling the Director General of the Independent Office for Police Conduct to deal with complaints and misconduct relating to enforcement officers who are exercising police powers.
Amendment 188, in schedule 6, page 143, line 19, leave out “subsection” and insert “subsections (4) and”.
This amendment is consequential on amendment 184.
Amendment 189, in schedule 6, page 144, line 10, at end insert—
“Sentencing Act 2020
92A In section 379(1) of the Sentencing Act 2020 (other behaviour orders etc), after the entry for the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 insert—
—(Justin Madders.)
This amendment makes a consequential amendment to the Sentencing Act 2020 to include labour market enforcement orders in the list of orders that may be made on conviction by a criminal court but are not dealt with in that Act.
Justin Madders
I beg to move amendment 190, in schedule 6, page 144, line 10, at end insert—
“Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022
92B In Part 2 of Schedule 3 to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 (extraction of information from electronic devices: authorised persons in relation to all purposes within section 37), after the entry relating to section 15 of the Gangmasters (Licensing) Act 2004 insert—
‘A person who is an enforcement officer for the purposes of Part 5 of the Employment Rights Act 2025.’”
This amendment would authorise enforcement officers under Part 5 of the Bill to exercise the powers conferred by section 37 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 to extract information stored on electronic devices for the purposes of, among other things, criminal investigations.
Government amendment 190 is another technical amendment to ensure continuity and effectiveness of the enforcement power under section 37 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022. The Bill provides the building blocks for us to set up the fair work agency, which involves transferring enforcement functions that are currently split between multiple bodies, including the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority. The GLAA office currently exercises its power across the UK under section 37 of the 2022 Act. Without this amendment, enforcement officers in England, Wales and Scotland would not have access to critical investigatory powers under that Act. Only officers enforcing the Gangmasters (Licensing) Act 2004 in Northern Ireland would retain those powers, creating an unjustifiable enforcement gap.
Investigations increasingly rely on access to electronic data, such as payroll records and communication logs. Excluding fair work agency officers from these powers would severely hinder their ability to obtain critical information, leaving them ill-equipped to tackle non-compliance and labour exploitation effectively.
The amendment ensures that enforcement powers remain consistent across England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, aligning with the policy aim of the fair work agency to deliver robust and uniform enforcement. Fair work agency officers would exercise the section 37 power in relation to labour market offences. That expands the scope of the power, as currently the power is exercised by GLAA officers only in connection with enforcement of the 2004 Act.
This amendment would mean that the power is used by fair work agency officers to enforce the broader range of legislation under their remit, which means that the power could be exercised in relation to any labour market offence, instead of just offences under the 2004 Act. That will prevent any disparity in enforcement capabilities that could undermine efforts to protect vulnerable workers and uphold compliance.
This amendment corrects a minor technical oversight during the drafting process, ensuring that the legislation accurately reflects operational needs. It aligns with the overarching policy intention to ensure that there is no reduction in enforcement capability as enforcement bodies transfer into the fair work agency, and it directly addresses concerns and strengthens the Bill’s overall effectiveness. In conclusion, this amendment is essential to prevent enforcement gaps, ensure parity across jurisdictions, and equip enforcement officers with the tools that they need to combat exploitation in the modern economy.
Greg Smith
As the Minister outlined in his opening remarks, Government amendment 190 would authorise enforcement officers, under part 5 of the Bill, to exercise the powers conferred by section 37 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 to extract information stored on electronic devices for the purposes of, among other things, criminal investigations.
As I understand it, the power conferred by section 37 of the 2022 Act may be exercised only for the purposes of preventing, detecting, investigating or prosecuting crime; helping to locate a missing person; or protecting a child or at-risk adult from neglect or physical, mental or emotional harm. How often does the Minister envisage that that power would be needed when enforcing employment law?
It is a very important power in the cases that I have outlined—not least for the critical work of protecting children and at-risk adults from neglect or physical, mental or emotional harm—but, I repeat, how often does the Minister envisage that it will be needed in employment law? What safeguards will be in place to prevent an inappropriate or intrusive use of the power? It seems an odd fit in this Bill.
Those matters are all rightly—I have double underlined that word—covered in other parts of legislation and enforced daily by the police and other agencies. His Majesty’s loyal Opposition salute everyone involved in the prevention of harm and the prosecution of its perpetrators, but I repeat that the power seems an odd fit with this Bill.
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
Government amendment 190 seeks to amend the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 by extending the powers conferred by section 37 of that Act to enforcement officers for the purposes of part 5 of this Bill. Section 37 of the 2022 Act allows the authorities to extract information shared on electronic devices for the purposes, among other things, of criminal investigations. I have some familiarity with these issues from my time working with the police, security and intelligence agencies and other public bodies with investigatory responsibilities when I worked in the Home Office between 2010 and 2015. Then, we were confronted with the danger that changing technology meant that the ability of these important public agencies to access the communications data necessary for their work was diminishing. That was because the nature of the way we communicate was changing from conventional phone calls and written material to internet-based communication. That obviously included methods such as messaging services like WhatsApp and Signal but also messaging within other apps like Facebook or even within online gaming systems.
Sir Ashley Fox
The amendment would grant enforcement officers, under part 5 of the Bill, the authority to exercise the powers outlined in section 37 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022. Specifically, it would enable those officers to extract information from electronic devices in certain circumstances. Of course, everyone now carries one of those electronic devices.
The amendment is designed to support enforcement officers in carrying out their duties, including the investigation and enforcement of employment laws, particularly in cases that may involve criminal activities, such as exploitation, trafficking or financial misconduct. The ability to access electronic devices and retrieve relevant data will aid in gathering evidence and conducting thorough investigations, especially when digital evidence is critical to uncovering illegal practices.
To clarify the scope of that power, section 37 of the 2022 Act limits the use of the power to specific purposes. The powers can be exercised for the following objectives: preventing crime, which could include investigating cases of worker exploitation, trafficking or other forms of criminal behaviour related to employment law; detecting criminal activity, such as fraudulent schemes or illegal practices by employers; investigating crimes, especially where there is a digital trail or evidence related to labour abuse, fraud or similar issues that could be crucial to the case; prosecuting crime and ensuring that the evidence gathered can be used in legal proceedings to hold perpetrators accountable; locating missing persons, which could be relevant in situations involving forced labour or human trafficking; and protecting vulnerable individuals, such as children or at-risk adults, from harm, including neglect or physical, mental or emotional abuse in the workplace.
Those strict conditions are in place to ensure that the powers are used appropriately and only when there is a legitimate and necessary reason to extract information from electronic devices. While that power can be extremely valuable in investigating serious crimes, it is important to consider how often such powers will be needed when enforcing employment law specifically. The nature of employment law enforcement does not always require the same level of investigation into criminal activities as, for example, police work or national security investigations. Thus, I would appreciate an insight from the Minister regarding the frequency with which the power is likely to be used in the enforcement of employment laws. Is the power expected to be a routine tool, or will it be reserved for exceptional circumstances where there is significant evidence suggesting the need for such an intrusive measure?
Additionally, it is crucial to ensure that safeguards are in place to prevent any inappropriate or intrusive use of the power. Given the sensitivity of extracting data from electronic devices, there is a need for strict guidelines and oversight to ensure that the power is not abused. How will the Government ensure that the power is used proportionately and responsibly? What measures will be put in place to prevent overreach and protect the privacy of individuals who are not involved in criminal activity? For example, will there be a requirement for judicial authorisation before enforcement officers can access private data? Will there be any independent oversight to review the use of these powers and prevent misuse?
I would be grateful if the Minister outlined the safeguards and controls that will be implemented to ensure that the power is not used excessively or for purposes outside its intended scope. Furthermore, what will the procedures be for ensuring accountability and transparency in the use of this power?
Justin Madders
The shadow Minister and the hon. Member for Bridgwater asked me the “how long is a piece of string?” question—that is, how often the powers will be used. The best thing I can do is to come back to both of them with how often they have been used in recent times because, of course, there is an existing power with the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority.
I was asked various questions about the use of powers, oversight and so on. Clauses 78 and 79 set out the powers that officers have. As we have discussed, we expect that these things will be the culmination of an ongoing dialogue between a particular business and the fair work agency. When there is non-compliance, these powers can be used as a last resort. Clause 83 sets out some of the oversight provisions.
Nick Timothy
Government amendment 190 is about the powers in section 37 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, which relate to the voluntary provision of a device for an enforcement officer to access. If there is not agreement, I am not sure what arises. The Minister just said that the proposal is about dealing with a situation whereby a negotiation between the fair work agency and the company has not led to a resolution. What happens if there is not agreement?
Justin Madders
As I said, if there is not agreement, the provisions in clauses 78, 79 and 83, which we debated last week, will come into play.
On the existing framework, the powers that we have set out are already in use. The Bill will make them available to all enforcement officers. They will be used only by people who have sufficient training and oversight within the organisation.
I was asked whether the code of practice will be updated. We are engaging with the Home Office on that. That is something that needs to be considered, given that the agency is being formed.
The hon. Member for West Suffolk was right to ask about proportionality. We do not see that there will be any change in how the system works on an operational basis as a result of these amendments. They really are about transposing the existing powers and safeguards into the Bill.
Amendment 190 agreed to.
Question proposed, That the schedule, as amended, be the Sixth schedule to the Bill.
Justin Madders
Part 5 of the Bill lays the groundwork for the creation of the fair work agency. It involves abolishing the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority and the Director of Labour Market Enforcement, and transferring their functions to the Secretary of State.
Schedule 6 sets out consequential amendments that we are making to various Acts of Parliament as a result of these reforms. Part 1 of the schedule covers the consequential amendments to existing powers under relevant pieces of labour market legislation. Part 2 sets out the changes required to other Acts. The schedule is necessary to deliver a functioning and cohesive statute book and to deliver the policy intention of upgrading enforcement of workers’ rights.
Greg Smith
Through this morning’s debate on the 10 Government amendments to schedule 6, most of the points about the schedule have been well aired. As we consider whether it should fully stand part of the Bill, however, I genuinely believe that a number of questions posed—in particular by my hon. Friends the Members for West Suffolk and for Bridgwater—on the practicalities of the transfer of some of the powers have not been adequately addressed during the debate by the Minister.
We do not challenge or seek to undermine in any way, shape or form the intention of the schedule. I appreciate the Minister’s willingness to write to me on a couple of the points I made, and I accept the good faith in which that offer was made, but any transition involves some disruption. That is simply a fact of life, and I think that the Government would do well, given the good intent of what the schedule seeks to do, to reassure not just the Committee, but the whole House and the country at large, that that disruption will in fact be minimised and practical steps taken to make that the case.
Fundamentally, however, His Majesty’s loyal Opposition understand and accept the necessity of the schedule. We just think that some unanswered questions remain.
Steve Darling
I echo the shadow Minister, who sits to my right—in more ways than one. Definitely, further clarity from the Minister would be welcome.
Justin Madders
I understand what the Opposition Members are saying. They seek reassurance that there will be no disruption to the good work that goes on already, and clearly, that is our intent. We will keep a close eye on how this works when the Bill has passed and received Royal Assent. A lot of the operational questions that have been asked will emerge during that time. Whether the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire remains my shadow—either of us could of course be moved on at any point—it would be perfectly reasonable for us to keep the Opposition updated on operational decisions and how the fair work agency emerges. There will of course be further parliamentary opportunities for scrutiny as more detail emerges.
Question put and agreed to.
Schedule 6, as amended, accordingly agreed to.
Schedule 7
Transitional and saving provision relating to Part 5
Justin Madders
I beg to move amendment 191, in schedule 7, page 146, line 19, after “by” insert “or in relation to”.
This amendment and amendment 192 ensure that things done in relation to existing enforcement officers, for example, before the coming into force of Part 5 of the Bill continue to have effect as if done in relation to the Secretary of State.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments 192, 197 and 200.
Justin Madders
The schedule sets out transitional and savings provisions. It ensures a smooth changeover from the existing enforcement framework to the new provisions introduced by the Bill. That is of course important because it makes our legislative framework cohesive and functional.
Government amendment 191 is a necessary technical provision to ensure that the transition of enforcement responsibilities under part 5 of the Bill is well ordered. By clarifying that actions taken not just “by” but “in relation” to enforcement officers will continue to have effect as if done in relation to the Secretary of State, we are safeguarding a continuity in enforcement processes and ensuring no disruption to ongoing cases or decisions, which I am sure Members will be relieved to hear.
Government amendment 192 makes a consequential change to align with Government amendment 191, and Government amendments 197 and 200 make minor drafting changes in schedule 7. They do not affect the substance of the Bill, but they improve its clarity and accuracy. I hope that hon. Members will support what I imagine are uncontroversial amendments and support achieving the aim of ensuring continuity and cohesiveness as we move forward. On that note, I commend the amendments to the Committee.
Greg Smith
Government amendments 191 and 192 ensure that things done “in relation to” existing enforcement officers—for example, before part 5 of the Bill comes into force—continue to have effect as if done “in relation to” the Secretary of State. I fully accept that Government amendments 197 and 200 make minor drafting changes, which look as though they ensure legal continuity—that would be the case, based on the Minister’s opening remarks—and therefore seem sensible, given the policy direction.
I can conclude my comments on the amendments only by asking the usual question, which I have asked many times in Committee and fear I will ask a few more times during the debate over the remainder of today, Thursday and next Tuesday: should the amendments have been included in the Bill on its introduction? This is yet another example of why it is foolish to rush anything, particularly getting a Bill out in 100 days and its consideration in Committee.
Sir Ashley Fox
Government amendments 191 and 192 are designed to ensure legal continuity for actions and decisions made regarding existing enforcement officers prior to the implementation of part 5 of the Bill. They stipulate that any actions or procedures carried out “in relation to” enforcement officers before the new provisions come into force, such as appointments, disciplinary actions or administrative functions, will continue to have the same legal effect as if they had been made “in relation to” the Secretary of State. That is important, because it prevents any disruption or confusion in the legal standing of prior actions, ensuring that they are not rendered ineffective by the changes introduced by the Bill. Essentially, the amendments provide a mechanism to ensure that the transition to the new legal framework does not invalidate or interfere with prior administrative or operational activities.
The rationale behind the amendments is straightforward: it is legal continuity. As enforcement officers are brought under a new regulatory framework, it is crucial that past actions related to their roles, such as those conducted before the Bill takes effect, are preserved and do not need to be revisited or re-executed under the new provisions. That ensures that there is no disruption in the functioning of enforcement operations and that any ongoing matters involving enforcement officers continue seamlessly under the authority of the Secretary of State. The amendments clarify that past decisions and procedures will be treated as if they were made under the authority of the new system, which will help to avoid any potential legal challenges or confusion.
Amendments 197 and 200 involve relatively minor drafting changes. Although the specifics of those changes may not substantially alter the substance of the Bill, they are important for clarity, consistency and precision in the text. These types of amendments typically address technical issues, such as language inconsistencies, ambiguities or minor adjustments to improve the readability and legal accuracy of the provisions. Although they do not represent major shifts in policy, such amendments are crucial in ensuring that the Bill’s provisions are clear, unambiguous and legally sound. Even small drafting changes play an important role in improving the overall functionality and effectiveness of the legislation.
Amendments 197 and 200 help to fine-tune the Bill’s language, ensuring that there are no interpretive uncertainties that could arise during its application. By addressing potential issues in the drafting, the amendments help to streamline the implementation process and reduce the risk of legal challenges or confusion in future interpretations of the law.
Taken together, the amendments—particularly amendments 191 and 192—help to ensure that there is no legal disruption when the provisions in part 5 of the Bill come into effect. That is an essential part of the legislative process, as it guarantees that previous actions remain valid and that transition to a new regulatory framework is smooth. In addition, the minor drafting changes provided by amendments 197 and 200 contribute to legal clarity, ensuring that the Bill’s language is precise and consistent, which will help to avoid any future complications in the application of the law.
Although these changes are reasonable and sensible, in the light of the Bill’s policy objectives, it is worth noting that they should ideally have been included at the time of the Bill’s introduction. The legal continuity ensured by amendments 191 and 192, as well as the technical refinements in amendments 197 and 200, could have been addressed earlier in the drafting process, to ensure that the Bill was as comprehensive and clear as possible from the outset. None the less, these changes at this stage still serve to enhance the legal robustness and practical application of the Bill, which will ultimately contribute to more effective enforcement and smoother implementation.
Justin Madders
I think both Opposition Members who spoke were supportive of the amendments, although they raised legitimate questions about why they were necessary. As the shadow Minister pointed out, we had an ambitious timetable—a manifesto commitment—to issue the Bill within 100 days. Even when Bills are many years in gestation, there are often amendments in Committee to clarify issues, and to ensure that the Bill does what it says on the tin and is legally coherent. These amendments are an example of that process. I am sure Members appreciate how important it is that the amendments are passed, so that we can ensure that everything carries on and is as effective as possible.
Amendment 191 agreed to.
Amendment made: 192, in schedule 7, page 146, line 24, after “by” insert “or in relation to”.—(Justin Madders.)
See the explanatory statement for amendment 191.
Justin Madders
I beg to move amendment 193, schedule 7, page 147, line 2, at end insert—
“( ) an officer acting for the purposes of Part 2A of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996;”
The effect of this amendment is that the transitional provision in paragraph 6 of Schedule 7 to the Bill would apply in relation to officers acting for the purposes of Part 2A of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996 (which relates to the enforcement of employment tribunal awards). The functions of such officers are being transferred to the Secretary of State by the Bill.
Justin Madders
Government amendment 193 makes transitional provision in relation to the transfer of functions of officers acting for the purposes of part 2A of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996 to the Secretary of State. That transitional provision will ensure that anything done by those officers acting for the purposes of part 2A of that Act, relating to enforcement of financial awards by employment tribunals, will continue to have effect. As such, the amendment allows for the continuity of enforcing employment rights once the Bill has passed.
Amendment 194 facilitates a minor drafting change as a consequence of Government amendment 195. Amendment 195 ensures that officers of the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority, acting under any enactment other than the Gangmasters (Licensing) Act 2004, are within the scope of schedule 7. That ensures that things done by them before commencement of the Bill continue to have effect after commencement. I am sure hon. Members will appreciate that the effect of the amendments is solely to ensure that the legislation is clear and unambiguous and that any activity will continue on that basis.
Greg Smith
Government amendment 193 ensures that the transitional provision in paragraph 6 of schedule 7 would apply in relation to officers acting for the purposes of part 2A of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996, which relates to the enforcement of employment tribunal awards. The function of such officers is being transferred to the Secretary of State by the Bill. Amendments 194 and 195 are similar to some of the amendments in the previous group—I fully accept that these are minor drafting changes.
Overall, the changes introduced by this group look as though they ensure legal continuity so that the fair work agency can act as the enforcement authority. That seems sensible, given the policy direction behind the Employment Rights Bill that has been outlined by the Minister and the wider Government. However, I ask again for updates on ensuring the effectiveness of the enforcement of employment law during the period of transition, and about the processes that will be put in place to minimise disruption for businesses, which we have spoken about at length earlier, and to ensure effective enforcement. Again, it is hard to envisage why this set of amendments were not considered at first publication of the Bill; they seem entirely sensible, but it is a mystery why they were lacking the first time round.
Sir Ashley Fox
Amendment 193 addresses the need for a seamless transition in the enforcement of employment tribunal awards. It specifically ensures that the transitional provision in paragraph 6 of schedule 7 to the Bill will apply to officers acting under part 2A of the 1996 Act, which governs the enforcement of employment tribunal awards. This is an important step as the enforcement of the tribunal awards will now fall under the responsibility of the Secretary of State, as stipulated in the Bill. By making the provision, the amendment ensures that the functions previously handled by officers enforcing tribunal awards will continue smoothly during the transition, even as the legal authority for enforcement shifts.
The inclusion of the amendment is crucial for legal continuity. It guarantees that actions taken by officers acting under the 1996 Act will still have legal effect even as their functions are transferred to the Secretary of State and the fair work agency. The amendment essentially ensures that any ongoing enforcement activities related to employment tribunal awards remain valid, preventing legal confusion or disruption during the reorganisation. It also ensures that the change in responsibility from individual enforcement officers to the Secretary of State does not cause any delay or interruption in enforcement actions. This will help to maintain confidence in the process, both for workers seeking to enforce their tribunal awards and businesses affected by these decisions.
Justin Madders
Opposition Members raise the same point as before about why we have had to introduce this amendment now. I refer the shadow Minister to my previous comments on that matter; no doubt I may do so again.
Both Opposition Members have rightly raised the concern about ensuring continuity when the body is instigated. Clearly, what we would expect and hope is that the day-to-day operations of enforcement officers on the ground are not impinged or affected by the creation of the agency. The Bill and a number of amendments are about ensuring that their functions continue smoothly.
Amendment 193 agreed to.
Amendments made: 194, in schedule 7, page 147, leave out line 6.
See the explanatory statement for amendment 195.
Amendment 195, in schedule 7, page 147, line 11, at end insert—
“( ) an officer of the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority acting for the purposes of any other enactment.”—(Justin Madders.)
This amendment and amendment 194 make a minor drafting change.
Justin Madders
I beg to move amendment 196, in schedule 7, page 147, line 11, at end insert—
“(4A) Sub-paragraphs (1) to (3) are subject to the remaining provisions of this Schedule (and see also section 114, which confers power to make transitional or saving provision).”
This amendment makes it clear that the general provision in paragraph 6 of Schedule 7 is subject to any more specific provision in that Schedule.
Justin Madders
Amendment 196 will ensure that there is a smooth transition in the frameworks. Amendment 198 is a transitional provision ensuring that anything done by a labour abuse prevention officer before the abolition of the GLAA continues to have effect as if done under the fair work agency. Amendment 199 is another transitional provision for warrants that have been granted under the Gangmasters (Licensing) Act 2004, but not yet executed. It allows those warrants to have the same effect as before. It is a continuation of the amendments we have debated this morning, ensuring that enforcement officers have continuity when delivering their functions.
Greg Smith
Amendment 196 makes it clear that the general provision in paragraph 6 of schedule 7 is subject to any more specific provision in that schedule. Amendment 198 makes transitional provision to ensure that things done by or in relation to labour abuse prevention officers before the abolition of the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority continue to have effect as if done by or in relation to enforcement officers granted the equivalent powers under section 114B of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.
Amendment 199 makes transitional provision in relation to warrants under section 17 of the Gangmasters (Licensing) Act, which is being re-enacted for England, Wales and Scotland, with some changes, through clause 83. In particular, proposed new paragraph 7C of schedule 7 of the Bill provides that, where a warrant issued under section 17 of the 2004 Act has not yet been executed, the warrant is treated as if issued under clause 83, but any changes introduced by the Bill that would not have applied if the warrant had been executed under section 17 —in particular the additional requirements in part 3 of new schedule 1—are disapplied.
On the face of it, these are sensible amendments to make sure that nothing falls through the cracks as enforcement functions transfer to the fair work agency. A number of Government amendments of this nature have been considered by the Committee. This set of amendments therefore leaves me slightly nervous, not about the intention, but about whether anything else has been missed. I would appreciate the Minister’s reassurance on that point.
Sir Ashley Fox
Amendment 196 seeks to clarify the applicability of general and specific provisions and the relationship between the general provision outlined in paragraph 6 of schedule 7 and any more specific provision within that schedule. The amendment ensures that, in the event of a conflict or overlap between general and specific provisions, the more detailed or specific provisions will take precedence. This is an important measure for maintaining legal clarity and consistency in the application of the Bill. By prioritising specific provisions where applicable, the amendment prevents any unintended gaps or inconsistencies in the legal framework, ensuring that enforcement activities and related actions are governed by the most precise and relevant rules.
Amendment 198 introduces a transitional provision designed to ensure that actions taken by or in relation to labour abuse prevention officers prior to the abolition of the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority will continue to be recognised as valid. Specifically, it ensures that any activities, decisions or functions performed by those officers before the GLAA’s dissolution will have the same legal effect as if they had been carried out by or in relation to enforcement officers who have been granted equivalent powers under section 114B of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. This is critical because it provides a seamless transition as enforcement responsibilities are transferred, making certain that actions taken by the GLAA’s officers before the abolition of the agency are not rendered void or ineffective.
The amendment is vital for legal continuity. It guarantees that there will be no disruption in enforcement activities during the transition period. Officers who previously worked under the authority of the GLAA, particularly those involved in tackling labour abuse, will carry out their roles without interruption, as their actions will be treated as if undertaken by enforcement officers with the equivalent legal powers. The measure strengthens the overall framework for worker protection and labour abuse prevention, ensuring that the enforcement of relevant laws continues smoothly as the responsibility shifts to new authorities.
Amendment 199 focuses on the transitional provision for warrants issued under section 17 of the 2004 Act, which is being re-enacted in a revised form as clause 83 of the Bill. The amendment introduces new paragraph 7C, which addresses the scenario where a warrant issued under section 17 has not yet been executed at the time of the change. In such cases, the warrant will be treated as if it were issued under the new provisions in clause 83, but with a critical distinction. Any changes introduced by the Bill that would not have applied under section 17, such as the additional requirements in part three of new schedule 1, will be disapplied.
The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that any ongoing enforcement actions involving warrants issued under the old regime are not hindered or invalidated by the transition to the new framework. By allowing the warrants to be treated as though they were issued under the new clause, the amendment facilitates a smoother enforcement process and reduces the risk of legal challenges or procedural delays. This is an important safeguard for the enforcement of labour laws and ensures that the power to execute warrants continues without disruption, regardless of the legislative changes.
Justin Madders
I sense that the Opposition Members are supportive of the amendments. The shadow Minister challenged me on whether there will be any more minor or consequential amendments. I cannot give him an absolute guarantee on that; it is always an iterative process when Bills are issued; we take notice of what stakeholders say in their feedback, as well as other Government Departments. Of course, it is important that we get these things done before the Bill becomes law, by which time it is too late. I hope the Committee is reassured that there is an ongoing process to ensure that there is certainty and coherence in the legislation as we prepare for Report.
Amendment 196 agreed to.
Amendments made: 197, in schedule 7, page 147, line 25, after “repeal” insert “of that provision”.
This amendment makes a minor drafting change.
Amendment 198, in schedule 7, page 147, line 27, at end insert—
“Labour abuse prevention officers
7A (1) Anything which—
(a) was done by or in relation to a labour abuse prevention officer in, or in connection with, the exercise of a function conferred on the officer by virtue of section 114B of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (“PACE”), and
(b) is in effect immediately before the day on which paragraph 67 of Schedule 6 comes into force (“the relevant day”),
has effect, on and after that day, as if done by or in relation to a relevant enforcement officer.
(2) Anything which—
(a) relates to a function conferred on a labour abuse prevention officer by virtue of section 114B of PACE, and
(b) immediately before the relevant day, is in the process of being done by or in relation to such an officer,
may be continued, on and after that day, by or in relation to a relevant enforcement officer.
(3) In this paragraph—
“labour abuse prevention officer” has the meaning given by section 114B of PACE (as that section had effect immediately before the relevant day);
“relevant enforcement officer” , in relation to a function conferred by virtue of section 114B of PACE, means an enforcement officer on whom that function is conferred by virtue of that section (as it has effect on and after the relevant day).”
This amendment makes transitional provision to ensure that things done by or in relation to labour abuse prevention officers before the abolition of the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority continue to have effect as if done by or in relation to enforcement officers granted the equivalent powers under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 by virtue of section 114B of that Act.
Amendment 199, in schedule 7, page 147, line 27, at end insert—
“Warrants
7B (1) This paragraph applies to an application for a warrant under section 17 of the Gangmasters (Licensing) Act 2004 (“the 2004 Act”) which—
(a) is made in England and Wales or Scotland before the day on which paragraph 42 of Schedule 6 comes into force, and
(b) is not determined or withdrawn before that day.
(2) The application is to be treated, on and after that day, as an application made by an enforcement officer for a warrant under section 83 of this Act.
7C (1) This paragraph applies to a warrant under section 17 of the 2004 Act which—
(a) is issued under that section before the day on which paragraph 42 of Schedule 6 comes into force, and
(b) is not executed before that day.
(2) The warrant is to be treated for the purposes of section 83 of this Act as if it had been issued under that section.
(3) That section applies in relation to the warrant as if—
(a) in subsection (4)(a) , after “bring” there were inserted “any persons or”, and
(b) after subsection (4) there were inserted—
“(4A)On leaving any premises which an enforcement officer is authorised to enter by a warrant under this section, the officer must, if the premises are unoccupied or the occupier is temporarily absent, leave the premises as effectively secured against trespassers as the officer found them.”
(4) Section (Warrants) and Schedule (Warrants under Part 5: further provision) do not apply in relation to the warrant.”
This amendment makes transitional provision in relation to warrants under section 17 of the Gangmasters (Licensing) Act 2004, which is being re-enacted for England and Wales and Scotland (with some changes) as clause 83. In particular, new paragraph 7C provides that, where a warrant issued under section 17 has not yet been executed, the warrant is treated as if issued under clause 83, but any changes introduced by the Bill which would not have applied if the warrant had been executed under section 17 (in particular, the additional requirements in Part 3 of NS1) are disapplied.
Amendment 200, in schedule 7, page 147, line 40, leave out “that person” and insert “the enforcing authority”.—(Justin Madders.)
This amendment makes a minor drafting change.
Justin Madders
I beg to move amendment 201, in schedule 7, page 148, line 16, at end insert—
“8A “(1) This paragraph applies to information which—
(a) was obtained in the course of—
(i) exercising the powers conferred by section 9 of the Employment Agencies Act 1973 (“the 1973 Act”), or
(ii) exercising powers by virtue of section 26(1) of the Immigration Act 2016, and
(b) immediately before the coming into force of paragraph 2 of Schedule 6, is held by an officer acting for the purposes of the 1973 Act.
(2) On the coming into force of that paragraph, information to which this paragraph applies vests in the Secretary of State.”
See the explanatory statement for Amendment 202.
Justin Madders
Existing enforcement bodies will have obtained information prior to the creation of the fair work agency. This information may be needed by the Secretary of State once part 5 of the Bill comes into force. Schedule 7 therefore provides for transitional and saving provisions to enable that. Amendments 201 and 202 provide that information obtained by officers acting under existing legislation prior to the coming into force of part 5 of the Bill, and which is held by the Secretary of State, can be used or disclosed in accordance with clause 98.
Greg Smith
Amendments 201 and 202 provide that information that was obtained before the coming into force of part 5 of the Bill by officers acting under existing legislation and is held by the Secretary of State can be used or disclosed by the Secretary of State in accordance with clause 98. These are sensible amendments on the face of it, to make sure nothing falls through the cracks as the enforcement functions transfer to the fair work agency—very similar to the previous set of amendments that we have just considered. It is part of a continuing theme of amendments of this nature that we as a Committee are being asked to consider.
I heard the Minister’s response to the previous debate about this being an iterative process and about the need to listen and best understand concerns or practical points raised by those being asked to prepare for and ultimately do this work. It remains a legitimate point of nervousness that there will be more such cracks that need repairing as part of this Bill. Accepting the Minister’s good faith in his explanation on the previous set of amendments, I put on record that we remain a little nervous that more cracks will need that legislative repair as the Bill goes forward.
We urge the Government to get on at pace with the conversations necessary to ensure that they have best understood where any further edits may be required—preferably before Report stage in the House of Commons, but if it does have to bleed into the time when the Bill goes to the other place, so be it. However, I think it would a far more satisfactory position if we were able to consider at our end of the building any further amendments that may be required before we ask their lordships to consider the Bill.
Sir Ashley Fox
Government amendments 201 and 202 are designed to address a key aspect of the transition process under the Bill. Specifically, they are designed such that any information that was obtained prior to the coming into force of part 5 of the Bill by officers operating under existing legislation and is currently held by the Secretary of State, can still be used or disclosed in accordance with the provisions outlined in clause 98 of the Bill.
That is crucial because, as enforcement functions transfer to the fair work agency, there needs to be continuity in how information is handled. By allowing the Secretary of State to continue using and disclosing this information under the new framework, the amendments ensure that no critical data or intelligence gathered under the previous system is lost or becomes unusable during the transition.
This provision is particularly important for maintaining continuity in enforcement activities. The information collected by officers acting under earlier laws may be vital for ongoing investigations or enforcement actions. For instance, data about businesses that are non-compliant with labour laws, or evidence of potential worker exploitation, could be crucial for future legal proceedings or further investigations.
Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that it would have been better and more efficient for the Bill to come before the House in a more final version, which may have put at ease many of us with concerns about the cracks that may still exist?
Sir Ashley Fox
My hon. Friend makes a valuable point. The reason that the Bill is in such poor condition is that the Labour party was under a political obligation to its trade union friends to bring it forward within 100 days. Had it waited a month or two, we would not have needed such detailed scrutiny and so many Government amendments. Occasionally one hears a tut or a groan from Government Members as we try to scrutinise the Bill, but really it is entirely the Government’s fault for bringing forward such a poorly drafted piece of legislation.
As I was saying, without amendments 201 and 202, confusion or legal obstacles could prevent the use of such information, creating gaps in the enforcement process. By making it clear that the Secretary of State has the authority to use and disclose such information under clause 98, the amendments ensure that the enforcement process remains uninterrupted, effective and legally coherent.
Overall, the amendments are sensible and necessary to guarantee that nothing falls through the cracks as the responsibilities for enforcing labour laws transition from existing structures to the fair work agency. As the Bill centralises enforcement functions, it is essential that any information collected under the old system remains accessible and usable by the new agency. That is particularly important given the potential impact on ongoing investigations, compliance checks and prosecutions. By ensuring that previously collected information can still be used effectively, the amendments will help to prevent disruptions or delays in enforcement, safeguarding both workers and businesses.
It is worth noting that the transition to a new enforcement structure can often be fraught with challenges. The Bill will alter not only the bodies responsible for enforcement, but the way in which information and data are managed. The amendments will help address the practical aspects of the transition, ensuring that the fair work agency has the resources and information it needs to continue performing its duties effectively. In doing so, they will create a smoother handover of powers and responsibilities from the previous enforcement regime to the new framework.
Throughout the Committee’s proceedings, we have debated many Government amendments of a similar nature. Amendments 201 and 202 are necessary to fine-tune the Bill and ensure that all aspects of the transition are fully addressed, but the sheer volume of amendments at this stage leaves me with some concern, as it suggests that the Bill may not have fully accounted for all the transitional issues at the outset, and there may still be elements that have not been addressed. Given the complexity of centralising such a significant portion of the enforcement process, it is natural to be cautious about whether any areas may have been overlooked. While these amendments are clearly intended to provide clarity and ensure continuity, the volume of amendments suggests that there may still be unanswered questions or unforeseen gaps in the transition process, which leaves me somewhat nervous that issues may have been missed in the initial drafting of the Bill. We have certainly seen that happen often enough thus far. It is crucial that all challenges or concerns relating to the transfer of enforcement powers are adequately addressed before the Bill passes. As such, I believe it is important to consider whether there are any outstanding issues that might affect the long-term success of the transition.
Given the number of amendments and the complexity of the transition, I would appreciate the Minister’s reassurance that there is a comprehensive understanding of the full scope of the changes and that no essential elements have been left unaddressed. Are the Government confident that all necessary steps have been taken to ensure a smooth and effective transition? In particular, can the Minister assure us that the fair work agency will be fully equipped to handle its new responsibilities, including that it will be able to utilise critical information from the prior enforcement system without any disruptions? I would also like to hear about the monitoring processes that will be in place to oversee the transition period and ensure that any unforeseen issues are quickly addressed, which is vital for maintaining business confidence and worker protections throughout the period of change.
While the amendments are crucial for ensuring that enforcement activities continue smoothly during the transition, they should ideally have been made earlier in the process to avoid the need for these later clarifications. Having a more comprehensive and cohesive framework in place at the outset would have reduced uncertainty and provided greater assurance to all parties involved. Never-theless, the amendments go a long way to addressing the issues that could arise during the handover of enforcement responsibilities, and ensuring that the transition to the fair work agency will be as smooth and effective as possible.
Justin Madders
The shadow Minister asked whether it is our intention to have the Bill shipshape before we send it to the other place. That is absolutely our intention, and the amendments that have been debated today are part of that.
The criticism from the hon. Member for Bridgwater about the number of Government amendments has been noted. It was important that we kept to our manifesto commitment to issue the Bill within 100 days, but I have to say that when I was an Opposition Member I do not think I ever sat on a Bill Committee where the Government did not introduce their own amendments. If he is able to come up with some examples, I would be delighted to hear from him. I am afraid he will probably have to sit on a few more Bill Committees, and he will see that that is perfectly normal in the way these things work. After a Bill is published, it has more eyes on it; other stakeholders, Government Departments and agencies get to see it, and they offer views and feedback. It is right that we take account of those views and make what are often technical and minor amendments to make sure that the Bill has the intended legal effect.
The hon. Member asked whether any other essential elements have been omitted. The amendments we are debating are about ensuring that the fair work agency is functioning and effective from Royal Assent. I cannot give him a guarantee that there will not be other things that come out, but we have been doing a considerable amount of work, as can be seen by the number of amendments, to make sure that the Bill will be fully operational and that there will be no effect on the day-to-day running of the work of the enforcement officers and the creation of the fair work agency.
Amendment 201 agreed to.
Amendment made: 202, in schedule 7, page 148, line 19, leave out from “to” to end of line 20 and insert “—
(a) any information which the Secretary of State obtains by virtue of paragraph 8A;
(b) any information which, immediately before the coming into force of paragraph 20 of Schedule 6, the Secretary of State holds by virtue of section 15(2) of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998;
(c) any information which, immediately before the coming into force of paragraph 21 of that Schedule, the Secretary of State holds by virtue of section 16(2) of that Act;
(d) any information which the Secretary of State obtains by virtue of a property transfer scheme under paragraph 2 of this Schedule.”—(Justin Madders.)
This amendment and Amendment 201 would provide that information which was obtained before the coming into force of Part 5 of the Bill by officers acting under existing legislation and is held by the Secretary of State can be used or disclosed by the Secretary of State in accordance with clause 98.
Justin Madders
I beg to move amendment 203, in schedule 7, page 148, line 20, at end insert—
“9A The repeal of section 9 of the Employment Agencies Act 1973 (inspection) by paragraph 3 of Schedule 6 does not prevent the use in evidence against a person, in criminal proceedings taking place on or after the day on which that repeal comes into force, of a statement made before that day by the person in compliance with a requirement under that section (subject to subsection (2B) of that section).”
Section 9(3) of the Employment Agencies Act 1973 provides that a statement made by a person in compliance with a requirement made under that section to provide information may be used in evidence in criminal proceedings against the person. This amendment enables such a statement to be used in criminal proceedings taking place after the repeal of section 9 by the Bill.
Schedule 7 sets out transitional and savings provisions ensuring a smooth changeover from the existing enforcement framework to the new provisions. That is important, as Members have debated at length already. Amendment 203 addresses the repeal of section 9 of the Employment Agencies Act 1973 and the evidentiary treatment of statements obtained under that provision. The amendment will ensure that such statements can continue to be used in criminal proceedings post repeal, subject to existing protections against self-incrimination under section 9(2B). This is a targeted, proportionate and necessary amendment, which safeguards the integrity of enforcement proceedings during a period of legislative transition. On that basis, I commend the amendment to the Committee.
Greg Smith
As the Minister outlined, Government amendment 203 relates to section 9 of the Employment Agencies Act 1973, which provides that a statement made by a person in compliance with a requirement under that section to provide information may be used in evidence in criminal proceedings against the person. The amendment enables such a statement to be used in criminal proceedings taking place after the repeal of section 9 by the Bill.
Similar to the previous two groups of amendments we have considered, this is a sensible amendment to make sure that nothing falls through the cracks as enforcement functions transfer to the fair work agency. It is all part of a continuing theme, and the points that I made in the previous debate apply as much to amendment 203 as they did to the previous amendments.
I understand what the Minister said about every Bill being subject, during its passage, to a number of technical amendments by Governments of all different political compositions. I gently it put back to him that this Bill seems to have had an extremely high number of technical Government amendments, and that all tracks back to the unnecessary speed with which it was presented to Parliament.
Government amendment 204 contains transitional provision to ensure that once the functions of the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority under the Modern Slavery Act 2015—
Sir Ashley Fox
Government amendment 203 seeks to address an important transitional issue arising from the repeal of section 9 of the Employment Agencies Act 1973 by the Bill. Section 9 currently stipulates that a statement made by an individual in compliance with a requirement to provide information under that section may be used as evidence in criminal proceedings against them. The amendment ensures that any statements made under the provisions of section 9 prior to its repeal can still be used in criminal proceedings that occur after the repeal takes effect.
The amendment is a necessary adjustment to maintain the integrity of the legal process. It will ensure that evidence obtained while section 9 was in effect remains valid and admissible in criminal cases, even after the section’s formal removal from the statute. Without the amendment, there could be ambiguity and potential legal challenges regarding the admissibility of evidence, which could undermine ongoing enforcement efforts and hinder the administration of justice. By making this provision, the Government ensure that no gaps are created in the legal framework, preserving continuity and clarity in the application of the law.
As we transition enforcement functions to the fair work agency, such amendments are vital to ensure the process is as seamless as possible. The purpose of amendment 203, and others like it, is to safeguard that critical aspects of the previous legal framework remain intact, even as the functions are reassigned or modified under the Bill. The changeover to the fair work agency is a significant shift, and these amendments are an important step in maintaining enforcement consistency. Given the complexity of transferring powers and responsibilities between agencies, the amendments ensure that no legal actions or evidence will fall through the cracks during the transition. They will ensure that enforcement remains robust, and that any evidence gathered or actions taken before the changeover still hold legal weight under the new system.
Although the adjustments are sensible and necessary, the number of Government amendments made in Committee leaves me with some concern about whether every possible issue has been addressed. The amendments we have seen so far have been well intentioned and critical for ensuring legal continuity, but I would appreciate the Minister’s reassurance that nothing has been overlooked in this important process.
As we know, the task of realigning enforcement powers can be complex, and with numerous provisions being amended or repealed, the risk of something slipping through the cracks is a valid concern. Opposition Members are asking for clarity that even with these detailed and helpful amendments, the transition to the fair work agency will not inadvertently create gaps or unintended consequences. I urge the Minister to provide additional assurances that all potential legal or procedural pitfalls have been anticipated, and that the Government have taken every necessary step to guarantee that the work of enforcement officers and the legal process will continue without interruption. Although the amendments are certainly a step in the right direction, we must remain vigilant to ensure that the full scope of the transition is properly managed and that the system continues to protect the rights of workers effectively.
Justin Madders
I believe I have already addressed the concerns raised by the hon. Member for Bridgwater on several occasions this morning, although I take his points.
Amendment 203 agreed to.
Justin Madders
I beg to move amendment 204, in schedule 7, page 148, line 28, at end insert—
“10A (1) Where—
(a) a slavery and trafficking prevention order requires a person to notify the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority in accordance with section 19 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 (“the 2015 Act”), and
(b) immediately before the day on which paragraph 53 of Schedule 6 comes into force, that requirement has not been complied with,
that requirement has effect, on and after that day, as a requirement to notify the Secretary of State.
(2) On and after the coming into force of paragraph 54 of Schedule 6, the reference in section 20(2)(g) of the 2015 Act (as amended by that paragraph) to a slavery and trafficking prevention order made on an application under section 15 of that Act by the Secretary of State includes a reference to such an order made on an application under that section by the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority.
(3) In this paragraph “slavery and trafficking prevention order” has the same meaning as in the 2015 Act.
10B (1) Where—
(a) a slavery and trafficking risk order requires a person to notify the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority in accordance with section 26 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 (“the 2015 Act”), and
(b) immediately before the day on which paragraph 56 of Schedule 6 comes into force, that requirement has not been complied with,
that requirement has effect, on and after that day, as a requirement to notify the Secretary of State.
(2) On and after the coming into force of paragraph 57 of Schedule 6, the reference in section 27(2)(g) of the 2015 Act (as amended by that paragraph) to a slavery and trafficking risk order made on an application under section 23 of that Act by the Secretary of State includes a reference to such an order made on an application under that section by the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority.
(3) In this paragraph “slavery and trafficking risk order” has the same meaning as in the 2015 Act.”
This amendment contains transitional provision to ensure that, once the functions of the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority under the Modern Slavery Act 2015 have been transferred to the Secretary of State, that Act continues to operate as intended.
The amendment is essential to ensure the seamless and effective operation of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 during the transition of functions from the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority to the Secretary of State. At its core, it is about continuity and clarity. Slavery and trafficking prevention and risk orders are critical tools in the fight against modern slavery. They impose important requirements on individuals for the purpose of protecting people from being victims of modern slavery, including requirements to notify enforcement authorities, and those obligations must remain enforceable.
Without the amendment, there is a clear risk that existing legal obligations could become unclear, creating loopholes for offenders to exploit. The amendment ensures that notification requirements transfer seamlessly to the Secretary of State, safeguarding our ability to hold individuals accountable and protect victims of exploitation. It also ensures that where an application is made to vary, renew or discharge a slavery and trafficking order, the courts can treat orders originally made by the GLAA as if they had been made by the Secretary of State. That provides legal certainty for courts, enforcement agencies and affected individuals alike.
This is a technical but vital amendment that protects the integrity of the legal framework and ensures continuity.
Greg Smith
Apologies for my premature comments on amendment 204, Mr Mundell; I accidently believed it had been grouped with the previous amendment.
Amendment 204 contains transitional provision to ensure that, once the functions of the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority under the Modern Slavery Act 2015 have been transferred to the Secretary of State, that Act continues to operate as intended. I would be grateful for the Minister’s assessment of how the creation of the fair work agency will allow for more effective identification and prevention of modern slavery offences. As we debate the amendment, it is important that we are fully appraised of the detail and the assessment that the Minister, the wider Department for Business and Trade and the Government have made. This is an important matter that all Committee members, and Members of the wider House of Commons, take incredibly seriously, and I urge the Minister to do so.
Employment Rights Bill (Twenty First sitting)
Thursday 16th January 2025
(1 year, 2 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Employment Rights Act 2025 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 16 January 2025 - (16 Jan 2025)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 13 - Question accordingly negatived.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Good morning, Sir Christopher. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I am pleased to move the new clause, which would add special constables to the scope of section 50 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, giving them the right to unpaid leave to perform their duties.
Special constables are volunteers. They give their time, at no cost to the taxpayer, to help our police forces. Specials have existed in some form ever since the Special Constables Act 1831, which allowed justices of the peace to conscript volunteers. The special constabulary as we know it was established by the Police Act 1964, which gave chief constables the authority to appoint and manage special constables. Today’s specials carry all the same legal powers as their full-time counterparts, on and off duty. They put themselves in harm’s way, without payment, to keep our society safe.
I tabled the new clause because my constituent, Ms Emma-Elizabeth Murphy, asked me to do so. She came to see me at one of my first constituency surgeries and asked me to help her and her fellow special constables. Ms Murphy joined up as a special in 2021 and took the oath as a constable. Since then, she has recorded more than 1,300 hours of duties, arrested multiple offenders and dealt with fatal accidents. Last year, she was recognised as student special constable of the year.
Ms Murphy explained that she and many of her colleagues use their weekends and holidays to perform their duties. They may ask their employers for unpaid leave, but 60% of employers who were surveyed do not grant it. Bringing specials within the scope of section 50 would mean that their employer had to consider the request officially and grant a reasonable amount of unpaid leave. That would put them in the same position as councillors and magistrates.
The number of people who volunteer as a special has fallen by two thirds over the past decade. Many forces now face significant gaps in their special constabulary ranks. Applications have slowed significantly, with most special constables joining purely as a stepping stone into the regular force. The two-year attrition rate of the force is 90%. That means that the constabulary does not see a good return on the time and training that it invests in new recruits.
Michael Wheeler (Worsley and Eccles) (Lab)
It is a pleasure, as always, to serve under you, Sir Christopher. I draw Members’ attention to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my membership of USDAW—the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers—and the GMB.
The hon. Member for Bridgwater is making a powerful case. Were the Government to accept his new clause, would he support the Bill as a whole?
Sir Ashley Fox
That would not be quite enough to offset the £5 billion-worth of costs for small and medium-sized enterprises. The advantage of the new clause is that it would not cost either the taxpayer or employers any money. However, I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution.
The truth is that, currently, many people simply do not have the time to offer to the role without employer support. The measure I propose would make it easier for specials to perform their duties and, I hope, help recruitment. Unlike so many of the proposals in the Bill, it would not cost either employers or the taxpayer any money.
I am pleased that this campaign has the support of the Association of Special Constabulary Officers and more than a dozen MPs from Government and Opposition. We also have the endorsement of 10 police and crime commissioners. Importantly, Assistant Chief Constable Bill Dutton, acting in his capacity as the National Police Chiefs’ Council lead for the special constabulary, has provided his written support for including special constables under section 50. The Minister has received letters from hon. Members in all parts of the House, and I believe that some of his ministerial colleagues, too, may have received letters or held meetings with Government Back Benchers.
The new clause could help with the recruitment and retention of many new special constables and it would make our streets safer. It would also finally recognise the work of the specials and put them on the same footing as the thousands of other people in this country who are allowed time off work to complete valuable civic duties. I ask the Minister to consider that.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I would like to add my support to what my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater has proposed. The first duty of Government is to protect citizens from threats abroad and keep them safe at home. Given all the other rights and extensions of rights that the Government are pushing in the Bill, it would seem unusual if support for our special constables, whom I salute for all their hard work day in, day out as part of the mission to keep the British people safe, were not included. I urge the Minister to consider the new clause in a genuine spirit of trying to work together on this issue.
I am tempted to rise to the bait set by the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles. We have many differences of opinion about the Bill’s provisions, but, in the spirit of the Bill, surely we can find some cross-party consensus on extending employment rights to special constables going about their duty—the often dangerous duty that they carry out on behalf of us all.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I rise to strongly support the new clause. We have seen throughout our debates in Committee that there are opportunities for changing the weather around our employment world, whether it is around foster carers, adoption or volunteering—the subject of new clause 38, championed by my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr Forster), which we will discuss later.
I hope that this new clause falls on fertile ground because, as the hon. Member for Bridgwater has highlighted, volunteering across the piece has significantly reduced. We need to change the weather around the employment world and make sure that people feel able and confident to volunteer, as we know that policing is a particular challenge.
I welcome the Government’s plans to invest in neighbourhood policing. Special officers are often involved in that. People feel confident when they see a uniformed officer on the street. The public do not care whether it is a paid officer or a special officer; it is a trusted individual. The more we can drive that agenda, as I know from my residents in Torbay, the more it will be welcomed. I look forward to a strong endorsement from the Minister.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Justin Madders)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this morning, Sir Christopher. I start by referring to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bridgwater on the new clause and join him in paying tribute to his constituent Emma-Elizabeth Murphy and all special constables who perform the vital work that Members have spoken in support of. We recognise and value the vital role that special constables play, which includes supporting neighbourhood policing. We are committed to ensuring that police forces have the support that they need from the Government to tackle important matters of public safety.
Special constables, along with the full range of police volunteers, bring valuable and diverse skills that complement the roles that officers and staff play in delivering the best service to the public. We recognise that there has been a fall in the number of special constables over recent years. Further work needs to be done to understand exactly the reasons for that. Initial consideration suggests that a range of factors has led to the reduction in the number of special constables. It is not clear whether the new clause would reverse that trend or what its impact on business would be—the hon. Member for Bridgwater has been a constant critic of the Bill’s impact on businesses—so we need to understand that better.
We are already doing a range of work to support special constables and employment rights more broadly. We are introducing the neighbourhood policing guarantee, which will put thousands of additional police officers, police community support officers and special constables on our streets and restore patrols in town centres across the country.
Many employers already support their employees to volunteer in a special constabulary. Under the Employer Supported Policing scheme, led by the National Police Chiefs’ Council, a number of organisations across a range of sectors have committed to supporting members of their workforce to serve as special constables, in recognition of the opportunities to build new skills and support local communities. The Home Office is also supporting the NPCC to develop and implement initiatives to improve the recruitment and retention of special constables. That includes developing a refreshed national citizens in policing strategy and a national special constabulary working group.
I will not be able to accept the new clause, but I am sympathetic to the case that has been made. In preparation for dealing with it, I learned that that the initial legislation that introduced time off for certain public duties is now 50 years old, so it seems time to consider this issue in the round, and the role of special constables will no doubt be included in that. The Home Office will clearly have an important say. As I said, a number of factors has led to the decline in the number of special constables in recent years.
Greg Smith
The new clause has been tabled for some weeks now. Has the Minister engaged with the Home Secretary, the Policing Minister or any officials in the Home Office? Have they presented a view on this proposal yet?
Justin Madders
We have had various discussions within the Department. Information has gone over to the Home Office, and we are waiting for a response. Obviously, I cannot speak for the Home Office, so I cannot set out its position. As I say, I think it is time more generally to consider all the legislation relating to the right to time off for public duties. It is too soon to accept this new clause, but I hope the hon. Member for Bridgwater is assured that we are taking this issue seriously and considering it.
Sir Ashley Fox
Although I am disappointed that the Minister has not accepted the new clause, I will withdraw it at this stage. I can count 10 Government Members and only five on the Opposition Benches, so my chances of success in a Division would be limited. I hope the new clause can find its way back into the Bill, perhaps in another place. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 35
Carer’s leave: remuneration
“(1) In section 80K of the Employment Rights Act 1996, omit subsection (3) and insert—
‘(3) In subsection (1)(a), “terms and conditions of employment”—
(a) includes matters connected with an employee’s employment whether or not they arise under the contract of employment, and
(b) includes terms and conditions about remuneration.’”—(Steve Darling.)
This new clause would make Carer’s Leave a paid entitlement.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Steve Darling
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause is an opportunity to extend carer’s leave across the whole of Great Britain. I hope it falls on more fertile ground than the previous new clause. There are 10.6 million carers across the United Kingdom, yet only 2.5 million are actually in paid employment. That shows that, although some of those carers may be beyond or even below working age, there is still a significant untapped pool of opportunity to drive productivity in our economy.
The economic growth figures released this morning show that the handbrake is sadly still on in our economy due to the appalling state that the Labour party inherited from the previous Government, so we need to think about how to allow people to work in our economy as strongly as possible. Centrica has found that there is an £8 billion cost to our economy for those who choose to leave the workplace due to having caring commitments. This would potentially allow a goodly number of those to remain in the workplace and continue to contribute. Although this is a probing amendment, I hope the Minister will give it some serious consideration and advise the Committee on what exploration the Government may choose to undertake of this golden opportunity for us as a society.
Greg Smith
I commend the hon. Member for Torbay for tabling new clause 35. It is not the Opposition’s intention to support it at this stage, but I want to be clear that the principle behind it is fundamentally good: ensuring carers are not left on a financial sticky wicket, which is a very real problem in the country. I acknowledge that the hon. Member for Torbay said that it was a probing amendment, but we believe that it is not currently fully thought through. We can all agree—I would be surprised if we did not—on saluting the incredible work that carers do up and down the land. They are all heroes in their own right and they do incredible work to look after those they care for. Their work merits a genuine use of the word “amazing”. It is a word that has been applied to far too many things in this world that are not amazing, but I think we can all agree that the work carers do genuinely is amazing.
Our rationale for saying that this new clause is not thought through enough is that it does not produce realistic solutions to solving the financial gap for carers, which we acknowledge exists. I would be interested to know the rates of payment the Liberal Democrats think would be appropriate for carer’s leave, how the rates they envisage have been benchmarked, and if they have understood the likelihood of take-up of carer’s leave and therefore the ability of employers to absorb this cost. The hon. Gentleman was very clear about that 10.6 million figure he gave. Any solution that seeks to close the financial gap must accept some of the realities and take on board the costings that will have to come from somewhere to ensure that that financial burden can be met, notwithstanding the acceptance that carers need more support for—I repeat—their amazing work. That is why we believe this new clause just does not work at this time, and I would be surprised if our position were that different from the Government’s.
The Minister for Equalities (Dame Nia Griffith)
I refer the Committee to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, in particular my membership of the National Education Union and USDAW.
New clause 35 would commit the Government to introducing an entitlement for employees with caring responsibilities, to be paid at their usual wage level, while taking carer’s leave. It would give carers an entitlement of up to a week of paid leave and require employers to cover the cost.
I want to underline that the Government are absolutely committed to supporting employed unpaid carers. In the October 2024 Budget, we increased the earnings disregard for carers from £151 to £196, meaning that they can earn up to £196 without losing any of their carer’s allowance. In effect, that means that they can work 16 hours a week at the national living wage.
We have two concerns about the new clause. First, it would introduce significant new costs for employers without giving consideration to the potential impact on businesses, in particular small ones. Secondly, under the proposed approach, individuals taking carer’s leave would be treated more favourably than employees taking other forms of leave to care for family members, such as maternity or paternity leave, where a flat statutory rate is available. There is no clear rationale for taking a different approach, and it could raise questions about differential treatment of different groups. For those reasons, the Government do not support the new clause.
However, supporting carers who want to work alongside managing their caring responsibilities is an important element of our plans to modernise the world of work, which will ensure that there are good jobs for carers and a skilled workforce for employers. The Carer’s Leave Act 2023 gave employed carers a new right to time off work to care for a dependant with long-term care needs. We will review that measure and consider whether any further support is required. That will include looking at potential options for paid leave. The review will draw on evidence from carers and employers and learn from their experiences, so that we can understand what is working in the current system and identify where improvements may be needed. Through that work, we will also engage closely with smaller employers and sector bodies to ensure that we fully understand the potential impacts and benefits that further policy development could bring for them. It is right that we allow the review to run its course to enable an evidence-based decision on whether there is more we can do to support working carers while balancing impacts on businesses.
I heard what the hon. Member for Torbay said about the new clause being a probing amendment, and I hope that what I have said gives him reassurance about our commitment to that review. I therefore invite him to withdraw the new clause.
Steve Darling
I thank the Minister for her encouraging words. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 37
Right to be accompanied
“(1) Section 10 of the Employment Relations Act 1999 (right to be accompanied) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (3), after paragraph (b) insert—
‘(ba) a person who has been reasonably certified in writing by a Professional Body as having experience of, or as having received training in, acting as a worker’s companion at disciplinary or grievance hearings, or’
(3) After subsection (7) insert—
‘(8) In this section, “Professional Body” means any organisation, which is authorised by a regulation made by the Secretary of State pursuant to subsection (9).
(9) The Secretary of State may make a regulation or regulations authorising any organisation as a Professional Body for the purposes of this section.’”—(Steve Darling.)
This new clause would expand the right to be accompanied by a certified companion at disciplinary and grievance hearings.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Steve Darling
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause would ensure that workers in the early stages of an employment dispute, such as a disciplinary or grievance hearing, can be supported by those who are qualified, rather than just by trade union representatives or similar colleagues. It would allow for matters to be brought to a head much sooner and prevent cases from necessarily going to tribunal, which clogs up the tribunal system. I hope the Government will take the new clause in the positive sprit in which we tabled it.
Greg Smith
I listened carefully to what the hon. Member for Torbay said. On one level, I would be interested to know why the Liberal Democrats think the expansion is needed, where the shortfalls are in the current right to be accompanied, and what benefits the new right would bring. I think that what the hon. Gentleman is proposing could be done through existing legislation in many respects.
That said, representatives of the charity and third sector who seek to represent those in the teaching profession have welcomed the new clause, because the teaching unions have a bit of a monopoly at the moment. Although my mother has been retired for many years, she always joined a union through considerably gritted teeth—she may have been the only Conservative in the staff room, but she gritted her teeth. In fact, she may even have taught for many years in the constituency of the hon. Member for Birmingham Northfield. The teaching unions have that monopoly because of the insurances and so on that they give to teachers. The new clause would widen things out and allow teachers who do not wish to join a union to get the support they need—accompaniment at a hearing—from a charity or third sector organisation, which may be welcome.
We need more clarity on the impact that would have on the teaching profession, which is why we do not think the new clause should be accepted at this time. However, the hon. Member for Torbay has opened the door on an area that it is important for us to explore as the Bill proceeds, and perhaps in future legislation.
Justin Madders
I thank the hon. Member for Torbay for tabling the new clause. I think its origins are in written evidence to the Committee from the edu-legal organisation Edapt, which has been raising this issue with successive Governments for a number of years.
It is important to set out the position under current law. Section 10(3) of the Employment Relations Act 1999 explains that when a worker is asked to attend a disciplinary or grievance hearing they are entitled to bring a companion who is either a fellow worker, an official employed by a trade union, or a workplace trade union representative that the union has reasonably certified as having received training in acting as a worker’s companion at such hearings. Employers are free but not obliged to allow workers to be accompanied by someone who does not fall into those categories. Some workers may have a contractual right to be accompanied by persons other than those listed, such as a professional support body, partner, spouse or legal representative.
As one of the initial steps in resolving tensions when the worker-employer relationship has broken down, the provisions of the 1999 Act seek to keep disciplinary and grievance procedures internal to a workplace. Expanding the types of organisations that can be involved in representing workers could lead to hearings requiring legal representation for both worker and employer. We certainly do not want to see internal disciplinary or grievance hearings ending up in a legal battle. That would invariably increase the cost of holding a hearing and potentially decrease the chances of an amicable resolution. Equally, introducing increased legal expertise from outside the workplace could increase the likelihood of a tribunal. Workers and employers may judge ACAS conciliation or mediation unlikely to resolve a dispute because legal arguments have been made during an internal disciplinary hearing. We certainly believe that amicable resolutions are the swiftest way for justice to be delivered.
The new clause would give the Secretary of State the power to set out and define in regulations the professional bodies that could represent employees in disciplinary and grievance hearings. Although, as the shadow Minister said, this measure relates specifically to the education sector, one can easily see a whole range of organisations beginning to knock on the door. It would raise all sorts of questions about regulations, standards and enforcement, and it would inevitably expand quite quickly.
As the shadow Minister said, it is not clear beyond the written submission to the Committee where the demand is for the expansion of this right. Employers are of course entitled to nominate individuals or organisations for recognition. The Government are clear that trade unions are best placed to provide workplace representation. The legislation is fit for purpose in terms of ensuring that that is done in a proportionate and balanced way. On that basis, we reject the new clause.
Steve Darling
Although I am disappointed that the new clause has fallen on stony ground, it was only a probing amendment, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 38
Time off for volunteering: consultation
“(1) The Secretary of State must consult on the introduction of a requirement for employers with more than 250 employees to grant employees time off for volunteering.
(2) The consultation must consider, amongst other things, the following matters—
(a) the amount of time off an employer must grant;
(b) when the time off may be taken;
(c) any conditions to which the granting of time off may be subject; and
(d) the definition of ‘volunteering’.
(3) The consultation must be conducted within one year of this Act being passed.
(4) The Secretary of State must, within three months of the consultation closing, publish and lay before Parliament the Secretary of State’s response to the consultation.”—(Steve Darling.)
This new clause calls for a consultation on allowing employees at companies of over 250 people the opportunity to take time off in order to undertake voluntary work.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Steve Darling
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause relates to volunteering and giving leave to volunteers. It would require a consultation, so I hope that the Government will grasp it with both hands. It feels like their modus operandi on the Bill is for a vast majority of it to go out to further consultation, so what harm would there be in another small consultation on volunteering?
Greg Smith
I heard very clearly what the hon. Member for Torbay proposed on behalf of the Liberal Democrats. I think we all salute everybody who volunteers. We can all celebrate people who give up their time freely to do something worthy in our constituencies, communities and neighbourhoods—including the Scout and Girlguiding groups that the hon. Gentleman spoke of.
It is clear from the passion with which the hon. Gentleman spoke that the Liberal Democrats are still pining for the coalition days, when the big society was the centrepiece of the vision that the Prime Minister—now my right hon. Friend the noble Lord Cameron—had for this country. On one level, I had thought that one of the greatest successes of the coalition Government was—until the 2024 general election—the electoral annihilation of the Liberal Democrats, but they are still pining for many of the things that my party and theirs did together in that coalition period.
In theory, the new clause is actually very appealing; we all want to support people to do good and give their time freely in their communities, neighbourhoods and areas—in our constituencies. But where I take issue with the hon. Gentleman is that, time and again in this Committee, too much has been left to yet another consultation. While I hear his argument, “What harm would another one do?”, I think we are consultationed out at the moment. I do not think it would be helpful either for the Government, in achieving what they wish to achieve through this very wide-reaching piece of legislation—albeit with disagreement from the Opposition Benches—or for employers to have to take on yet another strand of burden in this regard, so the Opposition will not be supporting new clause 38.
However, we do want to explore ways in which volunteering can be more greatly encouraged in all of our communities. As a starting point, although consideration of the definition of volunteering would be included as part of the hon. Gentleman’s proposed consultation, we need a better definition before we consider any wider consultation on time off and so on. At the moment, it is far too wide-open a goal and too broad a word. If we asked everybody in the country to give their definition of volunteering, we would probably get 70 million different answers. If we had greater clarity about what we are really talking about—for example, my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater’s very clear and defined proposal on special constables, which of course is an incredibly worthwhile and nation-enhancing bit of volunteering—then we could potentially get somewhere, but at the moment, volunteering could mean literally anything to anyone. That is not to undermine the good work that people do day in, day out across our country, but we need greater clarity.
Justin Madders
Let us start where we can all agree: volunteering is a very important part of our society and we want to do everything we can to encourage it. It is a central part of civic life and has a positive impact on our society, and we all pay tribute to the volunteers in our communities. There are large employers that have impact days and corporate social responsibility days where they come into the community—there are a number of examples in my constituency where that has happened. Larger employers, in particular, have been able to pool their resources and have a real benefit in their communities.
However, as the shadow Minister outlined, the Government will be undertaking a significant number of consultations, and we do not wish to add to that at this stage. We want to focus on the priorities in our “Make Work Pay” agenda. In particular, we want to see how the enhanced right to flexible working will benefit people’s ability to volunteer. We believe that when we implement the new rights to flexible working in the earlier parts of the Bill, they will enable employees to access flexible working requests in order to fit in their volunteering, and that further legislation is not necessary at this time.
The Department for Culture, Media and Sport is delivering the Know Your Neighbourhood fund, which has a key focus to ensure that learning is shared
“on how people in disadvantaged areas can be supported to volunteer and improve their social connections”.
So there is work going on in Government, and a recognition that volunteering is an important part of the fabric of our society, but, as has been indicated, we do not wish to undertake additional consultations at this point.
Steve Darling
I draw the Committee’s attention to the fact that we are looking at employers that employ over 250 individuals, so the new clause would far from impact smaller businesses. I have grave concerns that the Government believe they have all the time in the world and expect that there will be a second glorious term for the Labour party, come hell or high water. The jury is out on whether a second term for Keir will appear. One is better driving the agenda forward while one has the helm than to hope for the helm when it turns the next headland. I encourage the Government to reflect on their proposals and grasp the opportunity to consult on this volunteering opportunity.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Greg Smith
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause would require the Certification Officer to publish a report on the impact on various sectors of the economy of introducing a four-day week. The Certification Officer is responsible for ensuring that trade unions carry out their statutory duties, and it is important that it is aware of the impacts of this policy, which various elements of the labour movement and the trade union movement have supported.
We have seen just how effective the four-day week has been where it has been tried. Let us take the example of South Cambridgeshire district council, which introduced it for its workers in 2023. The Mail reported last week that one in six staff have a second job during their day off. That is despite the council’s website stating that the time off is to allow workers to “recover and re-energise” for the “more intense” four-day week. It is full-time pay for part-time work, and then some.
It would be extremely helpful for all concerned if we had a little more transparent information about the effects the four-day week might have on the economy as a whole if introduced more widely. That is why we have tabled new clause 42, which would require the Certification Officer, within 12 months of Royal Assent, to lay before both Houses of Parliament a report on the economic and financial impact of introducing a four-day week.
The report would be required to cover the retail and wholesale industry; the manufacturing industry; the finance and insurance industry; the health and social care industry; the construction industry; the education industry; the public sector and defence industry; the transport and storage industry; the arts and recreation industry; and agriculture, mining and fishing. To ensure that the report is balanced, the Certification Officer must consult business owners, workers and consumers, although that, of course, is not an exhaustive list.
For full transparency, we would like to make sure that any submissions that are received are published, preferably in a way that can be questioned in this House. The new clause aims to introduce a “look before you leap” ethos into the Government’s policymaking. Given the state of the Bill, I would argue that that is very much needed.
Steve Darling
I am delighted that the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire has had a road to Damascus moment on the need for further consultation on the Bill. I am delighted that the Conservatives believe that consultation is a good thing, unlike my Conservative council colleagues in Torbay. I look forward to the Minister looking kindly on the new clause, which shows that the Conservatives believe in consultation. I would ask that he please grasp this opportunity.
Justin Madders
It seems the coalition era love-in has started again in earnest. As the shadow Minister outlined, new clause 42 would require the Certification Officer to lay before both Houses, within 12 months of Royal Assent, a report setting out the impact on various sectors of the UK economy of introducing a four-day week. It would require the Certification Officer to consult businesses, workers, consumers and others and to publish consultation responses when laying the report. Just when we thought we had got away from consultation, we have another one.
In considering the new clause, it might be helpful to set out the role of the Certification Officer. It has been the regulator of trade unions and employer associations since 1975. It not only carries out regulatory functions, but has administrative, supervisory and significant quasi-judicial functions. It adjudicates on complaints raised by trade union members and other parties. As part of our repeal of the provisions of the Trade Union Act 2016, we will remove the Certification Officer’s enhanced investigatory and enforcement powers, as well as the levy imposed on trade unions and employer associations. As such, we will return the role of the Certification Officer to what it was before that Act.
Greg Smith
I listened carefully to the Minister’s response. The four-day week is subject to much media interest at the moment, and it is important that we keep a close eye on moves to shorten the working week, given the impact it would have on productivity and growth in our economy going forward. For the time being, I am happy not to press the new clause, but the Opposition are concerned, and we will keep an incredibly close eye on the issue. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 46
Adoption pay: self-employed persons
“(1) Within six months of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must by regulations enable statutory adoption pay to be payable to persons who are—
(a) self-employed, or
(b) contractors.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), the meaning of ‘self-employed’ and ‘contractors’ shall be set out in regulations under this section.”—(Steve Darling.)
This new clause extends statutory adoption pay to the self-employed and contractors.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Steve Darling
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause would extend statutory adoption pay to those who are self-employed or contractors. I must declare something of an interest, although I do not formally need to, because I am adopted myself, and this issue is extremely close to my heart. When I was leader of the Torbay unitary council, we went from “failing” to “good” for our children’s services within two years. That is probably the biggest achievement of my life. Again, it was something I was driven on because I am adopted. In the ’70s, I was very fortunate to be adopted by Eric and Penny. Eric was not a toolmaker, but he was a lorry driver, and would potentially have benefited had there been an opportunity such as the one I have outlined in the new clause.
I encourage colleagues to step back slightly and to reflect on the challenges in social care, and particularly children’s social care, and on the heavy costs—I am sure colleagues are only too aware of them—to local authorities, which have a responsibility for children’s services. For those kids who need support, the best people are foster carers or those who adopt. When there is a lack of such people—when there is not that capacity—kids might have to be picked up by the private sector, and hard-pressed local authorities often have to pay through the nose for that. The new clause is about changing the weather again around support for youngsters in need. By extending statutory adoption pay to those who are self-employed or contractors, we would enhance the pool of those who can participate.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) for her help with the new clause. Earlier this week, she led a worthwhile debate on this issue, and I acknowledge the positive feedback the Minister in that debate gave on the proposals. I look forward to hearing from this Minister how the Government could take the proposals in this probing amendment forward.
Greg Smith
I listened carefully to the speech by the hon. Member for Torbay. The issues he raises are worthy of debate, but as he said this is a probing amendment, so these are matters for a future occasion.
Dame Nia Griffith
I thank the hon. Member for Torbay for tabling new clause 46. I start by expressing my appreciation for all adoptive parents, who offer loving and stable homes to children who are unable to live with their birth parents. This Government are committed to ensuring that all working parents receive the best possible support to balance their work and family lives.
New clause 46 calls for eligibility for statutory adoption pay to be extended to individuals who are self-employed or contractors. It would require the Secretary of State to introduce regulations within six months of the passage of the Bill to enable self-employed individuals and contractors who adopt to receive statutory adoption pay. The proposed regulations would also define the terms “self-employed” and “contractors” to ensure that we have a shared understanding of who would qualify for statutory adoption pay under this extended eligibility.
At present, parental leave and pay entitlements are generally not available to the self-employed. That is because the parental leave system is focused on supporting employed parents, who need specific rights and protections to take time off work. Self-employed people are generally considered to have more flexibility and autonomy, and not to need those same protections. There is, of course, the exception of maternity allowance, which is available to self-employed mothers to ensure that they can take time off work following childbirth to recover and establish breastfeeding, if they wish to do so. That is an important health and safety provision.
None the less, the Government are committed to supporting parents to balance their work and family responsibilities and keen to hear how the system can be improved. While adoptive parents who are self-employed or contractors do not qualify for statutory adoption pay, statutory adoption guidance advises local authorities to consider making a payment similar to maternity allowance for those parents.
In November 2024, the Government published “Keeping Children Safe, Helping Families Thrive,” which sets out our vision for children’s social care. As part of that vision, the Government have allocated £49 million to the adoption and special guardianship support fund for this financial year. The fund enables local authorities and regional adoption agencies to offer a wide range of tailored support, including psychotherapy, family therapy and creative therapies to children who are adopted and their families. These services are available to all adoptive families following a locally conducted assessment of the family’s needs. Depending on individual circumstances, additional financial support—for example, universal credit and child benefit—may also be available to contractors or self-employed people who adopt.
We have committed to a review of the parental leave system to ensure that it best supports all working families. The review will be conducted separately to the Employment Rights Bill, and work is already under way on planning its delivery. On that basis, I invite the hon. Member for Torbay to withdraw his proposed new clause.
Steve Darling
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 51
Access to employment rights: workers on temporary visas
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of this Act being passed, commission an independent report on the extent to which workers on temporary visas are able to assert their rights under employment law.
(2) In commissioning the report, the Secretary of State must arrange for the report to meet the requirements set out in subsections (2) to (4).
(3) The report must examine the extent to which workers on temporary visas feel unable to assert their employment rights because they are dependent on their employers to sponsor their visas.
(4) The report must make recommendations to the Secretary of State about how the Secretary of State can support workers on temporary visas in the assertion of their employment rights.
(5) The report must be completed within three months of being commissioned.
(6) The Secretary of State must, as soon as is practicable after receipt of the report, publish the report and lay it before both Houses of Parliament.
(7) The Secretary of State must, within three months of receipt of the report—
(a) respond to the recommendations in the report, and
(b) publish the response and lay it before both Houses of Parliament.”—(Chris Law.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
It is good to see you in the Chair, Sir Christopher. I believe this is the last of the new clauses to the Bill.
It is imperative that employment rights are universal. Everyone should have access to them, regardless of their circumstances. That cannot just be theoretical; it needs to be applied in practice too. Although the Bill increases workers’ rights for many people, which I fully support, it will make no difference to their realities if they do not have the ability to access those rights or to seek redress when they are breached. To make the Bill as worth while and effective as it can be, we must take every possible action to strengthen it and to ensure that no one is denied their rights. We must do our utmost to prevent scenarios in which denial of employment rights and exploitation can exist.
I have therefore tabled this new clause on access to employment rights for workers on temporary visas. I know that most of us in this room will have had constituents on those visas who have been exploited. If we accept the new clause, it will compel the Secretary of State, within six months of the Bill being passed, to commission an independent report on the extent to which workers on temporary visas are able to assert their rights under employment law.
Workers on temporary visas consistently report that they are unable to assert the basic rights derived from being a worker in the UK. Why is that? Because they are dependent on their employer for not only their job but their ability to live in this country. More often than not, they do not have the same safety nets that others benefit from. For people in that situation, the stakes are simply so much higher.
We know that migrant workers, who often incur large debts to migrate to the UK to work—to address labour shortages—simply cannot afford to report abuse, if doing so risks their jobs and visas. They are justifiably fearful that their employer, who sponsors their visa, will punish them and that they will be left without redress. Time and again, we see cases of workers who face unsafe conditions—including in my constituency and, I am sure, in those of everyone in this room. Whether it is underpayment or sexual harassment, they do not feel able to do anything about it, for fear of deportation. That lets exploitation run rife.
By not addressing this issue, we are allowing a huge blind spot in the UK’s employment rights framework to continue unchecked. Until the Government address temporary and restrictive visas, the gap between workers only widens, entrenching the UK’s tiered workforce and leaving migrant workers behind. That is simply unacceptable. Restrictive visas have created a tiered workforce, where migrant workers face significant barriers to enforcing their rights, driving a race to the bottom in pay and conditions across the UK labour market.
Such visas often limit the sectors in which workers are permitted to work or the employers for which they can work. Workers’ immigration sponsors may also be their employers or responsible for placing them in employment. This results in a vicious cycle, in which migrant workers are doubly punished for speaking out, first by unscrupulous employers and then by immigration enforcement, with a resulting loss of work, income and immigration status. That has allowed a proliferation of abuses, from non-payment of wages to overwork and sexual assault, among a litany of other labour and criminal law violations.
It is important to recognise that workers’ experiences of exploitation can vary, but all these instances need addressed. At one end of the scale, there is decent, well-paid work, with bad practices such as breaches of employment rights culminating, at the opposite end, in severe labour exploitation, such as human trafficking and forced labour. Where minor breaches of rights occur and are not sufficiently addressed, it increases the risk of more severe exploitation further along, as well as driving down workplace standards. Surely the new Labour Government find that totally unacceptable?
In working on the new clause, I engaged with Focus on Labour Exploitation—I have a briefing from it here, which I am happy to share with the Minister. FLEX is a research and policy organisation working towards an end to labour exploitation, and its recent research and policy work has focused on sectors where workers are known to be at higher risk of exploitation.
The new clause, which is intended to be friendly and collaborative, would lead to an investigation into the extent of these issues and how they can be addressed. Any immigration system that does not proactively include mechanisms that enable workers to report exploitation—and ultimately leave an exploitative employer without jeopardising their employment, accommodation and immigration status—inevitably has exploitation baked into its design. To meet its aims, the Employment Rights Bill needs to address that.
It is especially important that the use of restrictive or short-term visas is not allowed to prevent improvements in working conditions and pay in certain work sectors by facilitating access to workers who, due to immigration restrictions, are unable to challenge poor working conditions. One option open to the Government to combat that would be to introduce a UK workplace justice visa, drawing on international best practice. Such a visa would provide 12 months of renewable limited leave for those who have visas dependent on their employment and who have experienced labour exploitation or lost their employment and limited leave through no fault of their own. That would ensure that migrants with work visas who experience such issues have a route to remain and settle in the UK, to enable them to leave abusive work situations and, most importantly, to access justice. The new clause does not propose such a visa, but it is one option the Secretary of State should strongly consider as a way of supporting workers on temporary visas in the assertion of their employment rights.
Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I draw the Committee’s attention to my declaration of interests and my membership of the trade unions Community and Unison.
I will note a couple of useful points in response to the important arguments of the hon. Member for Dundee Central about migrant workers and the conditionality of visas. I have worked on migration issues for a long time, so I sympathise with the objectives and the direction that he puts forward.
The new clause essentially proposes an investigation or information-gathering exercise. The new Government have commissioned the Migration Advisory Committee, which is a body of experts that is independent of the Government or the Home Office, to look into issues around the conditionality of visas and the different types of worker visa to which he referred. The MAC is doing a lot of important work, and I think it is the appropriate location for that research. I am a member of the Home Affairs Committee, which is also looking into some of the changes that are happening. I reassure the hon. Member that a lot of the work and thinking on this issue is already getting under way.
The hon. Member raised some substantive points. First, on seasonal or temporary workers who find themselves at risk of exploitation, he referred to the distinction between those whose immigration status is permanent or secure and those whose status is conditional on their employer. I think the point he is driving at with that distinction goes to the heart of the immigration system overall. We have a system in which conditionalities are applied to visa status, whether that is for someone who has come to do a job, for someone who has applied to do a university course or for someone who is in a relationship. He is driving at a philosophical problem in the immigration system, rather than a technical one.
Where employers abuse the system, there are two points to address. First, it is a breach of immigration law and not necessarily of employment law. The hon. Member drew attention to the fact that they lose their sponsorship capacity. When that situation occurs, it is appropriate that we look at it through Home Office immigration regulations. That can be much more effective than trying to crowbar quite a specific point into the UK-wide labour market.
Chris Law
The hon. Member’s last point is an important one. When I approached this area of work to decide whether it fitted this Committee or whether it should be considered in immigration legislation, I took some advice. I appreciate, from a home affairs point of view, that this might not be the place for that point. However, it is the place for talking about it, and that is why the new clause has been accepted by the Clerks for debate today. I appreciate that this might also be an issue for the Home Office, but it is clearly an issue for the Minister in charge of employment rights, because at the end of the day it is not immigration rules that need to be changed. This is about making sure that employment rights are fit for everyone, regardless of whether they are here on a temporary or a permanent visa.
Chris Murray
That is a very helpful intervention, because it draws me on to my final point. There is a distinction between what rights there are and what rights are enforced. We have seen from the discussion around the fair work agency and the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority that the issue is that rights are not enforced. The good part of this Bill is that it sets up a fair work agency that will look at enforcement.
Not supporting the new clause does not mean not recognising the objective that it puts forward. The argument is that this point should and could be dealt with more effectively through other legislative avenues, such as the modern slavery legislation brought in by the previous Government, which they then completely gutted. Looking at how the labour exploitation components of that legislation could be strengthened would deal more effectively with the issues that the hon. Member is raising via his new clause.
Greg Smith
His Majesty’s loyal Opposition cannot support new clause 51. The horrible practices outlined by the hon. Member for Dundee Central need to be tackled, but the Bill will already do that. I actually find myself in agreement with parts of what the hon. Member for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh said. There are other routes within immigration law where such things can and should be tackled. No matter how much we disagree with parts of the Bill, if we take the view that the law must apply equally to everybody whether or not they are a British citizen, it is unnecessarily to carve out a particular section of people through new clause 51, when there is other legislation to deal with the abuses that no one on the Committee or in the House wants to see.
Justin Madders
Let me start by reaffirming our strong view that every worker has the full right to protection under the laws of this country. That includes migrant workers, as is clear from our plan to make work pay, which recognises that particularly vulnerable sectors are open to abuse from unscrupulous employers. The immigration framework is an important part of ensuring that those who come to this country under visas and sponsorship are protected and that modern slavery abuse is tackled.
Sponsorship is a privilege that comes with certain responsibilities for sponsors to ensure that they adhere to employment rights in the United Kingdom. They must have full responsibility for the work that workers are conducting, and in all cases they must ensure that those they sponsor are paid appropriately and that they act in compliance with relevant legislation. As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh says, a lot of work is ongoing in this area, particularly from the Home Office, which recently announced that it would ban from future sponsorship any business found guilty of serious employment law breaches, including failing to pay the national minimum wage.
We are committed to strengthening the enforcement of rights more broadly through the fair work agency. The Committee has heard plenty of evidence that the current system of enforcement is fragmented. Unfortunately, as we know, that often means that not everyone gets the protection that they should have. One of the essential functions of the new fair work agency will be to produce a strategy setting out its assessment of the scale and nature of non-compliance with labour market rules. This is to ensure that the risks of abuse across all sectors and groups of workers are properly understood and captured. In producing the strategy, the fair work agency will need to consult with an advisory board made up of trade unions, business and independent experts. That will ensure that we get a broad view of the gaps and risks in the labour market.
The hon. Member for Dundee Central suggests that this area is a blind spot for the Government. I can assure him that it is not. I have had conversations with the Director of Labour Market Enforcement about the issue, and plenty of work is under way at the Home Office. The hon. Member need only consider the Low Pay Commission’s report to see that the issue is clearly on our radar. An additional report would not add anything to the work that is already under way. I therefore ask him to withdraw his new clause.
Chris Law
I appreciate the comments that have been made in this short debate. Just to be clear, the new clause is about issues that are not currently protected under the Modern Slavery Act 2015 and are often under-reported. I welcome the Minister’s comments about the fair work agency and the recent Low Pay Commission report, but I must ask about the timeframe. My suggestion—I will try to work with him on this—is that the timeframe be six months beyond the passing of the Bill, so that we can get decisions made. Perhaps the Secretary of State could let us know what kind of timeframe we are talking about, to give us peace of mind that action will be taken for those who are most vulnerable and have come here from overseas. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Schedule 1
Warrants under Part 5: further provision
“Part 1
Application of this Schedule
1 This Schedule applies in relation to—
(a) applications for warrants under section (Power to enter dwelling subject to warrant) or 83, and
(b) warrants issued under section (Power to enter dwelling subject to warrant) or 83.
Part 2
Warrants: applications and safeguards
Applications for warrants
2 (1) Where an enforcement officer applies for a warrant, the officer must—
(a) state the ground on which the application is made,
(b) state the provision of this Act under which the warrant would be issued,
(c) specify the premises which it is desired to enter, and
(d) identify, so far as is practicable, the purpose for which entry is desired.
(2) An application for a warrant must be made without notice and must be supported by an information in writing or, in Scotland, evidence on oath.
(3) The officer must answer on oath any question that the justice hearing the application asks the officer.
Safeguards in connection with power of entry conferred by warrant
3 A warrant authorises an entry on one occasion only.
4 (1) A warrant must specify—
(a) the name of the person who applies for it,
(b) the date on which it is issued,
(c) the provision of this Act under which it is issued, and
(d) the premises to be entered.
(2) A warrant must identify, so far as is practicable, the purpose for which entry is desired.
5 (1) Two copies are to be made of a warrant.
(2) In the case of a warrant issued in electronic form, the copies must be clearly marked as copies.
(3) In the case of a warrant issued otherwise than in electronic form, the copies must be clearly certified as copies.
Part 3
Execution of warrants
Warrant to be executed within three months
6 Execution of a warrant must be within three months from the date of its issue.
Time of entry
7 Execution of a warrant must be at a reasonable time, unless it appears to the officer executing it that there are grounds for suspecting that the purpose of entering the premises may be frustrated if the officer seeks to enter at a reasonable time.
Evidence of authority etc
8 (1) Where the occupier of premises to be entered under a warrant is present at the time when an enforcement officer seeks to execute the warrant, the following requirements must be satisfied—
(a) the officer must produce to the occupier documentary evidence of the fact that the officer is an enforcement officer;
(b) if the officer is asked for it, the occupier must be told the officer’s name;
(c) the officer must produce the warrant to the occupier;
(d) the officer must supply the occupier with a copy of the warrant that is marked or certified as a copy in accordance with paragraph 5.
(2) Where—
(a) the occupier of premises to be entered under a warrant is not present when an enforcement officer seeks to execute it, but
(b) some other person who appears to the officer to be in charge of the premises is present,
sub-paragraph (1) has effect as if any reference to the occupier were a reference to that other person.
(3) If there is no person present who appears to the enforcement officer to be in charge of the premises, the officer must leave a copy of the warrant, marked or certified as a copy in accordance with paragraph 5, in a prominent place on the premises.
Securing premises after entry
9 An enforcement officer who enters premises under a warrant must take reasonable steps to ensure that when the officer leaves the premises they are as secure as they were before the officer entered.
Return and retention of warrants
10 (1) A warrant which—
(a) has been executed, or
(b) has not been executed within the time authorised for its execution,
must be returned to the appropriate person.
(2) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1) the appropriate person is—
(a) in the case of a warrant issued in England and Wales, the designated officer for the local justice area in which the justice was acting when the warrant was issued;
(b) in the case of a warrant issued in Scotland by a justice of the peace, the clerk of the justice of the peace court in the sheriffdom for which the justice of the peace was appointed;
(c) in the case of a warrant issued in Scotland by a sheriff or a summary sheriff, the sheriff clerk;
(d) in the case of a warrant issued in Northern Ireland, the clerk of petty sessions.
(3) A warrant that is returned under this paragraph must be retained by the person to whom it is returned for a period of 12 months.
(4) If during that period the occupier of the premises to which the warrant relates asks to inspect it, the occupier must be allowed to do so.”—(Justin Madders.)
This new Schedule makes further provision about applications for, and the execution of, warrants under Part 5.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Schedule 2
Increase in time limits for making claims
“Safety Representatives and Safety Committees Regulations 1977
1 (1) In regulation 11 of the Safety Representatives and Safety Committees Regulations 1977 (S.I. 1977/500) (time off for safety representatives), in paragraph (2), for ‘three’, in both places it occurs, substitute ‘six’.
(2) In regulation 12 of those Regulations—
(a) in paragraph (2), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;
(b) in paragraph (3), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;
(c) in paragraph (4), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.
Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
2 (1) The Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 66 (unjustifiable discipline by union), in subsection (2)(a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.
(3) In section 68A (unauthorised deduction of union subscriptions), in subsection (1)(a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.
(4) In section 70C (collective bargaining: obligations relating to training), in subsection (2)—
(a) in paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;
(b) in paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.
(5) In section 87 (unlawful deduction of contributions to political fund), in subsection (2)(a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.
(6) In section 139 (refusal of employment on grounds related to union membership), in subsection (1)(a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.
(7) In section 145C (inducements), in subsection (1)(a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.
(8) In section 147 (detriment for trade union activities), in subsection (1)(a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.
(9) In section 171 (time off for trade union activities), in subsection (1)(a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.
(10) In section 189 (consultation in collective redundancy), in subsection (5)—
(a) in paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;
(b) in paragraph (c), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.
(11) In section 192 (remuneration under protective award), in subsection (2)—
(a) in paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;
(b) in paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.
(12) In paragraph 157 of Schedule A1 (detriment in relation to trade union recognition), in sub-paragraph (1)(a), for ‘3’ substitute ‘six’.
Pension Schemes Act 1993
3 In section 126 of the Pension Schemes Act 1993 (unpaid pension contributions), in subsection (2), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.
Employment Rights Act 1996
4 (1) The Employment Rights Act 1996 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 11 (written statements), in subsection (4)—
(a) in paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;
(b) in paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.
(3) In section 23 (protection of wages)—
(a) in subsection (2), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;
(b) in subsection (4), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.
(4) In section 27N (information relating to tips etc)—
(a) in subsection (2), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;
(b) in subsection (3), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.
(5) In section 34 (guarantee payments), in subsection (2)—
(a) in paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;
(b) in paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.
(6) In section 48 (detriment in employment), in subsection (3)—
(a) in paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;
(b) in paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.
(7) In section 51 (time off for public duties), in subsection (2)—
(a) in paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;
(b) in paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.
(8) In section 54 (time off following redundancy), in subsection (2)—
(a) in paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;
(b) in paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.
(9) In section 57 (time off for ante-natal care), in subsection (2)—
(a) in paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;
(b) in paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.
(10) In section 57ZC (time off for ante-natal care: agency workers), in subsection (3)—
(a) in paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;
(b) in paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.
(11) In section 57ZF (time off to accompany to ante-natal appointment), in subsection (2)—
(a) in paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;
(b) in paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.
(12) In section 57ZH (time off to accompany to ante-natal appointment: agency workers), in subsection (3)—
(a) in paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;
(b) in paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.
(13) In section 57ZM (time off to attend adoption appointments), in subsection (2)—
(a) in paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;
(b) in paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.
(14) In section 57ZQ (time off to attend adoption appointments: agency workers), in subsection (3)—
(a) in paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;
(b) in paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.
(15) In section 57B (time off for dependants), in subsection (2)—
(a) in paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;
(b) in paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.
(16) In section 60 (time off for pension scheme trustees), in subsection (2)—
(a) in paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;
(b) in paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.
(17) In section 63 (time off for employee representatives), in subsection (2)—
(a) in paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;
(b) in paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.
(18) In section 63C (time off for study or training), in subsection (2)—
(a) in paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;
(b) in paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.
(19) In section 63I (requests in relation to study or training), in subsection (5)—
(a) in paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;
(b) in paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.
(20) In section 70 (rights following suspension from work)—
(a) in subsection (2)—
(i) in paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;
(ii) in paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;
(b) in subsection (5)—
(i) in paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;
(ii) in paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.
(21) In section 70A (rights of agency worker where supply is ended on maternity grounds)—
(a) in subsection (2)—
(i) in paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;
(ii) in paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;
(b) in subsection (5)—
(i) in paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;
(ii) in paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.
(22) In section 80 (parental leave), in subsection (2)—
(a) in paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;
(b) in paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.
(23) In section 80H (right to request flexible working), in subsection (5)—
(a) in paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;
(b) in paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.
(24) In section 80N (carer’s leave), in subsection (2)—
(a) in paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;
(b) in paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.
(25) In section 111 (unfair dismissal), in subsection (2)—
(a) in paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;
(b) in paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.
(26) In section 188 (rights on insolvency of employer), in subsection (2)—
(a) in paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;
(b) in paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.
Health and Safety (Consultation with Employees) Regulations 1996
5 (1) In paragraph 3 of Schedule 2 to the Health and Safety (Consultation with Employees) Regulations 1996 (S.I. 1996/1513) (time off for representatives of employee safety etc), for ‘three’, in both places it occurs, substitute ‘six’.
(2) In paragraph 3A of that Schedule—
(a) in sub-paragraph (2), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;
(b) in sub-paragraph (3), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;
(c) in sub-paragraph (4), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.
Working Time Regulations 1998
6 In regulation 30 of the Working Time Regulations 1998 (S.I. 1998/1833) (rights as to working time), in paragraph (2)—
(a) in sub-paragraph (a), for the words from ‘three months’ to ‘six months)’ substitute ‘six months’;
(b) in sub-paragraph (b), omit ‘three or, as the case may be,’.
National Minimum Wage Act 1998
7 In section 11 of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 (access to records)—
(a) in subsection (3), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;
(b) in subsection (4), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.
Employment Relations Act 1999
8 In section 11 of the Employment Relations Act 1999 (right to be accompanied), in subsection (2)—
(a) in paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;
(b) in paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.
Transnational Information and Consultation of Employees Regulations 1999
9 (1) In regulation 27 of the Transnational Information and Consultation of Employees Regulations 1999 (S.I. 1999/3323) (time off for members of a European Works Council etc)—
(a) in the heading, for ‘tribunals’ substitute ‘employment tribunals in Great Britain’;
(b) in paragraph (1), for the words from ‘complaint,’ to ‘, that’ substitute ‘complaint to an employment tribunal in Great Britain that’;
(c) in paragraph (2)—
(i) in sub-paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;
(ii) in sub-paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;
(d) omit paragraph (2B).
(2) In the heading of regulation 27A of those Regulations (extension of time limit to facilitate conciliation before institution of proceedings), at the end insert ‘in Great Britain’.
(3) After regulation 27A of those Regulations insert—
‘Right to time off: complaints to industrial tribunals in Northern Ireland
(1) An employee may present a complaint to an industrial tribunal in Northern Ireland that the employee’s employer–
(a) has unreasonably refused to permit the employee to take time off as required by regulation 25; or
(b) has failed to pay the whole or any part of any amount to which the employee is entitled under regulation 26.
(2) A tribunal shall not consider a complaint under this regulation unless it is presented–
(a) before the end of the period of three months beginning with the day on which the time off was taken or on which it is alleged the time off should have been permitted; or
(b) within such further period as the tribunal considers reasonable in a case where it is satisfied that it was not reasonably practicable for the complaint to be presented before the end of that period of three months.
(3) Regulation 27B (extension of time limit to facilitate conciliation before institution of proceedings in Northern Ireland) applies for the purposes of paragraph (2).
(4) Where a tribunal finds a complaint under this regulation well-founded, the tribunal shall make a declaration to that effect.
(5) If the complaint is that the employer has unreasonably refused to permit the employee to take time off, the tribunal shall also order the employer to pay to the employee an amount equal to the remuneration to which the employee would have been entitled under regulation 26 if the employer had not refused.
(6) If the complaint is that the employer has failed to pay the employee the whole or part of any amount to which the employee is entitled under regulation 26, the tribunal shall also order the employer to pay to the employee the amount which it finds due to the employee.’
(4) In regulation 27B of those Regulations (extension of time limit to facilitate conciliation before institution of proceedings in Northern Ireland)—
(a) in paragraph (2), for ‘27(2)(a)’ substitute ‘27AA(2)(a)’;
(b) in paragraph (3), for ‘27(2)(a)’ substitute ‘27AA(2)(a)’;
(c) in paragraph (4), for ‘27(2)(b)’ substitute ‘27AA(2)(b)’.
Merchant Shipping (Working Time: Inland Waterways) Regulations 2003
10 In regulation 18 of the Merchant Shipping (Working Time: Inland Waterways) Regulations 2003 (S.I. 2003/3049) (merchant shipping: rights as to working time), in paragraph (2)—
(a) in sub-paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;
(b) in sub-paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.
Civil Aviation (Working Time) Regulations 2004
11 In regulation 18 of the Civil Aviation (Working Time) Regulations 2004 (S.I. 2004/756) (civil aviation: rights as to working time), in paragraph (2)—
(a) in sub-paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;
(b) in sub-paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.
Fishing Vessels (Working Time: Sea-fishermen) Regulations 2004
12 In regulation 19 of the Fishing Vessels (Working Time: Sea-fishermen) Regulations 2004 (S.I. 2004/1713) (fishing vessels: rights to rest and leave), in paragraph (2)—
(a) in sub-paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;
(b) in sub-paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.
Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006
13 (1) The Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (S.I. 2006/246) are amended as follows.
(2) In regulation 12 (notification of employee liability information), in paragraph (2)—
(a) in sub-paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;
(b) in sub-paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.
(3) In regulation 15 (information and consultation requirements), in paragraph (12)—
(a) in the words before sub-paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;
(b) in the words after sub-paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.
Cross-border Railway Services (Working Time) Regulations 2008
14 In regulation 17 of the Cross-border Railway Services (Working Time) Regulations 2008 (S.I. 2008/1660) (cross-border railway services: rights as to working time), in paragraph (2)—
(a) in sub-paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;
(b) in sub-paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.
European Public Limited-Liability Company (Employee Involvement) (Great Britain) Regulations 2009
15 In regulation 28 of the European Public Limited-Liability Company (Employee Involvement) (Great Britain) Regulations 2009 (S.I. 2009/2401) (time off for members of special negotiating body etc), in paragraph (2)—
(a) in sub-paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;
(b) in sub-paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.
Agency Workers Regulations 2010
16 In regulation 18 of the Agency Workers Regulations 2010 (S.I. 2010/93) (rights of agency workers), in paragraph (4), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.
Equality Act 2010
17 In section 123 of the Equality Act 2010 (discrimination etc at work), in subsection (1)(a), for “3” substitute “6”.
Merchant Shipping (Maritime Labour Convention) (Hours of Work) Regulations 2018
18 In regulation 26 of the Merchant Shipping (Maritime Labour Convention) (Hours of Work) Regulations 2018 (S.I. 2018/58) (rights of seafarers to leave), in paragraph (6), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.”—(Justin Madders.)
This new Schedule would increase time limits for making claims in employment tribunals (and, in certain cases, industrial tribunals in Northern Ireland) from three months to six months.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Schedule 3
Seafarers’ wages and working conditions
“Amendment of Seafarers’ Wages Act 2023
1 The Seafarers’ Wages Act 2023 (“the Act”) is amended in accordance with paragraphs 2 to 23.
Part 1 of the Act: relevant services
2 For the italic heading before section 1 substitute—
‘Part 1
Relevant services’.
3 In section 1 (services to which this Act applies)—
(a) for the heading substitute ‘Relevant services’;
(b) in subsection (1), for ‘This Act applies to’ substitute ‘In this Act, “relevant service” means’;
(c) in subsection (2), for ‘this Act does not apply to’ substitute ‘“relevant service” does not include’;
(d) for subsection (4) substitute—
‘(4) In this Act, “ship”—
(a) includes—
(i) any kind of vessel used in navigation, and
(ii) hovercraft;
(b) includes a ship which is registered in a State other than the United Kingdom.’
Chapter 1 of Part 2 of the Act: non-qualifying seafarers
4 After section 1 insert—
‘Part 2
Remuneration of seafarers
Chapter 1
Non-qualifying seafarers’.
5 In section 2 (non-qualifying seafarers), in paragraph (a), for ‘service to which this Act applies’ substitute ‘relevant service’.
Chapter 2 of Part 2 of the Act: national minimum wage equivalence declarations
6 For the italic heading before section 3 substitute—
‘Chapter 2
National minimum wage equivalence declarations’.
7 In section 3 (request for declaration)—
(a) in the heading, after ‘for’ insert ‘equivalence’;
(b) in subsection (1)—
(i) for ‘Act applies’ substitute ‘Chapter applies (see subsection (4A))’;
(ii) at the end insert ‘(see section 19 for the meaning of “relevant year”)’;
(c) after subsection (4) insert—
‘(4A) This Chapter applies to a relevant service, subject to provision made by remuneration regulations in reliance on section 4A(6).’;
(d) omit subsections (5) and (6).
8 In section 4 (nature of declaration)—
(a) in the heading, after ‘of’ insert ‘equivalence’;
(b) after subsection (5) insert—
‘(5A) For the meaning of “UK work”, see section 19.
(5B) For the meaning of “national minimum wage equivalent”, see section 4D(1).’;
(c) omit subsections (6) to (10).
Chapters 3 and 4 of Part 2 of the Act: remuneration regulations and declarations
9 After section 4 insert—
‘Chapter 3
Remuneration regulations and declarations
Remuneration regulations
4A Remuneration regulations
(1) Regulations may specify requirements relating to the remuneration of non-qualifying seafarers in respect of their work carried out in relation to the provision of a relevant service (whether or not in the territorial waters of the United Kingdom).
(2) In this Act, regulations under subsection (1) are referred to as “remuneration regulations”.
(3) Remuneration regulations may relate to remuneration in respect of only some of the work carried out in relation to the provision of a relevant service, and may frame such provision by reference to the waters in which the work is carried out or in any other way.
(4) Remuneration regulations may apply to—
(a) all relevant services, or
(b) one or more relevant services of a specified description.
(5) For the purposes of subsection (4)(b), a service may be described by reference to (among other things) the route operated by the service.
(6) Remuneration regulations may provide that Chapter 2 does not apply to any extent to a relevant service to which the regulations apply.
Remuneration declarations
4B Request for remuneration declaration
(1) Subsection (2) applies where a harbour authority has reasonable grounds to believe that ships providing a service to which remuneration regulations apply will enter, or have entered, its harbour on at least—
(a) 120 occasions, or
(b) if remuneration regulations specify a higher number in relation to services of a specified description and the service is of that description, that higher number of occasions,
during a relevant year (see section 19 for the meaning of “relevant year”).
(2) The harbour authority must, within such period as is determined by regulations under this subsection, request that the operator of the service provide the authority with a remuneration declaration in respect of the service for the relevant year.
(3) The duty under subsection (2) is subject to any direction given by the Secretary of State under section 16(1)(a).
(4) A harbour authority which fails to comply with subsection (2) is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction—
(a) in England and Wales, to a fine, or
(b) in Scotland and Northern Ireland, to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.
4C Nature of remuneration declaration
(1) A remuneration declaration in respect of a service for a relevant year is a declaration within any of subsections (2) to (5).
(2) A declaration is within this subsection if it is provided before the beginning of the relevant year and it is to the effect that—
(a) in the relevant year there will be no non-qualifying seafarers working on ships providing the service, or
(b) in the relevant year non-qualifying seafarers working on ships providing the service will be remunerated in respect of their work in relation to the service in accordance with the remuneration regulations that apply in relation to them.
(3) A declaration is within this subsection if it is provided during the relevant year and it is to the effect that—
(a) in what remains of the relevant year there will be no non-qualifying seafarers working on ships providing the service, or
(b) in what remains of the relevant year non-qualifying seafarers working on ships providing the service will be remunerated in respect of their work in relation to the service in accordance with the remuneration regulations that apply in relation to them.
(4) A declaration is within this subsection if it is provided during the relevant year and it is to the effect that—
(a) in so much of the relevant year as has already occurred—
(i) there have been no non-qualifying seafarers working on ships providing the service, or
(ii) non-qualifying seafarers working on ships providing the service have been remunerated in respect of their work in relation to the service in accordance with the remuneration regulations that apply in relation to them, and
(b) in what remains of the relevant year—
(i) there will be no non-qualifying seafarers working on ships providing the service, or
(ii) non-qualifying seafarers working on ships providing the service will be remunerated in respect of their work in relation to the service in accordance with the remuneration regulations that apply in relation to them.
(5) A declaration is within this subsection if it is provided after the end of the relevant year and it is to the effect that—
(a) in the relevant year there were no non-qualifying seafarers working on ships providing the service, or
(b) in the relevant year non-qualifying seafarers working on ships providing the service were remunerated in respect of their work in relation to the service in accordance with the remuneration regulations that apply in relation to them.
Chapter 4
Chapters 2 and 3: supplementary regulations
4D Regulations about national minimum wage equivalent etc
(1) For the purposes of this Part, the national minimum wage equivalent is an hourly rate specified in regulations.
(2) Regulations may make provision for determining for the purposes of this Part—
(a) the hourly rate at which a non-qualifying seafarer is remunerated in any period in respect of any work, and
(b) whether, or the extent to which, a non-qualifying seafarer’s work in relation to a relevant service is UK work.
(3) Regulations under subsection (2)(a) may in particular make—
(a) any provision referred to in section 2(2) to (6) of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998;
(b) provision relating to currency conversion.
(4) Subsection (5) applies for the purposes of—
(a) section 4, and
(b) remuneration regulations that are framed by reference to the national minimum wage equivalent.
(5) The Secretary of State must in making regulations under this section seek to secure that a non-qualifying seafarer is remunerated at a rate equal to the national minimum wage equivalent only if their remuneration is in all the circumstances broadly equivalent to the remuneration they would receive if they qualified for the national minimum wage.’
Part 3 of the Act: seafarers’ working conditions
10 After section 4D (inserted by paragraph 9 of this Schedule) insert—
‘Part 3
Seafarers’ working conditions
Safe working regulations
4E Safe working regulations
(1) In this Part, “seafarer” means a person who works on a ship providing a relevant service.
(2) Regulations may specify conditions relating to the working pattern and rest requirements of seafarers who carry out work relating to the provision of a relevant service, including conditions about—
(a) their maximum periods of work in a specified period;
(b) their minimum periods of rest in a specified period.
(3) Regulations may make provision for the purpose of managing and mitigating risks arising from fatigue suffered by seafarers when carrying out their work relating to the provision of a relevant service.
(4) Regulations under subsection (3) may, among other things—
(a) require the operator of a relevant service to produce a plan to manage and mitigate risks arising from fatigue suffered by seafarers when carrying out their work relating to the provision of the service (a “fatigue management plan”);
(b) make provision about the contents of such a plan by reference to a specified document as amended from time to time.
(5) Regulations may make provision for and in connection with the training of seafarers who carry out work relating to the provision of a relevant service, for the purpose of ensuring—
(a) the safety of the ship on which they work,
(b) the safety of things on the ship, or
(c) the health or safety of persons on the ship.
(6) In this Act, regulations under subsection (2), (3) or (5) are referred to as “safe working regulations”.
(7) Safe working regulations may impose requirements on the operator of a relevant service.
(8) Safe working regulations may apply to—
(a) all relevant services, or
(b) one or more relevant services of a specified description.
(9) For the purposes of subsection (8)(b), a service may be described by reference to (among other things) the route operated by the service.
Safe working declarations
4F Request for safe working declaration
(1) Subsection (2) applies where a harbour authority has reasonable grounds to believe that ships providing a service to which safe working regulations apply will enter, or have entered, its harbour on at least—
(a) 120 occasions, or
(b) if safe working regulations specify a higher number in relation to services of a specified description and the service is of that description, that higher number of occasions,
during a relevant year (see section 19 for the meaning of “relevant year”).
(2) The harbour authority must, within such period as is determined by regulations under this subsection, request that the operator of the service provide the authority with a safe working declaration in respect of the service for the relevant year.
(3) The duty under subsection (2) is subject to any direction given by the Secretary of State under section 16(1)(a).
(4) A harbour authority which fails to comply with subsection (2) is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction—
(a) in England and Wales, to a fine, or
(b) in Scotland and Northern Ireland, to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.
4G Nature of safe working declaration
(1) A safe working declaration in respect of a service for a relevant year is a declaration within any of subsections (2) to (5).
(2) A declaration is within this subsection if it is provided before the beginning of the relevant year and it is to the effect that the safe working conditions will be met in relation to the service in the relevant year.
(3) A declaration is within this subsection if it is provided during the relevant year and it is to the effect that the safe working conditions will be met in relation to the service in what remains of the relevant year.
(4) A declaration is within this subsection if it is provided during the relevant year and it is to the effect that—
(a) the safe working conditions have been met in relation to the service in so much of the relevant year as has already occurred, and
(b) the safe working conditions will be met in relation to the service in what remains of the relevant year.
(5) A declaration is within this subsection if it is provided after the end of the relevant year and it is to the effect that the safe working conditions were met in relation to the service in the relevant year.
(6) For the purposes of this section the safe working conditions are met in relation to a service at a particular time if at that time—
(a) the service is operated in compliance with regulations under section 4E(2) or (3) that apply to the service,
(b) the service is operated in compliance with a fatigue management plan that is required for the service by regulations under section 4E(3) (see section 4E(4)), and
(c) the service is operated in compliance with regulations under section 4E(5) that apply to the service.
(7) References in subsection (6) to the operation of a service include references to its operation outside the territorial waters of the United Kingdom.’
Part 4 of the Act: enforcement of Parts 2 and 3
11 After section 4G (inserted by paragraph 10 of this Schedule) insert—
‘Part 4
Enforcement of Parts 2 and 3
Offence of operating service inconsistently with declaration’.
12 In section 5 (offence of operating service inconsistently with declaration)—
(a) in subsection (1)—
(i) for ‘service to which this Act applies’ substitute ‘relevant service’;
(ii) in paragraph (a), for ‘an equivalence declaration’ substitute ‘a declaration’;
(b) in subsections (2), (3) and (4), omit ‘equivalence’.
13 (1) Section 6 (imposition of surcharges: failure to provide declaration in time) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1)(a)—
(a) for ‘service to which this Act applies’ substitute ‘relevant service’;
(b) for ‘an equivalence declaration’ substitute ‘a declaration’.
(3) In subsection (1)(b), for ‘an equivalence declaration’ substitute ‘the requested declaration’.
(4) In subsection (2)(b)(ii), for ‘an equivalence declaration’ substitute ‘the requested declaration’.
(5) In subsection (3)(b)(ii), for ‘an equivalence declaration’ substitute ‘the requested declaration’.
(6) In subsection (5)(a), for ‘an equivalence declaration’ substitute ‘the requested declaration’.
(7) In subsection (5)(b), for ‘section 4(4) or (5).’ substitute ‘—
(i) section 4(4) or (5),
(ii) section 4C(4) or (5), or
(iii) section 4G(4) or (5),
(whichever applies).’
(8) In subsection (6)—
(a) for ‘an equivalence declaration’ substitute ‘a declaration’;
(b) in the definition of ‘prescribed period’, for ‘3(5)(a)’ substitute ‘16A(1)(a)’;
(c) in the definition of ‘prescribed form and manner’, for ‘3(5)(b) and (c)’ substitute ‘16A(1)(b) and (c)’.
14 In section 7 (imposition of surcharges: in-year declaration that is prospective only), in subsection (1)—
(a) in paragraph (a)—
(i) for ‘service to which this Act applies’ substitute ‘relevant service’;
(ii) for ‘an equivalence declaration’ substitute ‘a declaration’;
(b) in paragraph (b), for ‘3(5)’ substitute ‘16A(1)’;
(c) in paragraph (c), for the words from ‘within subsection (3)’ to the end substitute ‘—
(i) within subsection (3) of section 4 (and not also within subsection (4) of that section),
(ii) within subsection (3) of section 4C (and not also within subsection (4) of that section), or
(iii) within subsection (3) of section 4G (and not also within subsection (4) of that section),
(whichever applies).’
15 (1) Section 8 (imposition of surcharges: operating inconsistently with declaration) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1)(a)—
(a) for ‘service to which this Act applies” substitute ‘relevant service’;
(b) for ‘an equivalence declaration’ substitute ‘a declaration’.
(3) In subsection (3), after ‘equivalence declaration’ insert ‘, remuneration declaration or safe working declaration (as the case may be)’;
(4) In subsection (4)(a)—
(a) for ‘service to which this Act applies’ substitute ‘relevant service’;
(b) for ‘an equivalence declaration’ substitute ‘a declaration’.
(5) In subsection (6), after ‘equivalence declaration’ insert ‘, remuneration declaration or safe working declaration (as the case may be)’.
16 In section 11 (refusal of harbour access for failure to pay surcharge), in subsection (1), for ‘service to which this Act applies’ substitute ‘relevant service’.
17 (1) Section 12 (provision of information by operators) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1)—
(a) for ‘service to which this Act applies’ substitute ‘relevant service’;
(b) in paragraphs (a) and (b), for ‘an equivalence declaration’ substitute ‘a declaration’.
(3) In subsection (2)—
(a) in paragraph (b), at the beginning insert ‘for the purposes of Part 2,’;
(b) after paragraph (b) insert—
‘(c) for the purposes of Part 3—
(i) information relating to the working pattern, working conditions or training of persons working on ships providing the service;
(ii) a fatigue management plan produced by the operator of the service (see section 4E(4)(a)).’
(4) In subsection (5), for ‘service to which this Act applies’ substitute ‘relevant service’.
18 In section 13 (provision of information by harbour authorities), in subsection (2)(b), omit ‘equivalence’.
19 In section 14 (inspections), in subsection (2)—
(a) in paragraph (a), for ‘service to which this Act applies’ substitute ‘relevant service’;
(b) in paragraphs (a) and (b), for ‘an equivalence declaration’ substitute ‘a declaration’.
Part 5 of the Act: general and final provisions
20 After section 15 insert—
‘Part 5
General and final provisions’.
21 After section 16 insert—
‘16A Regulations about declarations
(1) Regulations may make provision—
(a) as to the period within which declarations are to be provided;
(b) as to the wording of declarations and the form in which they are to be provided;
(c) as to the manner in which declarations are to be provided.
(2) Regulations under subsection (1)(b) may specify a single form combining different kinds of declarations (but a requirement to provide a declaration in such a form does not require an operator of a service to provide a declaration which a harbour authority has not requested the operator to provide).’
22 In section 17 (regulations)—
(a) in the heading, at the end insert ‘: general’;
(b) in subsection (2)(a), for sub-paragraph (i) (but not the ‘or’ after it) substitute—
‘(i) relevant service,’.
23 (1) Section 19 (general interpretation) is amended as follows.
(2) After the definition of ‘the data protection legislation’ insert—
‘“declaration” (without more) means—
(a) an equivalence declaration,
(b) a remuneration declaration, or
(c) a safe working declaration;’.
(3) Omit the definition of ‘national minimum wage equivalent’.
(4) In the definition of ‘operator’, for ‘service to which this Act applies’ substitute ‘relevant service’.
(5) After the definition of ‘operator’ insert—
‘“relevant service” has the meaning given by section 1;’.
(6) In the definition of ‘relevant year’, for ‘has the meaning given by section 3(6);’ substitute ‘means—
(a) the period of 12 months beginning with a date specified in regulations, and
(b) each successive period of 12 months;’.
(7) After the definition of ‘relevant year’ insert—
‘“remuneration declaration” has the meaning given by section 4C(1);
“remuneration regulations” has the meaning given by section 4A(2);
“safe working declaration” has the meaning given by section 4G(1);
“safe working regulations” has the meaning given by section 4E(6);’.
(8) In the definition of ‘UK work’, for ‘has the meaning given by section 4(10)’ substitute ‘means work which is carried out in the United Kingdom or its territorial waters’.
Amendment of title of the Act
24 (1) The Seafarers’ Wages Act 2023 may be cited as the Seafarers (Wages and Working Conditions) Act 2023.
(2) For the words ‘Seafarers’ Wages Act 2023’ wherever they occur in any enactment substitute ‘Seafarers (Wages and Working Conditions) Act 2023’.”—(Justin Madders.)
This schedule amends the Seafarers’ Wages Act 2023 to give the Secretary of State power to make regulations specifying conditions relating to the wages and working conditions of seafarers working on ships providing services currently covered by that Act. Those conditions are enforceable in the same way as existing provisions of that Act.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
Clause 113
Power to make consequential amendments
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Justin Madders
I will be brief. The clauses are simple and standard, and they appear in most legislation.
Clause 113 will allow the Secretary of State to make consequential amendments—that is, amendments that are immediately consequent upon a provision in the Bill—to primary or secondary legislation. Consequential amendments are necessary changes to other legislation to ensure that the law works alongside the changes to the law made in the Bill. Subsection (2) will allow the power to be used to amend primary legislation where we would not expect to be burdened with further primary legislation to make changes. Subsection (4) sets out that regulations that amend primary legislation will be subject to the affirmative procedure, thus maintaining Parliament’s ability to scrutinise the provisions made under the power.
Clause 114 will allow the Secretary of State to make two types of provision. The first type is a transitional provision, which can be used specifically to assist the changeover from the state of the law before the Bill comes into force to the state of the law when it is fully in force. The second type is a saving provision, which can be used to preserve certain elements of the old law even after the new law comes into effect. They are used to maintain specific rights, obligations or legal effects that existed under the old law so that the changes will not apply in certain pre-existing cases.
We have ensured that the powers conferred on the Secretary of State to make provisions under clauses 113 and 114 are limited. As I say, the clauses are customary provisions. I commend them to the Committee.
Greg Smith
As the Minister says, the clauses are standard in a lot of legislation.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 113 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 114 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 115
Regulations
Greg Smith
I beg to move amendment 164, in clause 115, page 104, line 2, at end insert—
“(3A) The Secretary of State must have regard to the following objectives when making any regulations under this Act—
(a) the international competitiveness of the economy of the United Kingdom; and
(b) its growth in the medium to long term.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to have regard to the objective of the international competitiveness of the economy and its growth in the medium to long term when making any regulations under the Act.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 165, in clause 115, page 104, line 2, at end insert—
“(3A) No regulations may be made under this Act unless the Secretary of State has—
(a) consulted such persons as they consider relevant to the proposed regulations; and
(b) laid before both Houses of Parliament a report of that consultation.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to consult and publish a report of that consultation before making any regulations under the Act.
Greg Smith
I think this will be the last set of amendments we discuss, so let us ensure that they are good ones. Amendment 164 would require the Secretary of State to have regard to the objective of the international competitiveness of the economy and its growth in the medium to long term when making any regulations under the Bill. Amendment 165 would require the Secretary of State to undertake consultations on all regulations published under the Bill.
The effects of the Chancellor’s Budget of broken promises are apparent for all to see. On 7 January, the yield on a 30-year gilt broke a 27-year record, at 5.198%. That is the highest figure since the Debt Management Office was created in 1998. On Monday, the yield rose to 5.461%. That is not abstract; it reflects dwindling confidence in the UK economy, puts extra pressure on the Government’s headroom against their own fiscal rules and could lead to taxpayers paying billions more just to service the Government’s debts.
The Chancellor has chosen to increase borrowing by an average of £32 billion a year for the next five years. That is the largest fiscal loosening in any fiscal event in recent years. It will add substantial pressure to those debt repayments. Earlier this week, The i Paper reported that average two-year and five-year fixed deals for those with 25% equity or deposit are now expected to rise above 5% in the coming weeks, causing more financial pain for buyers and those trying to remortgage.
The Budget, the rise in employer national insurance contributions and, importantly, the provisions in the Bill could not be described as pro-growth, yet the Government repeatedly assure us that growth is the one thing they will deliver, which will unlock everything else.
Amendment 164 would restore the Government’s good intentions and get them back on track. It would ensure that the Secretary of State has regard to the need to ensure growth when making regulations under the Bill. On the basis of all the evidence that we have seen since the general election, growth is clearly not front and centre in the Government’s thinking when they are making policy. It must be.
Amendment 165 would ensure that the Secretary of State consults properly before making regulations under the extensive powers in the Bill. It is merely to hold the Government to their word: they acknowledge that in many respects the policy in the Bill is undercooked and needs further work before implementation.
With these final amendments that the Committee will discuss, let us lay down the gauntlet and see whether the Government will put their money where their mouth is. If the Government are serious about growth, they will surely accept amendment 164.
Steve Darling
Throughout our debates, Conservative colleagues have been critical of the Government for not having an oven-ready Bill and emphasising the need for further consultation. I have sympathy with that, as does my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham. However, the last Conservative amendment that we will consider in Committee would require consultation, so I wonder whether the Labour party’s proposals have worn the Conservatives down into believing in it. I am delighted by that; perhaps they have changed their minds on the rest of the Bill, too. I hope that the Minister will grasp the opportunity with both hands.
Justin Madders
The shadow Minister’s amendment 164, as he said, would require the Secretary of State to have regard to the UK’s growth and international competitiveness when making any regulations under the Bill. As the shadow Minister knows, the Government are committed to getting growth in this country back on track and to maintaining and strengthening our international standing. I noticed that in his litany of negative economic news, he forgot to mention today’s growth figures, which show us back in positive territory.
Our employment rights framework is about ensuring that the economy works for everyone. The Government believe our plan to make work pay will bring the UK back in line internationally and tackle issues with low growth, productivity and pay. The plan is not only a core part of the mission to grow the economy, but crucial to delivering on our milestone to raise living standards across the country and to create opportunities for all. It sits alongside work on planning reform, the skills revolution, tackling inactivity and launching our vision for a modern industrial strategy. The strategy will enable the UK’s already world-leading services and manufacturing sectors to adapt and grow, seizing opportunities internationally to lead in new sectors, with high-quality, well-paid jobs. It will be grounded in long-term stability, a renewed commitment to free and fair trade, and a pro-business approach focused on reducing barriers to investment in the UK.
We have committed to full and detailed engagement with businesses and trade unions alike as we develop the detail of regulations under the Bill. Our published impact assessment evaluates a wide range of evidence and concludes that the package could have a direct and positive impact on growth. Our intention is to refine our analysis as policy development continues, including by publishing updated option assessments and impact assessments, alongside future consultations and secondary legislation, to meet our better regulation requirements. In developing the detail of regulations, our officials and Ministers will pay close heed to the potential impacts on growth, as well as to our international comparability. We are committed to ensuring that we get support across the country among workers and employers alike.
Amendment 165 would require the Secretary of State to consult, and to publish a report of consultation that has been undertaken on specific measures, before making any regulations under the Bill. As was noted by the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Torbay, those on the Conservative Benches have taken a rather vacillating approach to consultation during the passage of the Bill, but we have been clear that we are pro-business and pro-worker. That is reflected in our approach, not just in Committee but with engagement since before the Bill’s publication, to ensure that our plan to make work pay is delivered.
As the Committee knows, we have committed to full and comprehensive consultation with all stakeholders. We began in October with an initial consultation package and, as set out in the “Next Steps to Make Work Pay” document, we will consult further on the implementation of the Bill’s measures. Alongside formal consultations, we have conducted extensive engagement on how best to put our plans into practice. We have already held and attended about 40 meetings of external stakeholders related to “Make Work Pay”. Eighteen of those meetings have been specific to businesses, eight specific to trade unions, and seven held in a tripartite setting.
I have written to the shadow Minister with details of the engagement that has already taken place. The figures are not exhaustive and do not include officials’ meetings or recurring meetings with external organisations to discuss a range of topics. I therefore suggest that we are engaging and consulting fully and that the amendment is not necessary.
Greg Smith
Well, there we have it. The Government who say they are pro-growth have shown their true colours and will not back our amendment to prove their intentions towards growth. This whole Bill is a socialist charter and we know that we cannot have socialism and growth at the same time. The history books have taught us that time and again.
We deeply regret the Government’s resistance to these two amendments. We will continue to be the party that champions business, growth and getting our economy going again, while this Government do everything they can, in this Bill and in their Budget and in so many other ways, to hold our economy back.
Michael Wheeler
I am going to try an entirely new tactic to derail the shadow Minister mid-stride. This is a genuine question, and I hope he answers it. Does he agree that throughout our line-by-line discussion of the Bill, he has been most generous with his time in accepting interventions that I believe to have been valuable?
Greg Smith
I am incredibly grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. It is for others to judge whether any Member of this House has been generous or otherwise.
What I can say, as we come towards the end of our debate on the final amendments and move on to the final clauses, is that we have had a good debate in this Bill Committee. It has not been one of those where those on the Government Benches are told to be quiet in the interest of getting on with it. We have had a genuine debate and a back and forth. Although we have not always agreed, and it looks like we do not agree on the amendments we are debating right now, we have had a debate. Our constituents sent us all here to represent them in arguments over ideas, concepts and values, and practical steps to meet the ideas and values that we hold dear, and we have done so. I agree with the spirit of the hon. Gentleman’s intervention.
On amendments 164 and 165, I repeat that His Majesty’s loyal Opposition regret that the Government do not wish to accept these pro-growth amendments. I will not press them for now, but we may well be seeing them very soon, when the Bill returns to the main Chamber on Report. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Justin Madders
I hope the Committee will agree that, like other clauses we have debated in part 6, clause 115 is a straightforward and customary provision. It sets out various procedural aspects that are relevant to the making of regulations under the Bill by statutory instrument, with the exception of commencement regulations, which I will speak to separately as they are dealt with in clause 118.
Subsection (2) sets out that regulations made under the Bill may make different provision for different purposes, and that they may contain supplementary, incidental, consequential, transitional or saving provisions. Subsections (4) and (5) explain what is meant by references in the Bill to the negative procedure and the affirmative procedure. The delegated powers memorandum sets out each power in the Bill, as introduced, and justifies the procedure set out in the relevant clause.
Greg Smith
I reiterate that we think the clause could have been improved by our amendments, but, for the time being, that is not to be the case.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 115 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 116
Financial provision
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Justin Madders
Clause 116 simply sets out that expenditure incurred under the terms of the Bill is to be met by supplies from Parliament. Clause 117 sets out the territorial extent of the Bill as introduced. With the exception of clause 25, parts 1, 2 and 4 extend to England, Wales and Scotland; part 3 extends to England and Wales only; and clause 25 and parts 5 and 6 extend to England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. It is also worth noting that amendments or repeals made by the Bill have the same extent as the provision amended or repealed.
Clause 118 sets out the manner in which provisions of the Bill will be commenced. Subsections (1) and (2) set out which provisions come into force on Royal Assent and two months after Royal Assent respectively. In respect of all other provisions, subsection (3) allows the Secretary of State to make regulations setting out the days that such provisions come into force. Finally, clause 119 provides that the short title of the legislation will be the Employment Rights Act.
Greg Smith
I am grateful to the Minister for taking us through those standard clauses at the end of the Bill. The only thing worthy of comment, which has come up during our debates on many of the clauses, is the variable commencement timings of some of the provisions, as listed in clause 118. I appreciate that that can happen in legislation from time to time, but the variable timescale adds an element of confusion for businesses. Some provisions will be commenced immediately, some after two months, and some after longer than that.
With that, we come to the end of our debates on the clauses and will move on to decide on measures that we have already debated. As I said in response to the intervention by the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles in the last debate, we have had a good debate in Committee. We have clearly outlined a number of areas where the two major parties in the House of Commons disagree on the approach to the Bill, but let nobody be in any doubt that we have gone through it line by line and debated it in a good level of detail.
I will end simply by saying that although clause 119 gives the short title of the Bill and says that
“This Act may be cited as the Employment Rights Act 2025”,
the Opposition’s view is that it will, in reality, be the Employment (Job Losses) Act.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 116 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 117
Extent
Amendments made: 206, in clause 117, page 104, line 22, for
“Part 3 of this Act extends”
substitute
“Chapters 1 and 2 of Part 3 of this Act extend”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 207.
Amendment 207, in clause 117, page 104, line 22, at end insert—
“(ba) Chapter 3 of Part 3 of this Act extends to England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland;”.
This amendment states the extent of the new Chapter proposed to be formed by NC48 and NS3.
Amendment 107, in clause 117, page 104, line 24, at end insert—
“(1A) Sections (Statutory sick pay in Northern Ireland: removal of waiting period) and (Statutory sick pay in Northern Ireland: lower earnings limit etc) (statutory sick pay in Northern Ireland) extend to Northern Ireland only.”
This amendment is consequential on amendments NC5 and NC6; it limits the extent of new clauses (Statutory sick pay in Northern Ireland: removal of waiting period) and (Statutory sick pay in Northern Ireland: lower earnings limit etc) to Northern Ireland only.
Amendment 108, in clause 117, page 104, line 27, leave out “An amendment or repeal” and insert
“Except as set out in subsection (4), an amendment, repeal or revocation”.
This amendment is consequential on NS2 and amendment 109.
Amendment 109, in clause 117, page 104, line 28, leave out “amended or repealed.” and insert
“amended, repealed or revoked.
(4) In Schedule (Increase in time limits for making claims) (increase in time limits for making claims)—
(a) the amendments made by paragraph 9(3) and (4) extend to Northern Ireland only;
(b) the amendments made by paragraphs 10, 12 and 13 extend to England and Wales and Scotland only.”—(Justin Madders.)
This amendment would limit the extent of certain amendments in NS2 so that they only extend to Northern Ireland or Great Britain (where they would otherwise extend to both). This is to ensure that the increase in time limits in those cases only applies in relation to employment tribunals in Great Britain.
Clause 117, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 118
Commencement
Amendment made: 110, in clause 118, page 105, line 17, at end insert—
“(na) section (Employment outside Great Britain) (employment outside Great Britain);”.—(Justin Madders.)
This amendment would bring NC7 into force two months after Royal Assent.
Clause 118, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 119 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Title
Amendments made: 208, in title, line 6, after
“Adult Social Care Negotiating Body;”
insert
“to amend the Seafarers’ Wages Act 2023;”.
This amendment is consequential on NS3.
Amendment 209, in title, line 6, after
“Adult Social Care Negotiating Body;”
insert
“to make provision for the implementation of international agreements relating to maritime employment;”.—(Justin Madders.)
This amendment is consequential on NC52.
Question proposed, That the Chair do report the Bill, as amended, to the House.
Justin Madders
I wish to thank you, Sir Christopher, and the other Chairs who have presided over this lengthy Bill Committee. I also thank the Clerks, Doorkeepers and Hansard reporters. I thank all members of the Committee who have participated in what has been a healthy and engaging debate. No doubt there will be more discussions and debates to come as the Bill progresses. I also thank the officials Cal Stewart, Jack Masterman and Shelley Torey.
Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)
Thank you, Sir Christopher. All good things must come to an end, and sadly that includes this Committee. I echo the thanks given by the Minister to the workers—to everyone who has supported the Committee—and I thank our Front Benchers, who have done a sterling job and from time to time gently and appropriately warded us off our individual enthusiasms. Perhaps that was just me.
Work on what became this Bill began a long time ago. It is hard to believe that almost five years have passed since my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles and I first became involved in the discussions. To name contributors is to commit the sin of omission. That is the case too for the staff of the Labour party, due to the party’s professional code of modesty, but I would like to place a few names on the record. They include my hon. Friends the Members for Halifax (Kate Dearden) and for Gateshead Central and Whickham (Mark Ferguson), who previously ably represented the Community and Unison unions respectively, including through the Labour party’s national policy forum. That was in itself an exhaustive process. I just say to hon. Members that if they liked this Committee, they would have loved the NPF. I am sorry to disappoint Opposition Members, but there was no smoke in those rooms, and no beer. There were occasionally sandwiches.
I would be in error if I did not personally thank Jaden Wilkins in my office and the staff of the TUC for their consistently excellent research publications. I also thank some of the GMB figures who made critical contributions during that time, including the national political officers during that period—Tom Warnett, Caitlin Prowle and Gavin Sibthorpe, who put in more hours than anyone—the national legal officer, Barry Smith, and the staff of the research and policy department, Anna Barnes, Ross Holden and Cassie Farmer. Finally, I would like to mention the staff of the Trade Union and Labour Party Liaison Organisation: Robbie Scott, Kieran Maxwell and Helen Pearce—the best political organiser in the labour movement, who herded cats and moved mountains.
Greg Smith
I echo the thanks that the Minister gave, particularly to the Clerks of the Committee, the wider Scrutiny Unit and everyone else who has worked so hard. These Bills are an enormous amount of hard work for the staff of the House, particularly the Clerks, and it is always appreciated by His Majesty’s loyal Opposition. Likewise, from the Doorkeepers and Hansard to everyone who prepares the room for us, it is an enormous job of work, and we thank them most sincerely. The Bill will shortly move on to Report, when the battle will recommence. In the meantime, Sir Christopher, I thank you and the other Chairs of the Committee for your chairmanship. We look forward to the next round.
Steve Darling
I echo the thanks to you, Sir Christopher, and the other Chairs who have ably chaired the Committee. I thank the Clerks, Doorkeepers and Hansard, who have reported throughout. I thank colleagues for the good-natured way that the Bill has been debated. This is my first Bill Committee, and I look forward with gusto to my next one. I also thank Laura Green, who has ably supported me throughout the Committee.
Chris Law
It would be easy for me to express exactly what the hon. Member for Torbay has just said in thanking everybody who has been involved. My only concern as we go to the next stage is that of all the amendments we have discussed and all the measures that have been proposed, not a single one has been adopted. There is an issue with that in general, because the Government have such a large majority. I guess that is not a bad thing for Labour Members, but it has meant that we have lacked the ability to really pull things apart. I hope that will come at the next stage. That is my only disappointment, but I wanted to put it on the record, because I know that it is a concern shared by other Members on both sides of the House. I hope that the Minister is listening so that we can get far more robust and real opportunities to amend and improve the Bill, which we all wish to see.
The Chair
May I thank everybody for their kind remarks? I know I speak for all other Chairs when I say that it has been a very good-natured Committee. Almost everybody has been in a new role: for some people it was their first Standing Committee, for others it was their first leading for the Opposition, and for some it was their first real Committee as a Minister. Everybody has performed pretty well—you should all be able to thank yourselves for that. I also thank the Clerks—behind every amendment is a heck of a lot of work by them—the Hansard reporters, who have done their job assiduously, and the Badge Messengers and Doorkeepers and everybody else involved, not forgetting the electricians who managed to ensure that we kept the lights going.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill, as amended, to be reported.
Employment Rights Bill
Tuesday 11th March 2025
(1 year ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Employment Rights Act 2025 Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 11 March 2025 - large print - (11 Mar 2025)
Employment Rights Bill
Tuesday 11th March 2025
(1 year ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Employment Rights Act 2025 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 11 March 2025 - large print - (11 Mar 2025)
19:37 - The House divided: - Ayes: 95 / Noes: 323 - Question accordingly negatived.
19:50 - The House divided: - Ayes: 189 / Noes: 324 - Question accordingly negatived.
20:05 - The House divided: - Ayes: 106 / Noes: 340 - Question accordingly negatived.
20:18 - The House divided: - Ayes: 105 / Noes: 409 - Question accordingly negatived.
Gregory Stafford
It is always a pleasure to follow the King. [Laughter.]
I rise on behalf of my constituents in Farnham, Bordon, Haslemere and Liphook who are opposed to this fundamentally anti-business Bill. Nothing has highlighted more clearly than this debate the old adage that where we think the Labour party is wrong, it thinks that we are evil. Nothing that has come from Labour Members has given any consideration to the absolutely correct concerns that the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith), raised in his opening remarks.
The Bill, which has been bodged both in Committee and today, has been put together simply to assuage the union paymasters that fund so many Labour Members. The Bill highlights Labour’s complete misunderstanding of how to help business, employees and, of course, the economy overall. We have a Government who talk about growth but legislate to destroy it.
The Government claim to be pro-growth and pro-business, yet the Bill is precisely the opposite. The Institute of Directors has warned that it will lead to slower growth, deter investment and bury business under an avalanche of unnecessary regulation. Even the Government’s own impact assessment, which Opposition Members have mentioned on a number of occasions, concedes that business will face a staggering £5 billion in additional costs: an economic straitjacket that will choke innovation and job creation. Labour Members seem to have failed to realise that being pro-business, as the Conservatives are, is being pro-worker, because if businesses do not exist there will be no one to employ workers.
In my constituency alone we have over 5,000 businesses, the vast majority of which are small and medium-sized enterprises. Many of them operate in the education, retail and hospitality sectors, which rely on flexibility to survive, yet the Bill’s attack on zero- hours contracts threatens to wipe out opportunities for students, part-time workers and those juggling multiple jobs to make ends meet.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
Among the 5,000 small businesses in my hon. Friend’s constituency, has my hon. Friend come across one that is in favour of the Bill or lobbied him to vote for it?
Gregory Stafford
My hon. Friend makes a good point. I am happy for the Minister to come to Farnham and Bordon—or Haslemere, Liphook or any other of my villages—to meet all the people who tell me what a damaging effect the Bill will have on their small business. As my hon. Friend pointed out, the simple fact is that the Government have not consulted small business properly. If they had, the Bill would be scrapped.
I think of the University for the Creative Arts students who rely on flexible work and the NHS paramedic in Farnham picking up extra shifts at the Nelson Arms, as I mentioned earlier. Those are real people whose livelihoods are at risk because of the Bill. That is why I support new clause 83 and amendment 283 on zero-hours contracts and employment tribunals.
UKHospitality has been clear that for 90% of workers on zero-hours contracts, that is their preference. The sector relies on these contracts to manage fluctuating demand, and removing that flexibility could devastate those businesses and lead to job losses. There is no job security for those who do not have a job. The House of Commons Library briefing actually supports that, confirming that zero-hours contracts provide essential flexibility for both employers and, most importantly, employees. That is why I support new clause 83 and amendment 283, which would demand a review of the impact on employment tribunals of the provisions concerning zero-hours workers before the Government recklessly legislate against them. The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development has already made it clear that banning zero-hours contracts will hurt the very workers the Government pretend to protect. But yet again, Ministers plough ahead, blind to the economic damage that they are about to unleash.
I turn to amendment 286 and new clause 86 on unfair dismissal and business confidence. The Government’s proposal to grant employees the right to claim unfair dismissal from day one is another reckless intervention, and one that is raised with me by small businesses day in, day out. The amendment and new clause seek to introduce an impact assessment before clause 21 and schedule 2 come into force. Without that, we have to be clear that businesses will be discouraged from hiring in the first place. Flexibility in employment is not one-sided; it benefits both workers and their employers.
Similarly, the right to request flexible working must be assessed properly. New clause 84 and amendment 284 rightly demand that the Secretary of State assess the impact of clause 7 before it comes into force. Rushed policymaking will not help workers or businesses; it will create uncertainty and drive investment away. That is why it is essential that we accept new clause 87 in the name of the shadow Secretary of State, because we need an impact assessment of how the Bill will affect businesses.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I fear the clock may not have started for my speech, so I will draw to a close. [Hon. Members: “More! More!”] In that case, I shall carry on! No, no; I am conscious of my hon. Friends who wish to speak.
This Government seem to have learned nothing from history. We have heard history lessons from Government Members, most of which have seemed to take us back to the 1970s. Economic success does not come from shackling businesses with red tape or giving trade unions unchecked power. It comes from fostering an environment where employers can hire, invest and grow.
Steve Witherden (Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr) (Lab)
I am proud to declare my membership of Unite the union and the NASUWT, and I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Before I was elected, I was a teacher for 20 years. Today, as we welcome this transformative legislation, I think of my former students. Their lives will be significantly improved by better wages, stronger workers’ rights and a fairer economy.
I welcome the Bill, which will drastically limit the exploitative use of fire and rehire. Just outside my constituency, but affecting many of my constituents directly, more than 500 Oscar Meyer workers are striking against the company’s appalling use of the practice. By creating a new right to claim automatic unfair dismissal if someone is reemployed on varied terms to carry out the same duties, the Bill takes a vital step towards dignifying employees with security and autonomy.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend is giving one of his trademark passionate speeches. Does he agree with me, as a former teacher myself, that removing fire and rehire will give the young people that he used to teach the confidence that when they go into the workplace, they will look at careers and not just jobs?
Steve Witherden
I wholeheartedly agree with everything my hon. Friend has said. I am also pleased to see Government new clause 34 encouraging greater employer compliance and increasing compensation for workers subjected to fire and rehire by raising the maximum period of the protective award from 90 to 180 days.
Amendment 329, tabled in my name, seeks to further protect against that harmful practice, ensuring that any clause in an employment contract that allows an employer to change the terms without the employee’s consent would be unenforceable, especially in cases of unfair dismissal related to a refusal to accept changes. That would further help redistribute the power imbalance between employers and employees, which currently allows low wages and poor working conditions to become commonplace. The Bill also takes crucial steps towards banning exploitative zero-hours contracts, ensuring that all workers have predictable hours and offering security for their day-to-day lives. I am pleased to see amendments extending such protections to agency workers.
We have all felt the effects of a system that has left so many behind: flatlined wages, insecure work and falling living standards. It is therefore not just my former pupils but millions across the country who will benefit from the biggest upgrade to rights at work in a generation. I am proud to support our Labour Government in this historic step towards better quality employment across the country, and I look forward to the full delivery of the plan to make work pay. Diolch yn fawr.
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
I rise to speak in support of new clause 10, which would make carer’s leave a paid right. We have an opportunity to give carers in employment a fair deal right across the country, while also bolstering our economy. The Government have an opportunity to build on the Carer’s Leave Act 2023, introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain), and take the next step in providing working carers with the flexibility they need to juggle work and care.
Carers UK estimates that the value to the economy of carers being able to work is £5.3 billion. When I have met major blue-chip employers such as Centrica and HSBC, and their employees who have benefited from those corporations’ carers policies, they are clear that having those policies in place to support caring is not only good for the employees, but makes them better employees for the employer. The employers really benefit from having members of staff who support them and are also able to do the best for their families.
Mrs Russell
I need to highlight to the House that I am a member of the Community and USDAW trade unions, and I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I would like to speak to various bits of this legislation today. There is so much in it, and I know that so many of us on the Government Back Benches are really pleased with what we are bringing forward.
The first part of the legislation that I want to address is clause 22, which will bring forward in future legislation more protections for women who are pregnant, on maternity leave and in the period immediately following their maternity leave. I have spent the past 13 years representing large numbers of women who were either made redundant while pregnant, on maternity leave or trying to come back from maternity leave, or whose employer suddenly woke up one morning and decided that they were underperforming, often within 24 hours of their announcing their pregnancy. I had a client who had been headhunted and brought into the company, was totally stellar, doing incredibly well and got promoted, but then announced her pregnancy and within a week she was on a performance plan. HR explained to her that because they were, you know, kind and did not want to do that to her while she was pregnant, they were very generously offering her a settlement agreement so that she did not have to go through that.
Lots of perfectly decent people do not understand why they are losing their jobs, and it is because they are pregnant. Pregnant Then Screwed found that 12.3% of women who have had a baby have either been sacked, constructively dismissed or made redundant while pregnant, on maternity leave or within a year of their maternity leave ending. It is a widespread problem, so it is fantastic that the Bill contains clause 22, which will allow the Minister to bring forward steps to expand the available protections. I would like to know how quickly we can do that, because pregnant women out there need that protection literally today.
Lola McEvoy
My hon. Friend, who has great expertise in this area, is making an eloquent speech. Does she agree that dismissals of pregnant women or new mothers are dramatically under-reported because of the use of non-disclosure agreements in a lot of companies while they are taking action against them?
Mrs Russell
I could talk about NDAs at some length, but I do not have time to today. They are definitely problematic, and they are definitely concealing the extent of the problems that women suffer when they announce their pregnancies.
The second element I like in the legislation is the improvements to the right to request flexible working. Those on the Conservative Benches have questioned why we would do this. The answer is that the term “part-timer” is still a term of abuse in this country. While that is still something that people say fairly regularly within workplaces and popular parlance, we still have a problem, so this legislation should help to improve that.
Conservative Members have talked a lot about clause 17 and the third-party harassment elements, and it is worth getting into some of the detail. The defence for an employer for failing to protect their staff from third-party harassment is taking all reasonable steps to prevent that harassment from occurring. Employment tribunals have been interpreting the meaning of “reasonable” for a long time, and in a discrimination claim there is essentially a three-part judiciary: a judge with legal experience, someone with employer experience, and someone with employee experience—sometimes from a trade union, but sometimes from elsewhere. When they talk about “all reasonable steps”, it is only reasonable steps; it is not every single step in the entire history of the universe that anyone could ever dream up or imagine.
Wera Hobhouse
The hon. Member is speaking powerfully. Does she agree that this amendment is being used by the Conservative party to condone something offensive and despicable, and that they are trying to defend the indefensible?
Mrs Russell
I completely and utterly agree with the hon. Member. Actually, a lot of what is coming from Conservative Members is scaremongering. A lot of those discussing this behave as if employees with unfair dismissal rights were unexploded bombs. All the people I represented did not want to bring tribunal claims; they just wanted to have been treated fairly and reasonably in the first place. They were typically extremely destressed by their experiences, and for quite a lot of them, their mental health had deteriorated substantially in the course of what they had gone through. I do not think that when people have unfair dismissal rights a little bit sooner, they will all be rushing to employment tribunals the moment that something goes slightly wrong in their workplace. What most people want to do every morning is get up, go to work, do a decent job, get paid for it and go home. That is what we will continue to see after this legislation passes: that most employers want to look after their employees perfectly reasonably, and most employees want to do a perfectly decent job.
Joe Robertson
I have been rather unsuccessful this afternoon in finding someone on the Government Benches who has concerns about the £5 billion cost to businesses that this Bill will bring. Will the hon. Member express concern over the £5 billion cost and the downward pressure on growth that this Bill brings, according to the Government’s own assessment?
Mrs Russell
My primary concern is that those on the Conservative Benches talk about employees as if they are, as I said, unexploded bombs, and they talk about employers as if they are unlikely ever to recruit anyone ever again, and I just do not believe that to be true. Most employers will make a sensible assessment of whether having an additional member of staff will benefit their business and then they will recruit them. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] Thank you.
It is really important that we cut through the disinformation and scaremongering, and that when we take the legislation forward, ACAS has good information ready to go. It already has great information online— I encourage employers who are worried to look up ACAS information videos on YouTube and look at its factsheets. We must make it clear to people that they have access to sources of free advice, which is important for small businesses, so that they can see what is and is not required of them. The position being stated today is bluntly exaggerated and quite damaging as a result.
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
I rise to speak in favour of my new clause 105. The labour abuse that it seeks to address is the wrongful use of substitution clauses by gig economy workers. To guarantee fairness and justice in the labour market, it is crucial that there be transparency, which can be delivered through the introduction of a comprehensive register of all dependent contractors. That will help to ensure that employment rights are upheld and pay is not suppressed through illegitimate competition, but it will also support the enforcement of right-to-work checks. The unlawful employment of migrants with no right to work here is not good for taxpayers, British workers or migrants who follow the rules, yet substitution clauses allow what have become known as “Deliveroo visas”—the industrial scale abuse of our immigration and labour laws.
Before addressing the substance of my new clause, I also commend new clause 30 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox), which I have sponsored. It would give special constables the right to take time off to carry out their police duties. Other public service volunteers, such as magistrates and councillors, receive that right.
I turn to my new clause 105. Ministers have said that they will consult on employment status and moving towards a two-part legal framework that identifies people who are genuinely self-employed. I support that ambition, and I am grateful to the Minister for his warm words in Committee, but my new clause provides a way to resolve a particular abuse and hold big employers in the gig economy to account.
There are 4.7 million gig economy workers in the UK, including 120,000 official riders at Uber Eats and Deliveroo, two of the largest delivery companies in the country. For years we have heard stories of the rampant labour market fraud and visa abuse committed by contractors related to those companies. From late 2018 to early 2019, there were 14,000 fraudulent Uber journeys, according to Transport for London. In addition to Uber and Deliveroo, Amazon and Just Eat have been linked to labour market abuses. Much of that abuse has come through the legal loophole created by substitution clauses.
Amazon tells its couriers that it is their
“responsibility to pay your substitute…at any rate you agree with them”
and
“you must ensure that any substitute…has the right to work in the UK”.
It is a dereliction of duty to pass responsibility for compliance with criminal and right-to-work checks on to workers, but those companies clearly have an interest in maintaining a status quo in which undocumented migrants take the lowest fees in delivery apps.
Data from the Rodeo app shows the effect of that abuse on riders’ order fees. Just Eat riders saw their fees drop by 14.4%, from £6.53 in 2021 to £5.59 in 2023. There was a 3.4% drop for Uber Eats order fees—from £4.36 to £4.21—during the same period. Deliveroo has blocked its order fee data from being published. Those figures are not adjusted for inflation, but it is clear to see how pay and conditions have worsened for riders. By undercutting domestic workers—British workers—and exploiting those with no legal right to be here, companies are privatising profits and socialising costs. Promises from such companies to introduce tougher security checks have not made the problem go away. We should all be appalled by this state of affairs, because nobody should be above the law.
During random checks two years ago, the Home Office found that two in five delivery riders who were stopped were working illegally. In the same month, 60 riders from Uber Eats, Deliveroo and Just Eat were arrested in London for immigration offences, including working illegally and holding false documentation. Last month, Deliveroo sacked more than 100 riders who shared their accounts with illegal migrants. But that is only the tip of the iceberg: insurance companies report unauthorised riders involved in motor and personal injury cases.
That is happening because undocumented migrants are renting rider accounts for between £70 and £100 a week. Profiles have been bought for as much as £5,000. The i Paper found more than 100,000 people on Facebook groups where identities have been traded for years, including one group that gained around 28,000 members in less than 18 months.
Illegal migrants are using social media apps to rent accounts and share information on a significant scale. Today, we only have figures from press investigations, but we can find copious examples across the internet with ease. Legal workers have reported problems to the police and the Home Office, but that has fuelled tensions as they compete for orders and has even led to violent clashes between legal and illegal riders in Brighton and London, including physical beatings and damage to bikes.
People working illegally for these big companies are working longer hours round the clock for lower fees, never knowing when their last payday might be. They use group chats to share information and evade Home Office immigration raids. We do not even know how many substitute riders there are for these companies at any given time. A spokesman for the App Drivers and Couriers Union says:
“Unfortunately there is this loophole that allows some bad people to come through. They are not vetted so they could do anything.”
Sir Gavin Williamson
Obviously, my hon. Friend hopes that the Government will support his new clause. What does he think would stop the Government supporting this very sensible measure straightaway?
Nick Timothy
I do not see why the Government should not support this new clause. This seems to be an obvious example of labour market abuse, but the difference with many of the provisions in the Bill is that my new clause does not directly benefit trade unions who pay for the Labour party.
Sadly, we know that there have been many sexual assaults and attacks committed by substitute workers. New clause 105 proposes the robust regulation of substitution clauses. Amazon, Uber, Deliveroo and the rest would have to do their due diligence and, just like everyone else, ensure that all their riders are who they say they are and have the right to work in this country. Introducing such a change would reduce labour abuse, protect our communities and deliver a fairer labour market.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Ind)
I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Just to inflame matters more, I am the chair of the RMT parliamentary group as well.
Next Monday is the third anniversary of the P&O scandal. Members might recall what happened: 800 members of staff—RMT members, largely—turned up for work and were sacked by video. Many of them were marshalled off their vessels by trained bouncers and guards who dealt with them roughly. The reaction across the House and across society was that this was repellent and should not happen in a civilised society. The Labour party then made a commitment that it would introduce legislation that would install in law the seafarers’ charter, and that is exactly what the Bill does, so I welcome it wholeheartedly and congratulate the Minister on doing this. But as he can guess, we see this as just the first step, because there is so much more to do, particularly in this sector, where many workers are still exploited compared with shore-based workers.
Government new clause 34 extends the maximum period of the protective award from 90 days to 180 days. We were looking for an uncapped award, to be frank, because P&O built into the pricing the amount it would be fined as a result of its unlawful behaviour, so that did not matter to P&O—it simply priced that in.
In addition, we were looking for injunctive relief, and I thank the Government for entering into discussions about that. Many employers can get injunctive relief on the tiniest error by a union in balloting procedures, but workers cannot. We are asking for a level playing field. We hoped that an amendment would be tabled to the Bill today, but it has not been. We hope the Government will enter into those discussions and go further.
Andy McDonald
I wonder whether my right hon. Friend recalls the evidence of Peter Hebblethwaite, the chief executive of P&O Ferries, to the Business and Trade Committee. He made it clear that he deliberately broke the law and had no regard for it. Was my right hon. Friend as horrified as I was to see that in this House, and as disappointed at the lack of response from the Conservative party?
John McDonnell
I think that across the House it took a long while to recover from the anger at the behaviour that was displayed in front of the Select Committee. The chief executive was acting with impunity because he had been able to price in those sorts of fines, and it was a cross-party view that we were angry about that behaviour. That is why the charter is so important to us, and why injunctive relief that is open to trade unions would provide an adequate starting point for getting some form of justice.
A range of other issues need to be addressed, including schedule 4, where the Government are introducing the ability to monitor the behaviour of companies. Harbourmasters monitor some of that behaviour as well, with declarations that companies are abiding by basic health and safety practices—some practices in the past have been frankly terrifying. We want health and safety to be about more than just basic legislation; it is also about rosters and how long people are working. We still have ferry contracts where people are working for 17 weeks without a break. We want to ensure that the regulations cover rosters, as well as holiday pay, sick pay, pensions and ratings training, so that we can start to get some form of accountability within the sector. That is not much to ask for, yet we have given shipping owners £3 billion of tonnage tax exemptions in return for the employment of British seafarers, and I do not think we got a single job as a result of that £3 billion. There is a need for proper regulation of the sector.
I tabled an amendment to ask the Government to stand back once a year and bring a report to the House on how implementation of the Bill is going, and to update us on the implications for maritime law and International Labour Organisation conventions, and the impact on the sector. A lot of debate on this issue has been about ferries, but we want to ensure that the provisions apply to all vessels, not just ferries. One point made by those on the Labour Front Bench when considering the Seafarers’ Wages Bill was that if a ship came into a harbour 52 times a year, the legislation would apply. Now—I do not know why—that has been extended to 120 times year, which means that thousands of workers will lose out because the measure will not apply to them. Will the Government have another conversation about that and see whether we can revert to the original position of the Labour party all those years ago when these scandals happened?
There is not much time but, briefly, I am interested in the extension of sectoral collective bargaining right across the economy. We are doing it with social care, but what I have seen from proposals in the Bill does not look like sectoral collective bargaining to me; it looks simply like an extension of pay review bodies. Indeed, the Bill states that any agreements within those organisations cannot legally be accepted as collective bargaining.
The Bill is not clear about how members of the negotiating body are appointed or by who. We were expecting that it would be 50% employers and 50% trade unions, and I tabled an amendment to try to secure that. We think that the negotiating body should elect its own chair, not that the chair should be appointed by the Secretary of State. We want such bodies to be independent and successful, because I see that as the first step in rolling out sectoral collective bargaining in many other sectors of our economy. That is desperately needed because of the lack of trade union rights and the low pay that exists.
The Bill is a good first step, but there is a long agenda to go through. I look forward not just to the Bill proceeding, but to the Minister bringing forward an Employment Rights (No. 2) Bill in the next 18 months.
Wera Hobhouse
I rise to speak in support of new clause 74, which appears in the name of the right hon. Member for Sheffield Heeley (Louise Haigh). I pay tribute to her and to my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) who have campaigned on these issues for a long time. New clause 74 seeks to ban non-disclosure agreements that prevent workers from making a disclosure about harassment, including sexual harassment—we have talked about sexual harassment in the workplace for the last four or five hours.
NDAs were initially designed to protect trade secrets by restricting the sharing of certain information, but in recent times they have taken on an entirely different and quite sinister role. They have essentially become the default solution for organisations and individuals to settle cases of misconduct, discrimination and harassment, keeping the extent of such incidents unaccounted for. Incorporating clear provisions to ensure transparency in cases of harassment would strengthen protections for all workers.
Data from Can’t Buy My Silence has revealed some deeply worrying statistics about the misuse of NDAs. In a survey of more than 1,000 people who experienced harassment and discrimination in the workplace, 25% reported being forced to sign an NDA, while an additional 11% stated that they could not say due to legal reasons, implying that they had also signed an NDA. Four times as many women as men sign NDAs, and they are used disproportionately against women of colour.
In Committee, the Minister said that the Government had “reservations” about changing the law in this way, as there may be “unintended consequences”. I struggle to understand why the Government have committed to banning universities from using NDAs in cases of sexual misconduct, harassment and bullying but have not committed to extending those protections to other sectors. NDAs are clearly being used in a totally different way to what they were designed to achieve, and we must stop this before more victims are silenced. I heard the Minister say earlier that he is at least looking at what new clause 74 is trying to achieve.
Despite my concerns about the misuse of NDAs, the Bill as a whole has many very positive provisions. Importantly, it finally legislates to protect workers from third-party harassment. I brought that forward in my original Bill that became the Worker Protection (Amendment of Equality Act 2010) Act 2023, which recently became law. However, it was blocked by amendments made to the Bill in Committee in the House of Lords by the Conservative party, so that such liability and protection from sexual harassment by third parties in the workplace was not created. We have already discussed that several times this afternoon.
I am most pleased that the Government have committed to making workplaces safer through this protection, because that is what this is all about. Creating safer workplaces is good for everyone, including businesses, despite what the Conservative party says. A study by Culture Shift found that 66% of businesses believe that preventing sexual harassment is very important. I do not know what Conservative Members are talking about when they say that their inboxes are full; I have not seen a single email from a business writing to me to say that it is worried about protecting its own employees from third-party harassment. According to WorkNest, three quarters of employers are still concerned about protecting employees from harassment by third parties. Businesses are concerned that they cannot protect their workers from third-party harassment; they clearly want these protections to be included in the Bill.
Too many people still suffer from third-party harassment at work. Amendment 288, which tries to remove those important provisions, is plain wrong. Employers have a duty to ensure the safety of their employees from not just other employees, but third parties who may interact with them in the workplace. That responsibility should be part of their broader commitment to workplace safety. If the Conservative party is truly committed to a world without harassment and sexual harassment in the workplace, why is it still condoning offensive language and behaviour as “banter” and “free speech”, rather than taking a step to support businesses and protect workers from sexual harassment in the workplace, as proposed in the Bill?
I am grateful that the Government have ensured the completion of my Act as it was intended a year or two ago. Although I remain concerned about the misuse of NDAs, I welcome many of the provisions in the Bill. I will be proud to walk through the No Lobby when we come to vote on amendment 288, and I hope that all right-minded people will join me there.
Jess Asato (Lowestoft) (Lab)
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am a proud member of the trade unions USDAW, Unison and GMB, and I am also proud to have worked at a domestic abuse charity for six years. That is why I rise today to speak in support of new clause 22, which I have tabled with the support of colleagues from across the House. I am an officer of the all-party parliamentary group on domestic violence and abuse, the secretariat of which is ably provided by Women’s Aid. I have tabled this new clause following evidence presented to the APPG, with the drafting support of the law firm Hogan Lovells.
Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)
Let me begin by drawing attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
As other Conservative Members have already pointed out, the flaws in this Bill are numerous. It will damage businesses and, ultimately, employment opportunities, and I am deeply concerned about its consequences for our economy both nationally and in my constituency. The Government have said that they want to grow the economy, but the Bill will penalise and stifle those who do just that. Businesses of all sizes, investors and entrepreneurs—these are the people who grow our economy. Only if we grow our economy can we invest in our much-needed public services, and only then can we provide the significant increases in defence investment that are needed more than ever at this time. We ought to be empowering businesses to deliver growth, but the Bill adds burdens on business to such an extent that, by the Government’s own admission, it will cost the economy up to £5 billion a year. In fact, I believe that that is a fairly conservative estimate and that it will probably cost much more.
Survey after survey has shown that business confidence has gone through the floor, although I do not need a survey to tell me that, because my inbox has received a steady stream of messages from local businesses reaching out to share the detrimental impacts of the Budget and their concern about the impact of measures in the Bill. Every week I visit and meet business owners across my constituency, and the message is consistent and clear: how can the Government expect the economy to grow when it penalises the growth creators?
Amendment 289, tabled by the Opposition, offers a reasonable and pragmatic compromise to mitigate the unintended consequences of placing a duty on employers to prevent third-party harassment in the hospitality sector. I have listened closely to the debate on that issue, so let me say strongly that harassment of any sort is absolutely wrong. I do not for one moment condone or excuse any kind of harassment, in the hospitality sector or, indeed, in any other area. The reality is, however, that in a pub, a restaurant, a social setting or a hospitality setting, things may be said that are not acceptable. As has already been made clear, this is not condoning sexual harassment; it is making clear that we simply cannot legislate for people’s words or language in every context. We must have free speech. Surely it is reasonable to protect our landlords and restaurant owners in the hospitality sector, and to include provisions exempting them in the Bill, if it has to be passed at all. It cannot be fair to expect landlords to be responsible for every conversation that takes place on their premises.
It has been made clear to me by the many landlords and restaurant owners across my constituency whom I have met since my election—whether it be Woody who runs the Swan in Tarporley and the Lion at Malpas, or Jarina at the Rasoi and the Bulls Head—that employee welfare is a top priority for them. I know that they do everything they can to treat staff exceptionally well, and to protect them from third-party harassment. They want their staff to be safe and secure, but making such businesses liable for other people’s behaviour and language is a step too far, and will have a detrimental impact on our hospitality sector.
Let me end by reiterating my deep and fundamental concerns about the Bill as a whole. I will not be supporting it today. There are Opposition amendments that would improve it, and I hope that they will be supported, because they are pragmatic and give a glimmer of hope to businesses faced with what is otherwise very damaging legislation. I also hope that when Labour Members vote this evening they will consider the consequences of the Bill and the ways in which it is detrimental to growth, something that the Government have sought to pursue.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and the fact that I am a trade union member.
This Government were elected on the promise to deliver the biggest boost to workers’ rights in a generation, and that is exactly what this Bill will do. The previous Government oversaw a system that left working people paying the price for economic decline through insecurity, poor productivity and low pay. The measures in this Bill will make a serious difference to working people’s lives. Nine million people will benefit from day one protection against unfair dismissal, the around 4,000 mothers who are dismissed each year after returning from maternity leave will be protected, and 1.3 million people on low wages will receive statutory sick pay for the first time. In Luton North and elsewhere, these rights will make a real and meaningful difference to people, especially those in new jobs, on lower incomes or with insecure contracts.
As a former care worker, I know that fair pay in adult social care—bringing workers and employers together to agree pay and conditions across the whole sector—will be transformational and is long overdue. During covid, when many carers risked their lives and those of their families to care for others, the last Government handed out claps, gave out bin bags in place of personal protective equipment, and sent carers off to food banks. This Government are delivering the recognition that social care is skilled, valued and vital to a thriving society.
I will speak in my role as Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee. Our Committee’s report in January showed the need for bereavement leave following pregnancy loss. I give my wholehearted thanks to all who gave evidence, which led to our report and the amendment that followed. I thank Members from across the House for their support, and I especially thank the brave women who shared their experience of losing a pregnancy with our Committee. All of them had only the option of sick leave, and every single witness said it is time for a change.
Granting sick leave to grieve the loss of a pregnancy is not appropriate. First, it means that women workers are left fearful that human resources processes will kick in following the accrual of sick leave. Secondly, it wrongly reinforces the feeling that there is something wrong with their bodies. Thirdly, it makes them feel unable to talk about their miscarriage with both their employers and their colleagues, as they should be able to do. It is as if miscarriage is something shameful to approach one’s boss about.
From small businesses to big businesses, such as the Co-op Group and TUI, many employers already offer bereavement leave following miscarriage, as does the NHS, which is the largest public sector employer of women. They all show that doing the right thing is good for workers and good for business, and I am so pleased to hear the Minister commit to working with the other place to introduce miscarriage bereavement leave. This Labour Government will make the UK only the fourth country in the world to recognise the need for bereavement leave following miscarriage, which is truly world leading. We will be a leading light in a world that seems to be taking a backwards step on women’s rights.
Although such leave is not paid, as outlined in my amendments, it is a significant step forward. It not only provides rights, but goes a long way towards furthering how we talk about pregnancy loss in society as a whole. Miscarriage should no longer be ignored and stigmatised as a sickness. People have been moved to tears of joy, relief and raw emotion on discovering that their loss is now acknowledged and that things will change. Later tonight, in the privacy of my home, I will probably be one of those people.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Lady for her passion and compassion, for her honesty and for talking about this subject in the Chamber. We all recognise her commitment to the task that she has set herself, and this Government will deliver it for her. I welcome that, because we have all lost loved ones. We have mothers and sisters who have had miscarriages, and we have family members and colleagues who have had miscarriages. That is why we commend the hon. Lady for making a special contribution.
Sarah Owen
I thank the hon. Member for his kind intervention, and I thank many Members for their support throughout the years. I experienced pregnancy loss while I was an MP, and the kindness of colleagues in this place got me though, but at no point did any of them wrap their arms around me and say, “Get well soon”; they all said, “I’m sorry for your loss.” I am so glad that today the Minister has committed to the law reflecting society’s view on miscarriage.
I thank the Department for Business and Trade team, and especially the Minister, for meeting the challenge set by the Women and Equalities Committee. Each of the Committee members is committed to this, and it was enabled by our excellent Clerks. I thank the Members who have supported my amendment—and our amendments —and so many people for their campaigning work. Many Members have been very kind and have expressed gratitude to me for tabling the amendment, but this was actually a team job, with team work and campaigning spanning many years.
Laurence Turner
It is a particular pleasure to follow a former colleague of mine, my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen). What she has said will have a special resonance with the many people who are following this debate in this Chamber and beyond. She has done a valuable public service, and we thank her for it.
As is customary, I draw attention to my declarations in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, and to my membership of the GMB and Unite trade unions.
Because time is limited, I will restrict my comments to Opposition amendment 290 on the School Support Staff Negotiating Body. This amendment seeks to disapply the SSSNB’s statutory remit from both academies and local authority maintained schools, which makes it substantially different from and more damaging than the similar amendment brought forward in Committee. If it was carried, it would reduce protection for many school support staff workers in employment.
The vast majority of school support staff are already covered by collective bargaining, almost 80% directly and the rest indirectly. However, the existing agreement, through the National Joint Council, does not serve support staff or employers well. Last year, teaching assistants were paid just £17,400 on average, and 90% of those workers are women. I have spoken to some who have relied on food banks and payday loans to make ends meet. There are 1,800 school support staff workers in my constituency of Birmingham Northfield, and they deserve better. Most schools struggle to recruit for those roles, according to research by the National Foundation for Educational Research, and at one point during the pandemic the role of teaching assistants was the second hardest to recruit for after that of HGV drivers.
This is not just about pay. As the Harpur v. Brazel case showed, substantial liabilities also exist for employers because of unclear and outdated terms and conditions. As the Confederation of School Trusts, representing academy employers, has said, the time has come to move school support staff out from under the local government negotiating umbrella. Indeed, the request from school employers was for the Bill to establish a floor, not a ceiling.
That point was addressed in Committee, so we might ask why this amendment has been brought forward. It is in contradiction to the amendment that the Opposition tabled in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Public Bill Committee. After all, it was the Conservatives who put the School Teachers Review Body on a statutory footing back in the early 1990s, so why will they not support the same step for school support staff? Similarly, they are not seeking to amend the Bill in respect of the adult social care negotiating body, despite the similarities between the two occupations.
I fear that the answer is that school support staff—the majority of people who work in schools—are suffering from the soft prejudice of unequal knowledge and interests that divide the workforce into professionals and ancillaries. This outdated attitude should be confined to the dustbin of history, where it belongs. It was rejected in this place almost 20 years ago, when the process that led to the SSSNB began. This is not a measure whose time has come; it is long overdue.
I wish to say a little about the importance of the measure for special educational needs and disabilities. Classroom-based support staff spend the majority of their time supporting SEND learners. They are essential to schools’ models of inclusion.
Chris Vince
My hon. Friend is giving an excellent speech and referring to a really important group of people. As a former teacher—I mention it quite often— I recognise the huge importance of what school support staff provide to the classroom. Does he agree that they support not just learners but teachers too, and have a wider influence on the school community?
Laurence Turner
I agree. My hon. Friend makes a very important point. When we look back at the national agreement in the early 2000s which led to the expansion of school support staff roles, the justification was that they would alleviate pressure on teachers and add to the quality of teaching in classrooms. That is exactly what school support staff workers in my constituency and his do every day.
School support staff roles are essential for SEND support, but the contracts those staff are employed under are so squeezed that no paid time is available for professional development or training. In other words, we cannot resolve the SEND crisis without contract reform, and we cannot achieve that contract reform if the drift and delay, which is the legacy of the 2010 decision to abolish the SSSNB, continues. I urge the Opposition, even now, to think again and not press their amendment to a vote.
In the time remaining, I wish to say a few words about the provisions on hospitality workers and their right not to be subject to third-party harassment. When the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse), who was formerly in her place, brought forward her private Member’s Bill in the last Parliament, it contained the same provisions that are being advanced now. At the start of the debates in the House of Lords, the extension of the protection to “all reasonable steps” was supported by the Government of the day. Baroness Scott, leading for the Conservative party, said that the measures would not infringe on freedom of speech; in fact, they would strengthen it. The Conservative Front Benchers were right then and they are wrong today.
The Bill is incredibly important. Employment law in the United Kingdom has tended to advance by increments; the Bill measures progress in strides. I am proud to have had some association with it through the Public Bill Committee. I thank the departmental team who were part of the process and the other members of the Committee. I will be proud to vote in favour of the extensions to rights in the Bill when they are brought forward to a vote tonight.
Andy McDonald
As a proud trade unionist, I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
Today marks a truly historic moment: the most significant expansion of employment rights in more than a generation. I extend my congratulations to the Secretary of State and the Deputy Prime Minister for their efforts, and express my enormous gratitude to the employment rights Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders), for his time and engagement with me over recent months in discussing the measures in the Bill. I also wish to acknowledge the dedication of Bill Committee members, as well as the countless trade union officers, academics, Labour party members and staffers who have worked tirelessly for decades to bring us to this day. This is a milestone we have long strived for. On a personal note, I extend my sincere thanks to the Prime Minister for entrusting me, while in opposition, with the responsibility of delivering Labour’s Green Paper, “A New Deal for Working People”.
I speak in support of the Government’s amendments and will touch on my own tabled amendments selected for discussion. Specifically, I support Government new clause 32 and Government new schedule 1, which will extend guaranteed hours protections to nearly 1 million agency workers. This is a crucial step, aligning with my own amendment 264, and I am pleased to see the Government taking it forward. The TUC has rightly emphasised that for these rights to be effective, they must apply to all workers. Including agency workers is essential to prevent unscrupulous employers from circumventing new protections by shifting to agency staff. Exploitative tactics employed by a minority of employers, designed to avoid responsibilities and deny workers job security, remain a deep concern, which is precisely why I have consistently advocated for a single employment status.
I tabled new clause 61 because I believe that establishing a single status of worker is a necessary step to ending unfair employment practices. The Government’s “Next Steps to Make Work Pay” document, published alongside the Bill, states their intent to consult on moving towards a single worker status. On Second Reading, I noted that we cannot truly eradicate insecure work until we establish a clear and unified employment status. Since then, the Director of Labour Market Enforcement, Margaret Beels, has told the Business and Trade Committee that
“the whole business of employment status needs to be addressed”,
adding that
“you can probably consult until the cows come home on this issue…it is about time to do something about it”.
The TUC also urged a rapid review of employment status to prevent tactics such as bogus self-employment from proliferating as employers respond to new rights.
I welcome the Business and Trade Committee’s recommendation that the Government must prioritise their review of employment status and address false self-employment
“so that these reforms are rolled out alongside…the Employment Rights Bill.”
I acknowledge the new clause tabled by the Chair of the Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne), which seeks to establish a deadline for this consultation. I urge the Government to accelerate progress on this front, but take reassurance from the fact that this issue is well understood at the highest levels.
I turn to collective redundancy and the unacceptable practice of fire and rehire. ACAS reported in 2021 that the use of fire and rehire tactics by employers was prevalent in the UK and had increased since the pandemic. Nearly a fifth of young people say their employer has tried to rehire them on inferior terms. Many will recall how P&O shamelessly broke the law, choosing to pay compensation rather than comply with its legal obligations because it calculated that replacing its workforce with cheaper labour would ultimately be more profitable.
I welcome the Government’s consultation on collective redundancy and their introduction of new clause 34, which doubles the maximum protective award for unfairly dismissed workers to 180 days’ pay. However, while this may deter some employers, I question whether it is a sufficient deterrent to prevent further abuses. The TUC has raised concerns that merely doubling the cap will still allow well-resourced employers to treat breaching their legal obligations as the cost of doing business. The TUC instead proposes a stronger deterrent: the introduction of interim injunctions to block fire and rehire attempts—an approach I have sought through new clause 62.
Mick Lynch, the outgoing general secretary of the RMT, told the Bill Committee that unions should have the power to seek injunctions against employers like P&O. He rightly pointed out:
“The power is all with the employers,”––[Official Report, Employment Rights Public Bill Committee, 26 November 2024; c. 59, Q57]
and that unions currently lack the legal means to stop mass dismissals before they happen. My new clause offers a solution, giving employees immediate redress through an injunction if they can show that their dismissal is likely to be in breach of the new law, ensuring that they remain employed with full pay until a final ruling is made. I encourage the Minister to address this issue in his response and to indicate an openness to considering injunctive powers in this Parliament.
Richard Burgon
My hon. Friend has played such an important role in the development of these policies. He is making a wide-ranging speech—in his remaining remarks, will he reflect on the importance of not just individual rights, but collective rights?
Andy McDonald
My hon. Friend highlights a critical issue—this is about making that shift and reversing the decline in collective bargaining. We should be looking for the International Labour Organisation standard and, as per the European Union, to get to 80% collective bargaining coverage across the piece.
I also note the concerns of the TUC and Unite regarding Government new clauses 90 to 96, on the “one establishment” issue, and urge them to engage with the unions on these issues.
Much has been said about wealth creators, but there needs to be a recognition that working people are wealth creators and they are entitled to their fair share. The Chair of the Business and Trade Committee calls for consensus. At the core of this discussion has to be that good, well-paid, secure, unionised employment is good for our constituents, our businesses and our economy, and this crucial Employment Rights Bill is an essential step along that road to a brighter economy and a brighter future for all our people.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
It is an absolute honour to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald), and I know the whole House will join me in thanking him for all the work that he has done in shaping the Bill before us today.
The Employment Rights Bill, which I am also proud to have played a small part in shaping, represents a once-in-a-generation opportunity. The Bill is a testament to the values that we stand for: a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work; dignity; protection; bargaining powers for workers; and a safety net for the most vulnerable when they need it the most.
There is much to celebrate in the Bill, as we have heard in the many excellent contributions today. I have also put my name to many of the amendments that we have heard hon. Members speak to in the House. I do feel that all of them are designed to strengthen the Bill further. However, given the time constraints, I shall focus my remarks on my amendments relating to statutory sick pay.
As we all know, and as has been said very eloquently today, the current system of statutory sick pay is not just insufficient, but completely and inexcusably broken. We have the worst system in Europe, which is shameful. Workers are entitled to just 17% of the average weekly wage, yet the cost of living does not suddenly plunge by 83% when they are sick. Their rent, their energy bills and their grocery tabs are not discounted, so why does SSP remain such a paltry sum? Being forced to survive on £118.75 a week—if they are lucky enough to get that in the first place—leaves workers exposed to financial hardship. It forces many to make the difficult decision to go to work when they are unwell.
It is therefore quite right that the Government have put forward major, necessary and welcome reforms. They include: removing the three-day waiting period, so that workers are entitled to sick pay from day one of illness; and extending sick pay to all workers by removing the lower earnings limit and implementing a fair earnings replacement percentage of 80%.
These reforms will directly benefit more than a million low-paid workers, a disproportionate number of whom continue to be those from black, Asian and minority ethnic backgrounds, women and young people. There is much more that we can do to strengthen the Bill, which is why I have tabled two amendments, which will do just that and ensure that no worker is left behind. Amendment 7 calls for sick pay to be aligned with the national living wage. Let me make it clear that uprating SSP is popular with businesses as well as with workers. Six in 10 employers agree that the rate is simply too low for workers to survive on. We know that because the poverty rate among those claiming SSP is more than double that among the overall working population.
Amendment 7 makes it clear that if a person is working full time, they should not be paid poverty wages when they are unwell. No one should have to choose between their health and their financial security, which is why my amendment would immediately raise SSP to around 67% of the average weekly wage, putting us on a par with many of our European counterparts.
My new clause 102 is about ensuring fairness. Although I welcome the Government’s proposed system, the reality is that 300,000 workers may actually end up worse off than they are today. Those who earn slightly above the current lower earnings limit of £123 up to £146 per week would receive 80% of their earnings, which is lower than the SSP rate that they would receive today.
We cannot allow anyone to be left behind. Although removing the waiting period puts more money in people’s pockets from the beginning of the illness period, workers taking more than four weeks off due to long-term conditions, going through cancer treatment, recovering from serious operations or suffering from mental health crises will face the biggest losses under the new system.
Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)
Research has found that the cost of presenteeism to the private sector in mental ill health alone is £24 billion a year. Does my hon. Friend agree that shows that reforming our statutory sick pay is the most pro-prosperity, pro-productivity policy that we can pursue?
Imran Hussain
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and he makes the case brilliantly against some of the nonsense arguments about productivity that we have heard from the Conservative Benches today. It is the right thing to do, but also it will lead to much improved productivity and a better, healthier, happier workforce, as well as being much better for the employer.
My amendment and new clause would ensure that every worker receives, at the very least, the same amount of sick pay that they would have done under the current system, and not a penny less. I urge the Government to support them, as they are very much in the spirit of this legislation.
Claire Hanna (Belfast South and Mid Down) (SDLP)
I congratulate my hon. Friend and his colleagues on advancing the Bill—eight months into their mandate, we are at the remaining stages. In Northern Ireland, 13 months after restoration, the proposed NI “good jobs” Bill has not even been introduced, and doubt is growing as to whether it will pass in this mandate. Once again, workers and businesses in Northern Ireland are paying the cost of dither and lack of ambition. Does he agree that those same barriers to people on sick pay also apply to women on maternity leave? Would he support in principle my new clause 23, which would raise statutory maternity pay for women in work to the living wage for the later parts of maternity leave?
Imran Hussain
Absolutely. My hon. Friend makes the case brilliantly. I would support that in principle, because the challenges are exactly the same. I said at the beginning of my speech that many of the amendments, if not all—not the ones tabled by the Opposition, but the reasonable ones from the Government Benches—are constructive and designed to improve the Bill further.
My hon. Friend the Minister and I have had the great pleasure of working together for many months on the Bill, so he will know that I come from a position of sincerity to strengthen the Bill further. I fully understand that amendment 7 is a probing amendment, which will not be voted on in Lobbies. However, it does reflect the ambition that we should rightly have because it is shameful, frankly, that we are in the situation of offering among the lowest statutory sick pay. Our partners across Europe, quite rightly, are much better on this.
I ask the Minister to seriously consider new clause 102. Again, it does not ask for any immediate action today; it asks the Government to come back to the House in three months to report back that nobody will be worse off as a result of these measures. I do not think that is ever an intended consequence of the Government’s excellent measures, so I look forward to my hon. Friend engaging with me further on that.
Finally, I want to end by paying tribute to the millions of workers who are the backbone of our economy. It is my hope that, with the amendments and new clauses that we have proposed today, we can take significant steps towards a society that rewards workers instead of punishing them, that treats them with dignity instead of malice, and where no one must choose between their health and their livelihood.
Ian Byrne (Liverpool West Derby) (Lab)
I place proudly on the record that I am currently a member of Unite and GMB. I refer hon. Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I take the opportunity to pay tribute to my good friend Terry Jones, a brilliant Scouse trade unionist who sadly passed away this morning. He supported the Bill wholeheartedly.
Forty-five years after Margaret Thatcher began her war on trade unions, the Bill is hugely welcome and long overdue. It is a step to turn back the tide and strengthen the power of workers. In a former life as an industrial organiser for Unite the union, I saw how difficult it was to build industrial strength in workplaces because of the restrictive legislation supported by previous Governments of all colours. The Bill will hopefully begin at long last to turn back that tide.
Hon. Members have already discussed key measures in the Bill, and there is so much to welcome. I congratulate the Minister on his efforts in getting the Bill to this place, and I also congratulate him and his team on taking two points off Arsenal, which helped us no end on Sunday.
The Bill needs to be not the end, though, but the beginning of a renewal of trade union rights. If we want to tackle the injustices done to the working class from low pay and poverty to sordid inequality, we need to empower the institutions that were founded to fight for the working class. Be in no doubt about the scale of the problem: 60% of those who use the nine food pantries run across Liverpool are in work, including public sector workers from nurses to Department for Work and Pensions workers. Let that sink in: 60% of those relying on emergency food aid are in work. That tells us how broken the labour market is for so many people.
Economic growth goes hand in hand with fixing the broken economic settlement, hence the importance of the Bill. I will focus my comments on the amendments but, for the record, tomorrow we will debate two new clauses that I have tabled about upholding trade union rights and outsourcing. My amendments for debate today—amendments 326 and 327—are aimed at strengthening protections against unfair dismissals, but in my brief time I will focus on amendments tabled by colleagues.
My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald) has tabled a series of crucial amendments to strengthen the Bill. He deserves a huge amount of credit for getting the Bill to this place. His amendments include amendments 265 to 267, which would enhance the Bill’s provisions against zero-hours contracts. Those contracts leave workers with precious little control over their lives, allowing bosses to dictate shifts with little or no notice, with workers vulnerable to gross exploitation. It is no wonder that workers overwhelmingly prefer regular contracts. For example, when Wetherspoons introduced the option of guaranteed hours for its workforce, 99% of workers opted for that, with just 1% choosing the zero-hours contract model. The amendments would help ensure that when we say we are banning exploitative zero-hours contracts, we actually mean it.
My hon. Friend has also tabled new clauses 62 to 65, which would strengthen the Bill’s protections against the disgraceful practice of fire and rehire. I saw in my own family the devastating impact that this cruel practice can have in destroying livelihoods when my brother was a victim of fire and rehire at British Gas. This immoral practice should never again be able to be used by rogue employees as a weapon against the working classes of this country. I fully support those strengthening new clauses.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain) has tabled amendment 7, which would raise statutory sick pay to the level of the national living wage, and new clause 102, which would guarantee that workers do not lose out under the new fair earnings replacement proposals. We should have learned from the pandemic that no one should be forced into work when they are ill. Those amendments and others would help to make that a reality. I really hope that the Minister and Front-Bench Members are listening.
The devastating consequences of Thatcherism’s assault on working-class communities and trade unions are seen in towns and cities across the country. Once vibrant industrial towns have been hollowed out and industries destroyed, with insecure work replacing well-paid, unionised jobs. The never-ending doom loop must be broken if we are to rebuild communities that at the moment feel forgotten, betrayed and abandoned by successive Governments since Thatcher. The Bill must be a decisive step in breaking away from a failed settlement and finally building a country that works for us all.
Lola McEvoy
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am a proud trade union member and in my career, I have campaigned for more rights for support staff and teaching assistants in schools, for better bargaining rights for care workers, for people to have contracts that affect the hours they work and for statutory sick pay from day one. I am proud that the Bill will deliver all those things—and much more—for working people up and down the country.
I rise to speak to the issue of parental leave, which has come up in relation to many amendments and in contributions from Members across the House. Since I was elected in July, I have spoken three times in the Chamber about the terrible inequality around dads’ rights and paternity pay, including in my maiden speech during the International Men’s Day debate and again in the debate on this Bill in last October. I therefore welcome the clauses that support dads’ rights and will encourage more men to take their paternity leave entitlements.
Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and declare that I am a proud member of the GMB.
I stand to speak against amendment 289, which would exclude the hospitality sector and sports venues from the Bill’s duty for employers not to permit harassment of their employees. The first time I was harassed at work was when I was 14 years old, waiting tables at a charity event. The second time was when I was 16, in a bistro, except this time I was being paid for the experience. After that, it was when I was a student working in a bar, then when I worked in a canteen, and then in a warehouse. It is because of that experience—one shared by people of both sexes and all ages, but particularly the young and particularly women, across this country—that I was, I am not going to lie, absolutely gobsmacked by the amendment tabled by the shadow Secretary of State for Business and Trade, the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith), to the protection from harassment clause, which would exclude those working in the hospitality sector or sports venues.
The Conservative party is arguing that some kind of harassment is okay and that if you are working in the hospitality sector or in a sports venue, it is fine. Tories seem to believe that if you go to a pub, your right to harass bar staff is greater than their right not to be harassed. I have to say, that is quite an extraordinary thing to argue for, but I am glad that they are at least being honest with us. Jobs in hospitality often involve insecure work on low pay that is reliant on tips. In Margate, Ramsgate and Broadstairs, thousands of people work in jobs like that, and I do not see why it should be deemed acceptable for them to be harassed in their job, but not people who work in an office.
Jon Pearce (High Peak) (Lab)
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and I am a proud member of the GMB. Does my hon. Friend agree that even more concerning are the calls from the Opposition Benches, and particularly from the former Home Secretary, the right hon. and learned Member for Fareham and Waterlooville (Suella Braverman), for the Equality Act to be scrapped, which would mean that laws covering sexual harassment and equal pay would be completely removed from the workplace? This is a really troubling agenda from the Conservatives, and I believe it is in keeping with this amendment.
Ms Billington
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. It is indeed a very worrying direction of travel from the Conservatives.
We on the Labour Benches think that people should not be allowed to harass any workers. I honestly did not expect this to be a controversial aspect of the Bill for the Conservatives. Perhaps I am being uncharitable, so I would really appreciate it if the shadow Secretary of State, who is now in his place, could answer a few questions. When did it become Conservative party policy to allow staff to be harassed? Why does that apply only to staff working in hospitality and sports venues and not to all workers? Why is it all right to harass bar staff but not office staff?
Alison Griffiths
I know that the hon. Lady has not been in the Chamber for most of the debate, so she will have missed many of the discussions where my hon. Friends have explained the nuance of our position on this, which relates to the law of unintended consequences where publicans and nightclub owners could be responsible for policing the words of their customers. That is clearly not a tenable situation, but I will repeat the words of all of my colleagues on this side of the House: sexual harassment is abhorrent. We do not condone it in any shape or form, and I ask her to withdraw the insinuation that anyone on this side of the House has any truck with such behaviour.
Ms Billington
I would like to emphasise that I listened closely to the opening speeches when the hon. Lady’s colleagues were talking about amendment 289. I heard clearly, for example, some confusion over whether sexual harassment was a crime or a civil offence, so I will not take any lessons from the Conservatives on their understanding of employment law or, indeed, what is considered acceptable at work.
The amendment is utterly disgraceful. I am proud that this Labour Government have brought forward a Bill to stop workers being harassed wherever they work. It is just a shame that the Conservative party does not agree. The hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith), and apparently the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Alison Griffiths), think that it is wrong that pub landlords will have to be responsible for kicking out customers. He talked about it being a “banter ban”, but pub managers have always known the importance of keeping rowdy behaviour in limits and protecting their staff and customers from being pestered or being made the unwilling butt of so-called jokes. This law—
Ms Billington
No, I will not give way.
This law will strengthen their hand. I say, in the words of the greatest pub manager of all time—Peggy Mitchell—to the proposers of the amendment, “Get outta my pub!”
Dr Jeevun Sandher (Loughborough) (Lab)
What a speech to follow. I cannot quite claim to be Peggy Mitchell, but I will try to live up to that brilliant remark.
I rise as a proud member of the GMB. I happily refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I will speak to new clauses 37 and 38, which relate to part 3 of the Bill. They will strengthen the bargaining power of social workers and, by doing so, create a stronger working relationship between employees and employers that both sides will invest more in. That means higher wages for those who look after our parents, more training and a healthier social care workforce. Both sides will invest more; both sides will benefit more. Pro-worker, pro-business, pro-growth—that is what these amendments and this Bill will achieve.
Before entering this place, I was a trade union rep, and I worked with my colleagues to help stop a 33% pay cut in my workplace. Workers speaking with one voice meant a happier and more productive workplace—one voice to set out what it means to increase productivity. That is why this is a pro-growth Bill.
Social care workers are among the lowest paid in our economy. One in six are legally paid less than the minimum wage. Little proper certification, reward or recognition for skills means that there is little training. Poor conditions mean that almost half suffer from work-related stress. Low pay, little progression and poor conditions are the reasons why a third of social care workers leave the sector each year. That is what this Bill and these new clauses will fix. The Adult Social Care Negotiating Body will mean more social care workers speaking as one voice, gaining higher wages, better conditions and more training. Those benefits do not just appear on payslips; they mean less time spent worrying about paying the bills, and more time with our families and reading to our children. They make workers more productive and benefit employers—they make life worth living.
Those on the Opposition Benches say that life cannot improve. They have talked a lot of fear instead of hope and the change we can achieve. They will likely vote against our amendments and against the Bill. In doing so, they would deny their constituents better wages and, indeed, a better life. We cannot simply sit back and hope that wages rise, that training will magically appear, or that conditions will get better on their own. We have to act to make it so. The Bill and the amendments do exactly that by giving social care workers the power to speak with one voice to negotiate higher wages, better training and better conditions, benefiting employee and employer—pro-worker, pro-business and pro-growth. That is what the Bill stands for. That is what I stand for. That is what we stand for.
Neil Duncan-Jordan (Poole) (Lab)
I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
Having been a trade union activist for 40 years and a regional official, I have a genuine sense of pride in seeing the Bill make its way through Parliament. It is truly transformational and seeks to address the imbalance that has existed in the workplace for far too long. Many of the amendments before us strengthen existing rights so as to ensure that unscrupulous employers are unable to frustrate, delay or act unreasonably when dealing with their workforce, either collectively or as individuals.
Other amendments, such as new clause 101 in my name, seek to introduce new rights and protections for groups of workers who have hitherto been forgotten or overlooked. My new clause calls for the establishment of a regulatory body for foster carers. Currently, those who employ foster carers—local authorities, charities and independent fostering agencies—also serve as de facto regulators, with the power to register and de-register workers. That puts too much power in the hands of the employers, and, according to the foster carers branch of the Independent Workers Union of Great Britain, it illustrates a structure within the sector that fails to bring consistency, transparency, fairness or decent outcomes for the children and young people in their care.
A new regulatory body would therefore accredit educational institutions to provide standardised training courses. Once completed, those courses would remain on a carer’s work record. At the moment, every time a foster carer starts with a new provider, they are required to do the training again. That is both unnecessarily costly and time consuming. The body would also be responsible for maintaining a central register of foster care workers, and would ensure proper standards of care and deal with fitness-to-practice cases. As with the very best regulatory bodies, it would include those with lived experience of foster care.
One of the key roles of that proposed body would be to standardise the employment rights available to carers, such as maximum working hours, entitlement to statutory sick pay and protections against unfair dismissal, while also considering the important issue of collective sectoral bargaining. Through that, we would hope to see improvements in pay, minimum allowances, holidays and pension entitlements. As the UK continues to lose foster carers at an alarming rate, now is the time for that basic oversight, which will help to ensure we have enough safe and loving homes for the vulnerable children who need them.
My amendments 316 to 323 relate to the issue of redundancy. Over the years, I have negotiated with a number of employers over hundreds of redundancies, and I am seeking to improve the legislation based on that first-hand experience. Amendment 316 would require an employer to hold meaningful consultation even if they were preparing to make fewer than 20 staff redundant—something that many good employers already do, of course—whereas amendments 317 and 318 would introduce greater sanctions for those who fail to consult properly. Amendment 319 would treat workers dismissed under fire and rehire as having been made redundant and would ensure that they receive greater remuneration as a result.
Amendments 320 to 323 all seek to improve the level of redundancy pay by removing the 20-year cap on entitlements; by ensuring that someone with 10 years and six months’ service, for example, receives 11 years’ redundancy pay rather than 10; by basing the statutory redundancy calculation on months rather than weeks; and by ensuring those with less than two years’ service also have the right to redundancy payments.
Of course, there are many reasons why redundancies occur, but at the moment, the rules and sanctions around this issue enable some unscrupulous employers to exploit the situation and treat their staff unfairly. These amendments seek to address that imbalance, and I hope the Government will consider ways in which the issues I have highlighted can be included in the legislation.
Nadia Whittome
I am a proud trade unionist, and I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
I commend the Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister for introducing this landmark legislation, as well as my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald), who did a huge amount of work on it as shadow Minister. All of them have dedicated their lives to standing up for working people, and this Bill is a culmination of that work and the work of trade unionists over many, many years.
I would like to speak in support of new clause 73. My own experience of taking time off work as an MP and the contrast with the experience of those on statutory sick pay made it clear just how badly reform is needed. Some years ago, when I needed to take a leave of absence because of the severity of my post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms, I received full pay and a phased return, but for many workers, that is a million miles from their experience. The UK has some of the worst sick pay entitlements in Europe. The fact that the Bill means that sick pay will be paid from day one, instead of after day three, is very welcome, as is the removal of the eligibility threshold, increasing access for more than 1 million low-paid workers. However, we must acknowledge that without increasing the rate, the low level of statutory sick pay will continue to place a terrible burden on those who are already poorly paid. That is why amendment 7, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain), is so important.
Those are far from the only issues. Another problem is the inflexibility of statutory sick pay, and that is why I have worked with the mental health charity Mind to table new clause 73. More than 8 million working-age people have long-term health conditions and experience challenges at work. Statutory sick pay currently does not allow for a proper phased return or for workers to reduce their hours during periods of ill health. Statutory sick pay can only be paid for a full day of sickness. If a worker needs a half day, for instance, SSP cannot be used to cover the hours they are not working.
If we force people to return to work before they are ready, whether that is because they cannot afford to remain on statutory sick pay or because a phased return is not an option for them, they are far more likely to be trapped in a cycle of poor mental wellbeing and to fall out of work completely. New clause 73 would mean that sick pay was paid pro rata, by hours rather than days, to allow for that greater flexibility.
Years of successive Government reviews have come to the same conclusion: a flexible statutory sick pay model would improve lives and better support people to remain in work. I have appreciated Ministers’ engagement with me on this issue, and I hope the Government will commit to looking at it further, especially as the cost to the Government would only be administrative. However, the impact it would have on people’s lives is huge.
The Labour movement fought long and hard for the right to sick pay and proper support for those with long-term illness and disability, whether in work or not, because our movement and our party exists to stand up for the whole of the working class. At a time when more people are affected by sickness and disability, it is crucial that this Government support them and do not scapegoat them for the failures and the political choices of the Conservative party.
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)
As a young worker in the late 1980s, I experienced the precarious nature of the world of work, along with many of my peers. Lack of knowledge about our rights and the fear of being sacked if we complained about our terms and conditions politicised me and made me a lifelong trade unionist and a member of Unite and Unison. I wish to speak to new clause 92, on rolled-up holiday pay for irregular hours workers and part-year workers, and new clause 93, entitled “Working Time Regulations 1998: records”, which are tabled in my name. Like most colleagues in this House, and along with the trade union movement and the millions of workers who will benefit from its provisions, I warmly welcome the Bill and thank everyone who has campaigned for it long and hard.
The majority of people spend a huge portion of their lives in work. Work should be an opportunity to be fulfilled, to live fully, to support ourselves and our family, to develop as individuals, and to contribute to society. In reality, however, for too long and for too many the world of work has been, and is, a world of uncertainty and ruthless exploitation, often stripping people of their dignity and their worth. For millions there is a struggle to obtain secure work, and that strengthens the hand of employers to drive a hard bargain to benefit their balance sheet and their profits. For those who can secure work, working life can remain unclear and insecure. It can include irregular and uncertain employment, uncertainty about hours, payment, and vital matters such as holiday pay and entitlement. While others in the House boast of their endless push for so-called flexible labour markets, the reality is very different for those on the other side of the employment contract—for the workers.
The previous Government spoke about cutting so-called red tape, when they really meant reducing people’s working rights and strengthening the powers of boardroom billionaires. My proposed new clauses are in relation to certain sectors, although they would benefit all workers. It is widely known and acknowledged that some employers use so-called rolled-up holiday pay as a device to tackle their obligations to provide paid time off for holidays. Holidays and breaks from work are essential for workers, and a recognised factor in delivering an effective organisation in the public and private sectors. So-called rolled-up holiday pay is a mechanism by which an employer adds holiday pay to basic pay throughout the working year, but does not provide it separately at the time of taking the holiday. It is acknowledged, including by ACAS, that that creates a risk that a worker may feel under pressure not to take any holiday, or to take less holiday than they are entitled to. That is particularly a risk for those who work in sectors of the economy where the work is irregular, and along with that, their work also tends to be lower paid. The pressure on such workers is immense. New clause 92 seeks to address that risk—a risk accepted and addressed by rulings from the European Court of Justice.
New clause 93 would ensure that working time is accurately recorded by employers. Colleagues across the House may recall that the recordkeeping requirements under the Working Time Regulations 1988 were watered down by amendments tabled by the previous Government in November 2023, following the UK’s withdrawal from the EU. They believed that it was too cumbersome to require employers to maintain accurate records on behalf of employees, referring to it as “time consuming” and “disproportionate reporting.” What a load of rubbish. With advances in modern technology, there is no excuse for an employer to fail to accurately and precisely keep records of the working time contributed by a worker. The onus of managing records should be shifted from employees to allow them to focus on their own roles without added administrative requirements.
This Government’s Employment Rights Bill will deliver a new deal for working people, and I wholeheartedly support it, but I urge the Minister to take account of the issues I have raised and to accept new clauses 92 and 93, which would strengthen the Bill’s provisions and increase protection for the sections of workers who need it the most.
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, and I am a proud member of Community.
It is an honour to speak as this landmark Bill hopefully passes its next stage, finally bringing to an end an era of insecurity and low pay under the Conservative party. This landmark Bill brings in day one rights for workers, a fair pay agreement for social care workers and greater entitlement to statutory sick pay. My speech will focus on and highlight the way in which the Bill and some of its amendments strengthen the rights of care workers and carers, the majority of whom are women.
We have heard already in this debate many proposals from hon. Members on the Government Benches to go further than the excellent proposals before us to strengthen day one rights for employees. My hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen) spoke movingly about pregnancy loss and bereavement, and, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy), talked about the need for stronger entitlements to parental leave. All of that will have a really positive impact, particularly on women.
I draw attention particularly to the day one right that strengthens flexible working by default. I invite the Minister to consider giving guidance to employers that they should require flexible working to be advertised. The Fawcett Society has made a particularly strong case for the importance of that for women, and I know that that is also true for carers. If, before applying for a job, they do not know that they can secure that flexibility, many will not even apply. Some 40% of women who are not currently working said that if flexible work was available to them, it would enable them to do paid work, so we are missing out on huge potential for businesses.
The Fawcett Society survey in 2023 said that 77% of women agreed that they would be more likely to apply for a job that advertises flexible working options, while 30% had had to turn down a job offer when employers were unable to offer the flexible working that they needed. While the Bill makes excellent provisions, I urge the Minister to respond on how we can implement that in practice, so that carers and particularly women can have the confidence to apply for jobs and know that they can have those flexible working requirements.
Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)
I thank the hon. Lady for her warm words about carers. Will she therefore support Liberal Democrat new clause 10, which would make paid carer’s leave an entitlement?
Anna Dixon
The hon. Gentleman may know that I am the co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on carers. We are very pleased that there are now unpaid leave requirements for carers; on other occasions, I have urged the Government to look into going further with paid entitlements for carers. There is a real opportunity to enable the 3 million carers in paid employment to remain in employment and to stop the loss of an estimated 600 people per day who leave work due to their caring responsibilities. While that is not part of this Bill, hopefully the Government and the Minister will respond to that.
That is the first area of the Bill that I really welcome. The second, which has huge benefit for care workers, is its provisions on pay and conditions through pay agreements. I echo some of the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Dr Sandher), who is no longer in his place, about the huge benefits that these will bring to so many of our valued adult social care staff.
The establishment of the new Fair Work Agency will ensure that everyone is playing by the same rules, and strengthening powers to deal with modern slavery and labour abuse will further extend protections to care workers. Many care workers have come to this country on overseas visas and, having paid extortionate fees in their country of origin, have found themselves tied into accommodation here, on zero-hours contracts and being exploited by the care companies. As such, the provisions in the Bill are very welcome. We know that too many care workers live in poverty; research by the Health Foundation suggests that one in five care workers cannot afford the essentials, either for themselves or for their children. I am proud to be sitting on the Labour Benches as we bring forward fair pay agreements, along with the abolition of exploitative zero-hours contracts, which will finally provide security for our valued social care workers.
In implementing these changes, it is really important that we establish a framework to help home care workers in particular—some of whom I met recently—who are not paid for their travel time or their sleep-in hours, despite the fact that such practices should be illegal. As we take forward the fair pay agreement in adult social care, I urge the Minister to work with colleagues to ensure it is accompanied by an ethical charter for care providers to sign up to. This Government have already shown how serious they are about valuing those who do so much to care for, and provide support to, disabled adults and older people in this country.
The third area I want to mention, which other colleagues have talked about and which my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain) has addressed in his new clause 102—[Interruption.] Madam Deputy Speaker, I keep looking at the clock. I believe there is an issue; would you please advise me on my remaining time?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Yes, the clock has stopped. You started at 7 pm, but you did take an intervention, so I think you can go for one more minute.
Anna Dixon
Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Very briefly, I am delighted that the Government are strengthening statutory sick pay. During covid, many care workers were forced to go into work—at their own risk, and risking those they were caring for—because they were not eligible for statutory sick pay, so strengthening it is an excellent move.
In conclusion, this Bill, together with the proposed Government amendments and some of those suggested by my hon. Friends, will ensure that the 1.5 million people working in adult social care can get fair pay, guaranteed hours, statutory sick pay and day one rights. It is good for workers, and it is good for women.
Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)
I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my Unison membership.
I welcome the Bill, which is a once-in-a-generation chance to give more power to working people—including those in Ealing Southall—and I support the Government amendments to provide decent sick pay to 1.3 million low-paid workers. I do not support the Opposition’s amendments, which attempt to tie us up in knots in an effort to block working people from getting the rights they should be entitled to.
I particularly want to consider the impact of the Bill and the Government amendments on disabled people. Currently, almost 3 million people are off work long-term sick—a record high. Of course, some of those are disabled people who are unable to work. However, there are also many disabled people who desperately want to work, but who have been kicked out of their job because their employer refused to make simple changes that would allow them to succeed.
In my previous role as national disability officer for the country’s biggest trade union, Unison, we worked with Disability Rights UK and Scope to develop the disability employment charter. That charter is a list of improvements to help disabled people get, and keep, employment. Over 240 employers, both large and small, signed up to say that they backed the ideas in the charter—they backed disabled workers’ rights—but the previous Conservative Government saw it all as red tape. They did not listen, and they refused to introduce those changes. They left millions of disabled people who want to work stuck on benefits, and the Opposition’s amendments today are just more of the same.
Those 240 employers that signed the disability employment charter, and the many disabled workers who have been pushed out of their jobs, will be heartened to see the changes being introduced in the new Employment Rights Bill. Many of those changes implement the demands of the charter, including allowing flexible working, more support for trade union disability reps, and strengthening sick pay. Those 240 employers would reject the Opposition’s many amendments whose aim is to frustrate this support for disabled workers.
People are often surprised to learn that low-paid workers are not entitled to statutory sick pay, and that unless the employer company has its own scheme, they can claim statutory sick pay only after three days of being ill. During the pandemic, that led to social care staff, in particular, feeling forced to work when they had covid, potentially passing the illness on. Lack of access to sick pay is a public health issue, and this new law will ensure that low-paid workers no longer have to choose between not being paid and going to work sick. It will also give disabled workers time off to recover from illness rather than struggling into work., becoming sicker, and potentially falling out of employment for the long term. Being paid to take a few days off to recover could save them, and the economy, a lifetime of being left on the scrapheap.
Deirdre Costigan
No, because many Members are waiting to speak.
I welcome Government amendments 80 to 85, which specify the level of sick pay that low-paid workers will now be able to expect from day one. I know that some employers wanted to pay a bit less and trade unions wanted a bit more, but 80% is a compromise. I certainly do not support the delaying tactics of the Opposition, who have sought impact appraisals that already exist and show that these changes will lead to an increase in productivity and growth if we can get disabled people working when they want to do so.
This transformative Bill responds to a key demand of the disability employment charter for a default right to flexible working. For many disabled workers, the ability to organise their hours around taking medication and dealing with pain or fatigue will mean being able to keep their job rather than ending up sick or being marched out of the door. In line with the charter, this new law also introduces paid time off for trade union equality representatives, a subject that I know we will discuss tomorrow. Negotiating reasonable adjustments can take time, and input from a trained person, whose priority is to keep the worker in his or her job, will make all the difference.
However, Unison research has established that nearly a quarter of disabled workers who asked their employers for reasonable adjustments waited a year or more for help, and some never even received a reply. You cannot do a job that causes you pain, or sets you up to fail, so it is no wonder that disabled people end up out of the door. The disability employment charter calls for a new right to a two-week deadline for at least receiving a reply to a reasonable adjustment request. Currently there is no deadline for such a response, although in the case of flexible working requests the employer must respond within eight weeks. I have had constructive discussions with the Minister for Social Security and Disability, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms), and I am hopeful that we may see such a deadline included in the “Get Britain Working” plan, which complements the Bill.
Many good employers already support disabled workers, and I pay tribute to the 240 who have backed the disability employment charter and rights for those workers. The Bill and the Government amendments will ensure that there is a level playing field, so that bad employers cannot undercut those who want to do the right thing. They will ensure that more disabled workers can keep jobs that they value, and can contribute to the growth that we need to get our economy working again.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I call Alex Sobel, and ask him to keep his remarks to four minutes.
Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)
I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, and my 28-year membership of the GMB union.
New clause 72, which stands in my name, would place a duty on employers to investigate whistleblowing concerns and establish internal channels for reporting and managing whistleblower disclosures. In recent years we have seen scandals rock the country in which whistleblowers raised the alarm at an early stage only for their warnings to be ignored and for disastrous consequences to follow. Scandals with thousands of victims, such as the Post Office Horizon case, the Grenfell Tower fire tragedy and the collapse of Carillion, involved whistleblowers raising the alarm only to face a wall of silence. We saw the very worst of that at Yorkshire cricket club in my constituency when Azeem Rafiq suffered years of racist harassment and abuse. Despite the number of players who admitted to racist remarks or actions, the club’s leadership refused to accept their mistakes and refused to release the full report, instead releasing an edited summary. Only when Azeem appeared before the Culture, Media and Sport Committee did the full scale of institutional racism at the club become known.
These failures have a tragic human cost, and they often place a significant strain on the taxpayer. According to the report “The Cost of Whistleblowing Failures”, the avoidable costs incurred owing to the failure to listen to whistleblowers in the Post Office Horizon, Carillion and Letby cases was £426 million.
It is unacceptable for the taxpayer to have to bear the burden of failed systems and a failed legislative framework, which is why we need a new legal duty on employers to investigate whistleblowing. New clause 72 would ensure that employers must take “reasonable steps” to investigate any protected disclosure made to them. It would compel large employers to establish internal channels and appropriate procedures for reporting. By ensuring that disclosures are investigated, we can prevent scandals such as Horizon from occurring and ensure that harm in the workplace is dealt with early. The new clause is proudly pro-worker and pro-business, and would tackle one of the long-standing issues with our current whistleblowing legal framework for workers. The status quo provides only an after-the-event remedy for whistleblowers, and this new clause would ensure that there are channels for whistleblowers from the start.
Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)
I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and the fact that I am a proud trade union member. I give my full support to the measures in this landmark Bill.
In Derby we make things, from nuclear reactors that power submarines to the trains, cars and aeroplane engines that get people and goods where they need to go, and food production operations that help put food on our tables. We do not just have large companies with big economies of scale; we also have thousands of small and medium-sized companies. Many businesses that I have visited—large and small—are investing in their workforce, want to pay them properly and want to provide stable, secure work that enables their employees to build lives and families, but they want a level playing field so that they are not undercut by competitors that do not play by the rules, that avoid their responsibilities and that exploit those who work for them.
When people are stuck in insecure, low-paid work, planning for their future is impossible. It is wrong that so many people have no idea whether they will have five hours of work or 50 in a week, wrong that they have no idea whether they will earn enough to pay their bills, and wrong that they can have paid for childcare, be on a bus to work and get a call saying they are no longer needed. What is shocking is that we have 2.4 million people in irregular work, such as those on zero-hours or low-hours contracts, or in agency jobs. I am proud that this Government, through this Bill, are taking action to end exploitative zero-hours contracts, and that amendments 32 and 33 will ensure that agency workers are also protected.
On Second Reading of this groundbreaking Bill, I spoke about the importance of enforcement. A right is not worth the paper it is written on unless it is enforced; and the provisions that we make, the guidance that we set and the laws that we pass are only as strong as the enforcement.
For part of my career as a barrister, I had the honour of representing working people, but I always knew that for the many who did seek justice through tribunals, there were many who did not feel able to take action. The Low Pay Commission has found that low-paid and exploited workers can be reluctant to speak out about abuses of their rights. Last year we celebrated the 25th anniversary of a Labour Government bringing in the national minimum wage, but the Low Pay Commission estimates that one in five workers receiving it were not provided with the correct pay in 2022.
On Second Reading, I called for the strengthening of the Fair Work Agency, which will enforce the national minimum wage, statutory sick pay and a wide range of rights, such as holiday pay, so that everyone plays by the same rules. I am hugely pleased to see that new clauses have been tabled that would strengthen the powers of the Fair Work Agency. As we will talk about tomorrow, new clause 57 would give the agency powers to bring proceedings to an employment tribunal on behalf of workers. That could make a huge difference for workers, and it helps protect businesses from being undercut by acting as a real deterrent. The sooner that these measures are in place, the sooner enforcement can begin and justice can be delivered, and this will bring us better protections, better productivity and better growth.
Justin Madders
First, I think I need to mention that my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead Central and Whickham (Mark Ferguson) is celebrating his 40th birthday today, and what a great way to spend his birthday. He is one of the people who have worked tirelessly over many years in different guises to help us get where we are today.
Given the number of speeches and contributions, it is just not going to be possible to pay tribute to everyone in the time I have, or indeed to reference every speech and every amendment, but I will do my best to cover as much as possible.
I will start with my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Nadia Whittome), whose new clause 73 relates to significant structural changes to the statutory sick pay system. I thought she made a very personal and persuasive speech, and I agree with her that phased returns to work are an effective tool in supporting people to stay in or return to work, helping to reduce the flow into economic inactivity and the cost to businesses of sickness absence. By removing the waiting period, employees will be entitled to statutory sick pay for every day of work missed. This better enables phased returns to work—for example, by supporting someone who normally works five days a week to work a three-day week, being paid SSP for the other two days. That simply would not have been possible under the existing system. We are committed to continuing to work closely with employees and employers to develop and implement a system that is fair, supportive and effective in kick-starting economic growth and breaking down barriers to opportunity, and we will continue to have conversations about that.
Turning to new clause 102 from my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain), I pay tribute to him for his work as a shadow Minister in this area. The changes we are bringing in through this Bill mean that up to 1.3 million low-paid employees will now be entitled to statutory sick pay, and all eligible employees will be paid from the first day of sickness absence, benefiting millions of employees. The new percentage rate is consistent with the structure used for other statutory payments. It is simple to understand and implement, and with the removal of waiting periods, the internal modelling from the Department for Work and Pensions shows that most employees, even those who may nominally earn less per week, will not be worse off over the course of their sickness absence.
I believe the speech by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Heeley (Louise Haigh) was her first from the Back Benches, and I do not think she will be on them for very long if she continues to make such contributions. I thought it was an excellent speech, and the way she spoke about her constituent Mr B really hammered home the importance of tackling non-disclosure agreements. I would like to pay tribute to her ongoing efforts to ensure that victims of misconduct and bullying can speak up about their experiences, and get the help and support they need.
I want to thank the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) for originally tabling the amendment, and for meeting me last week to share, sadly, another horrific story about the abuse of NDAs. I also thank the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) for her contribution in this area.
There are legitimate uses of NDAs, but I want to be clear—we have heard too many examples of this today—that they should not be used to silence victims of harassment or other misconduct. I understand that hon. Members want to ensure equal protection in relation to NDAs concerning harassment across the economy, and I absolutely hear what they have said. However, we have to acknowledge that this would be a far-reaching change, and it would be to take a significant step without properly engaging with workers, employers and stakeholders, and assessing the impact on sectors across the economy. I want to reiterate that I recognise that non-disclosure agreements are an important question that warrants further consideration, and we will continue to look at the issues raised. My right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Heeley said that she wants me to go further, and I look forward to engaging with her and with organisations such as Can’t Buy My Silence.
New clause 30, in the name of the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox), would give employees who are special constables the right to time off work to carry out their voluntary police duties. I join him in paying tribute to special constables, who make an invaluable contribution to policing across the country. It would not be appropriate, however, to support additional legislation on this matter without a comprehensive analysis on the impact such a change could bring to policing. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we debated it in Committee and my officials have been in discussion with colleagues at the Home Office to learn more about the topic. Further engagement is continuing with the staff association for special constables and the Association of Special Constabulary Officers. I recognise that the legislation is now half a century old and needs a considerable look. We cannot support the amendment tonight, but I am glad that there is at least one Member on the Conservative Benches who supports increasing employment rights.
Turning to new clause 7, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy), I want to start by recognising the key role that paternal leave plays in supporting working families. The arrival of a child is transformative for all parents. The Government understand and value the vital role that fathers and partners play in raising children, and we want to support them to do that. I commend my hon. Friend for her work in this area.
We already have a statutory framework in place that guarantees eligible employed fathers and partners a protected period of paternity leave, ensuring that they cannot be required to work while claiming that leave, or be discriminated against by their employer for taking it. However, I recognise what my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Lola McEvoy) said about the limitations on those protections. I also pay tribute to her for her work on this issue.
Paternity leave is available to the father of the child or the mother’s partner irrespective of their gender, and the leave can be taken by the father or partner at any point in the first year following the child’s birth or adoption. I acknowledge the wider point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington, which is that we need to do more to ensure that the parental leave system as a whole supports working families. As a Government, we have committed to doing that. I recently met The Dad Shift, Pregnant then Screwed and Working Families to discuss that very issue.
Through the Bill, we are making paternity leave and unpaid parental leave day one rights, meaning that employees will be eligible to give notice of their intent to take leave from their first day of employment, removing any continuity of service requirement. That brings them both into line with maternity leave and adoption leave, simplifying the system. We are also committed to reviewing the parental leave system. The review will be conducted separately from this Bill. Work is already under way across Government on planning for its delivery and will commence before Royal Assent. We are scoping the work already under way across the Department for Work and Pensions, the Department for Business and Trade, and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. We of course want and expect to engage widely with stakeholders as part of that review process, and I would expect my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow to engage with us in that respect.
New clause 6, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon), would partially reinstate, to the Equality Act 2010, a similar measure that was sponsored by the previous Labour Government. This Government continue to have sympathy with its aims. We all know that the statutory questionnaire was sometimes found to be a helpful, informative tool. While the Government will not support new clause 6, we will be giving close consideration to the impact of the repeal of the statutory questionnaire and any steps that may be needed during this Parliament.
Ms Creasy
I am very pleased to hear confirmation that the review into parental rights, which I understand will begin in June, will go ahead. The Minister talks about stakeholders. Will he confirm whether they will include our trade union colleagues, because many of us are very happy to withdraw our amendments tonight on the basis that working people can be part of the conversation?
Justin Madders
I would fully expect us to consult with all relevant parties, so I do not think my hon. Friend need have any worries in that respect.
I pay tribute to two people who have been instrumental in shaping our thoughts on this issue: my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne). They tabled amendments on employment status. It is important to say that we are taking action in respect of those who work for umbrella companies. We have been clear that some reforms in the plan to make work pay will take longer to undertake and implement. We see consulting on a simpler two-part framework as a longer-term goal, but I assure them both that I remain committed to that. I also hear what my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East says in relation to his concerns about fire and rehire. We will be looking very closely at how our reforms work in practice.
New clause 17 seeks to create a legal definition of kinship care to be used to establish eligibility for kinship care leave. New clause 18 aims to establish a new kinship care leave entitlement for employed kinship carers, with a minimum of 52 weeks of leave available for eligible employees. I am pleased to say that the Government’s Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill will, for the first time, create a legal definition of kinship care for the purposes of specific measures in the Bill. By defining kinship care in law, the legislation will ensure that all local authorities have a clear and consistent understanding of what constitutes kinship care. I am also pleased to say that the Government have recently announced a £40 million package to trial a new kinship allowance. This is the single biggest investment made by this Government in kinship care to date and will enable children to be raised within their communities by their extended families.
New clause 10—another Liberal Democrat new clause tabled by the hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling)—which we debated in Committee, would commit the Government to introducing an entitlement for employees with caring responsibilities to be paid their usual wage while taking carer’s leave. While we have stressed the Government’s commitment to supporting employed unpaid carers and I have been engaging with Ministers and relevant bodies on the matter, the Carer’s Leave Act 2023 only recently gave employed carers a new right to time off work to care for a dependant with a long-term care need, so we are reviewing this measure and considering whether further support is required.
I recognise that many of their amendments and new clauses come from a good place, but the Liberal Democrats have to decide whether they are going to be Manchester United or Manchester City; their speeches were littered with concerns about the increase in costs from the Bill, yet every new clause and amendment seems only to add to those costs. I understand that they are coming from a good place, but they have to decide whether or not they support the Bill. I hope they can make that decision before tomorrow night. At least the Liberal Democrats are here, unlike the new kids on the block, who are absent from the Benches behind them—I pay tribute to them for actually turning up today.
I will now address the points raised by the Opposition on harassment, as set out in amendments 288 and 289, in the name of the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith). Those amendments seek either to exclude the hospitality sector and sports venues from the Bill’s obligations for employers not to permit the harassment of their employees by third parties or to remove clause 18 altogether, thus depriving employees of protection from all types of harassment by third parties under the Equality Act. Let us be clear: this Government are committed to making workplaces and working conditions free from harassment, and we must therefore protect employees from third-party harassment.
I want to underline two important points in relation to clause 18. First, on the expectations it places on employers, I would like to assure the House that employers cannot and are not expected to police or control every action of third parties; instead, employers simply need to do what is reasonable. What is reasonable will, of course, depend on the specific circumstances of the employer. Further, the steps that an employer can reasonably take in respect of the actions of third parties in its workplace are clearly more limited than the steps it can take in respect of its employees, and employment tribunals will, of course, take that into account when considering the facts of the case.
The second point relates to the threshold for what constitutes harassment. Far too often, I have heard objections to clause 18 implying that employers will be liable if their staff are offended by comments made by third parties, which is not the case at all—a fact reflected, I think, by the Conservatives supporting a similar measure in the previous Parliament. In his opening remarks, the shadow Minister asked what evidence there was that this clause was needed. The NHS staff survey for 2023 revealed that a quarter of all staff had suffered harassment, bullying or abuse from patients or service users, while a Unite survey said that 56% of its members had suffered third-party harassment. Presumably that is why UKHospitality, in its written evidence to the Bill Committee, said that it supported the measures in principle. I will work with them to ensure that we protect everyone in the sector, because I believe that everyone who works in this country deserves protection from harassment. I think it is incredible that the Opposition cannot see a problem with arguing against that.
I will turn to new clause 105 on substitution clauses, which was tabled by the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy). I think it is fair to say that we are aware of the risks. I have been working closely with the Minister for Border Security on illegal working by irregular migrants in the gig economy and the role that substitution clauses play in facilitating that. We will continue to work closely with the Home Office on this issue.
The Opposition also tabled new clause 87, which seeks to require the Secretary of State to have regard to the UK’s international competitiveness and economic growth when making any regulations under parts 1 and 2 of the Bill. The Government are already laser-focused on this key objective. Our plan to make work pay is a pro-growth package and sets out an ambitious agenda to deliver our plan for change by ensuring that employment rights are fit for a modern economy, empower working people and contribute to economic growth.
The plan will bring the UK back into line with our international competitors and directly address our low-growth, low-productivity and low-pay economy. [Interruption.] Conservative Members may be laughing, but they are the people who delivered that economy for so many years. International competitors and growth are at the heart of what we do. We will pay close attention to the potential impacts as we develop regulations to implement the measures in the Bill.
On small business support, I remind Members that I had a meeting with representatives from Inkwell, who said that introducing these changes will help create a happy and productive workplace and create a level playing field for employers. That is exactly what we want to achieve with the Bill. We understand that the best businesses want to look after their staff and that treating them well is good for business, good for workers and good for the wider economy. The Opposition’s narrow view seems to be that anything that is good for workers is automatically bad for businesses. We absolutely reject that analysis.
In conclusion, giving people a baseline of security and respect at work is fundamental. It is clear that we need a change from the system where people do not know what hours they will get from one week to the next, where people with caring responsibilities never get the same benefits of flexibility as their employers, where a minority of rogue employers can fire and rehire at will, and where care workers and teaching assistants have all been undervalued for far too long. It is time to end these injustices. It is time to make work pay.
Employment Rights Bill
Wednesday 12th March 2025
(1 year ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Employment Rights Act 2025 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 12 March 2025 - large print - (12 Mar 2025)
17:47 - The House divided: - Ayes: 337 / Noes: 98 - Question accordingly agreed to.
18:12 - The House divided: - Ayes: 168 / Noes: 314 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:24 - The House divided: - Ayes: 164 / Noes: 324 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:37 - The House divided: - Ayes: 167 / Noes: 328 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:51 - The House divided: - Ayes: 333 / Noes: 100 - Question accordingly agreed to.
19:16 - The House divided: - Ayes: 333 / Noes: 100 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Justin Madders)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government new clause 40—Political funds: requirement to pass political resolution.
Government new clause 41—Industrial action ballots: support thresholds.
Government new clause 42—Notice of industrial action ballot and sample voting paper for employers.
Government new clause 43—Period after which industrial action ballot ceases to be effective.
Government new clause 44—Power to give notice of underpayment.
Government new clause 45—Calculation of the required sum.
Government new clause 46—Period to which notice of underpayment may relate.
Government new clause 47—Notices of underpayment: further provision.
Government new clause 48—Penalties for underpayment.
Government new clause 49—Further provision about penalties.
Government new clause 50—Suspension of penalty where criminal proceedings have been brought etc.
Government new clause 51—Appeals against notices of underpayment.
Government new clause 52—Withdrawal of notice of underpayment.
Government new clause 53—Replacement notice of underpayment.
Government new clause 54—Effect of replacement notice of underpayment.
Government new clause 55—Enforcement of requirement to pay sums due to individuals.
Government new clause 56—Enforcement of requirement to pay penalty.
Government new clause 57—Power to bring proceedings in employment tribunal.
Government new clause 58—Power to provide legal assistance.
Government new clause 59—Recovery of costs of legal assistance.
Government new clause 60—Power to recover costs of enforcement.
New clause 8—Prison officers: inducements to withhold services—
“In section 127 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (Inducements to withhold services or to indiscipline)—
(a) in subsection (1), omit paragraph (a);
(b) omit subsection (1A);
(c) omit subsection (7).”
This new clause would repeal provisions in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 that prohibit inducing a prison officer to take (or continue to take) any industrial action.
New clause 9—Inducement of prison officers: exempted persons—
“After section 127A of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (inducements to withhold services or to indiscipline), insert—
“Section 127B: Prison officers and trade unions: exempted persons
Section 127 (inducements to withhold services or to indiscipline) does not apply to—
(a) Any listed trade union representing prison officers, or
(b) any person acting on behalf of a listed trade union representing prison officers.””
This new clause would repeal, with respect to trade unions representing prison officers, provisions that prohibit the inducement of industrial action or indiscipline by a prison officer.
New clause 19—Right to be accompanied—
“(1) Section 10 of the Employment Relations Act 1999 (right to be accompanied) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (3), after paragraph (b) insert—
“(ba) person who has been reasonably certified in writing by a Professional Body as having experience of, or as having received training in, acting as a worker’s companion at disciplinary or grievance hearings, or”
(3) After subsection (7) insert—
“(8) In this section, “Professional Body” means any organisation which is authorised by a regulation made by the Secretary of State pursuant to subsection (9).
(9) The Secretary of State may make a regulation or regulations authorising any organisation as a Professional Body for the purposes of this section.””
This new clause would expand the right to be accompanied by a certified companion at disciplinary and grievance hearings.
New clause 28—Enforcement against companies subject to insolvency or voluntary liquidation—
“(1) A Labour Market Enforcement Strategy under section 81 must include—
(a) the Secretary of State’s assessment of—
(i) the scale and nature of non-compliance with employment tribunal awards due to insolvency or voluntary liquidation during the period of three years ending immediately before the strategy period;
(ii) the scale and nature of such non-compliance involving phoenixing during the same period; and
(iii) the likely scale and nature of such non-compliance during the strategy period;
(b) a proposal for the strategy period setting out how enforcement functions of the Secretary of State are to be exercised in relation to such non-compliance.
(2) An annual report under section 82 must include―
(a) an assessment of the effect of the applicable strategy on the scale and nature of non-compliance with employment tribunal awards, including non-compliance due to insolvency or voluntary liquidation, and
(b) an assessment of the effect of the applicable strategy on the scale and nature of non-compliance involving phoenixing.
(3) For the purposes of this section, “phoenixing” means the practice of dissolving or otherwise closing a business and establishing a new one with a similar purpose, with the effect of avoiding the enforcement of employment tribunal awards or other debts.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to include, in the Labour Market Enforcement Strategy and annual reports under this Bill, information about non-compliance with employment tribunal awards by, and enforcement against, companies ordered to pay such awards that have been subject to insolvency or voluntary liquidation, including in instances in which the directors go on to set up a similar company to avoid enforcement.
New clause 29—Trade union representatives: right not to suffer career detriment—
“(1) In Part V of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (Protection from suffering detriment in employment), after section 47(1A), insert—
“(1B) This section applies where the detriment in question relates to matters of internal promotion or progression.”
(2) The Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 is amended in accordance with subsections (3) to (6).
(3) In the italic title before section 137, after “Access to employment”, add “and career progression”.
(4) After section 138, insert—
“138A Career progression
(1) An employer must ensure that any employee undertaking trade union representative duties does not experience detriment in matters of internal career progression as a result of the employee’s trade union activities.
(2) Where an employee who is a trade union representative has not been appointed to a more senior role, in circumstances in which the employee met the minimum criteria for the role and demonstrated that criteria through the application, the employer must provide a written statement.
(3) The written statement under subsection (2) must include evidence to demonstrate that the decision not to appoint the employee was not affected by the employee’s trade union activities.
138B Career progression: support for trade union representatives
An employer must have in place a policy to support the career progression of employees who are trade union representatives. The policy must set out―
(a) how the employees will be supported in matters of internal progression and promotion; and
(b) how the employer will consider trade union experience in assessing applications for more senior roles.””
(5) In section 140(1), after “section 138” insert “or 138A”.
(6) In section 142(1), after “section 138” insert “or 138A”.””
This new clause would enhance protections to trade union representatives, extending them to cover detriment in matters of career progression, and would require employers to demonstrate that they have not denied promotion to trade union representatives as a result of their trade union activities. It would also require employers to have a policy in place to support the career progression of employees who are trade union representatives.
New clause 31—Removal of secondary action provisions—
“In the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, omit section 224 (secondary action).”
New clause 64—Duties of trade unions—
“(1) The Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 219 (protection from certain tort liabilities), after subsection (4) insert—
“(5) But subsection (4) does not have effect in relation to any act in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute which relates wholly or mainly to proposals by an employer to vary terms and conditions of employment of two or more employees accompanied by the threat (explicit or implied) of dismissal if that variation is not agreed.””
New clause 65—Personal Liability for breach of tribunal orders—
“(1) Where, in relation to a body corporate—
(a) a financial order made by an employment tribunal or agreed by the claimant and the body corporate; or
-(b) an order of reinstatement or re-engagement made by an employment tribunal or agreed by the claimant and the body corporate
has not been fulfilled by the date specified in the order or agreement, without reasonable excuse, and that failure is proved—
(a) to have been committed with the consent or connivance of an officer of the body, or
(b) to be attributable to any neglect on the part of such an officer,
that officer shall be personally liable to reimburse the claimant in whose favour the order had been made or agreed.
(2) An officer found liable for reimbursement under subsection (1) may be disqualified as a director or prevented from becoming a director.”
New clause 66—Public sector contracting: trade union recognition—
“(1) The Procurement Act 2023 is amended as follows.
(2) In Part (2) (principles and objectives), after section 14A insert—
“14B Obligations of contractors to recognise trade unions
(1) The Secretary of State has a duty to ensure that any contract entered into by a—
(a) government department;
(b) executive agency of government;
(c) non departmental public body; or
(d) non Ministerial department,
is compliant with the requirements set out in subsection (2).
(2) A contract under subsection (1) must─
(a) recognise an independent trade union for the purposes of collective bargaining, and
(b) take steps to ensure that any sub-contractor to the contractor which carries out any obligation under the public contract recognises an independent trade union for the purposes of collective bargaining.
(3) For the purposes of this section, “recognises”, “independent trade union” and “collective bargaining” have the same meaning as in the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.
(4) An independent trade union may make a complaint against a contracting authority, which is a party to a public contract, that it or a contractor or sub-contractor which carries out any obligation under the public contract is in breach of the term in subsection (2).
(5) The complaint may be made to the Central Arbitration Committee.
(6) If the Central Arbitration Committee finds the complaint to be well founded, it shall grant a declaration to that effect.
(7) Where the Central Arbitration Committee makes a declaration in accordance with subsection (6), it shall order that the respondent contracting authority shall take whatever steps appear to the Central Arbitration Committee as necessary to ensure that the contracting authority and every contractor or sub-contractor which carries out any obligation under the public contract comply with the implied term in subsection (2).
(8) The steps that may be taken under subsection (7) include termination of the contract, which shall not be regarded as a breach of contract by the contracting authority concerned if a principal reason for the termination is compliance with an order of the Central Arbitration Committee under (7).
(9) An appeal lies on a point of law to the Employment Appeal Tribunal by either party to proceedings brought under subsection (5).””
New clause 67—Sectoral collective bargaining: 80 per cent coverage—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, lay before Parliament an action plan to achieve, within five years, that the principal terms and conditions of employment of at least 80 percent of workers in the United Kingdom are determined by collective agreement.
(2) The action plan under subsection (1) must be informed by consultation with organisations representing employers and trade unions.”
New clause 68—Sectoral collective bargaining: other sectors—
“(1) Regulations under this Act may include regulations for collective bargaining in other sectors of the economy.
(2) Regulations made under subsection (1)—
(a) may only be made following consultation with representatives of workers and employers in those sectors; and
(b) may provide that agreements reached by such collective bargaining shall apply to the workers and employers in the relevant sector save to the extent that a previous or subsequent collective agreement has provided a more favourable term or condition.”
New clause 69—Statement of trade union rights—
“Every employee, worker and self-employed person has the right—
(a) to join an independent trade union of his choice, subject only to its rules;
(b) to take part in the activities of an independent trade union at an appropriate time, subject only to its rules.”
New clause 70—Right of Trade Unions to Access Workplaces—
“In part 1 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (trade unions), before Chapter 5A, insert—
“Chapter 5ZA
RIGHT OF TRADE UNIONS TO ACCESS WORKPLACES
70ZA Right of access
(1) A designated official of an independent trade union shall have a right to enter premises occupied by an employer in order to access a workplace or workplaces, subject to the conditions set out below.
(2) An employer shall not—
(a) refuse entry to a designated trade union official seeking to exercise his or her right of access under sub-section (1), or
(b) otherwise obstruct such an official in the exercise of his or her right of access under sub-section (1).
(3) A “designated trade union official” means a person nominated by the trade union to exercise the right of access on its behalf.
70ZB Access purposes
(1) The right of access may be exercised for the access purposes.
(2) The access purposes are to—
(a) meet, represent, recruit or organize workers (whether or not they are members of a trade union); and
(b) facilitate collective bargaining.
70ZC Notice to employer
(1) The right of access may be exercised only after the designated official of an independent trade union has given notice of an intention to do so to the employer whose premises it is proposed to enter for the purposes of access to a workplace or workplaces.
(2) The notice must be—
(a) in writing; and
(b) given at least 24 hours before it is intended to exercise the right of access;
(3) The notice required to be given under subsection (2) shall—
(a) specify the purpose for which entry is sought; and
(b) identify the workers or categories of workers the designated official intends to meet, represent, recruit or organize.
(4) The right of access may be exercised without giving notice where there are exceptional circumstances such as to justify access without prior notice.
(5) Whether circumstances are exceptional shall be determined by having regard to the relevant provisions of a Code of Practice issued by ACAS.
70ZD Access conditions
(1) The right of access is subject to the following conditions.
(2) The right of access may be exercised—
(a) only at a reasonable time, and
(b) subject to reasonable conditions imposed by the employer.
(3) What is reasonable for the purposes of subsection (2) shall be determined by having regard to the relevant provisions of a Code of Practice issued by ACAS.
70ZE Dwellings
(1) The right of access does not apply to any part of premises which are used exclusively as a dwelling.
(2) Where sub-section (1) applies and only where sub-section (1) applies, the employer shall provide a reasonable, suitable, and alternative venue to enable the right of access to be exercised.
(3) What is reasonable and suitable for the purposes of subsection (2) shall be determined by having regard to the relevant provisions of a Code of Practice issued by ACAS.
70ZF Enforcement of right of access
(1) Where an employer refuses or obstructs access contrary to section 70ZA, a complaint may be made to the CAC by the trade union of which the designated official is a representative.
(2) Where the CAC finds the complaint to be well-founded it shall make a declaration to that effect and may make an order requiring the employer to comply with section 70ZA, subject to such conditions as the CAC may determine.
(3) If the CAC makes a declaration under subsection (2) the trade union may, within the period of three months beginning with the date on which the declaration is made, make an application to the Employment Appeal Tribunal for a penalty notice to be issued.
(4) Where such an application is made, the Employment Appeal Tribunal shall issue a written penalty notice to the employer requiring the employer to pay a penalty to the trade union in respect of each refusal or obstruction of access unless satisfied, on hearing representations from the employer, that the refusal or obstruction of access resulted from a reason beyond the employer’s control or that the employer has some other reasonable excuse.
(5) If the CAC makes an order under subsection (2) the order shall be recorded in the High Court and on being recorded may be enforced as if it were an order of the High Court.
70ZG Penalty notice
(1) A penalty notice issued under section 70ZF(4) shall specify—
(a) the amount of the penalty which is payable;
(b) the date before which the penalty must be paid; and
(c) the failure and period to which the penalty relates.
(2) A penalty set by the Employment Appeal Tribunal under section 70ZF(4) may not exceed a prescribed amount.
(3) Matters to be taken into account by the Employment Appeal Tribunal when setting the amount of the penalty shall include—
(a) the gravity of each refusal or obstruction of access;
(b) the period of time over which each refusal or obstruction of access occurred;
(c) the number of occasions on which each refusal or obstruction of access occurred;
(d) the reason for each refusal or obstruction of access;
(e) the number of workers affected by each refusal or obstruction of access; and
(f) the number of workers employed by the undertaking.
(4) The Employment Appeal Tribunal shall also take into account any previous refusal or obstruction of access to a designated official of the independent trade union to which the application relates.
(5) If the specified date in a penalty notice for payment of the penalty has passed and—
(a) the period during which an appeal may be made has expired without an appeal having been made; or
(b) such an appeal has been made and determined, the trade union may recover from the employer, as a civil debt due to it, any amount payable under the penalty notice which remains outstanding.
(6) The making of an appeal suspends the effect of a penalty notice pending the outcome of the appeal.
70ZH Other provisions relating to trade union access
(1) Sections 70ZA-70ZG are in addition and without prejudice to any other provisions relating to trade union access to workers.
(2) For the avoidance of doubt, the latter include but are not confined to—
(a) Section 188(5A) of this Act
(b) Sections 198A and 198B of this Act;
(c) Schedule A1, paragraphs 26 and 118 of this Act;
(d) ACAS Code of Practice on time off for trade union duties and activities issued under section 199 of this Act, for the time being in force; and
(e) Any collective agreement which makes more favourable provision.””
New clause 82—Fair Work Agency: review of resourcing—
(1) The Secretary of State must conduct a review of the resources available to the Fair Work Agency.
(2) The review must be published and laid before Parliament within six months of this section coming into force.”
This new clause asks the Secretary of State to review the resources available to the Fair Work Agency to ensure that enforcement of provisions in the Act are effective.
New clause 88—Rules as to political fund—
(1) The Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1) of section 84 (Contributions to political fund from members of the union), after subsection (1), insert—
“(1A) An opt-in notice under subsection (1) must include the member of the trade union’s consent to annual renewal of the contribution to the political fund (a “renewal opt-in”).
(1B) The renewal opt-in must be sent by the member of the trade union─ (a) within six months of the initial opt-in and every six months thereafter, or (b) each time payment is due, at least 28 days before payment is taken, whichever is longer.
(1C) If the member of the trade union does not provide a renewal opt-in, the trade union must provide a date by which the member must notify the trade union of their consent to continued contribution towards the political fund, which must be no earlier than 28 days before the next payment to the political fund is due.
(1D) If the member has not—
(a)opted into an arrangement under subsection (1A) or (1B), or
(b) given notification of their consent to continued contributions by the date specified under subsection (1C),
their payments to the political fund must cease before the renewal date.””
This new clause will ensure that trade union members are asked whether they wish their contribution to the political fund to renew automatically and would require that, if the member does not wish to renew their contribution, the union must provide a date by which the member has to confirm they wish to continue to contribute.
New clause 89—Certification Officer: growth duty—
“(1) The Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 254 (The Certification Officer), after subsection (2), insert—
“(2A) In discharging the functions of the Certification Office, the Certification Officer must, so far as reasonably possible, act in such a way as to advance the following objectives—
(a) the international competitiveness of the economy of the United Kingdom; and
(b) economic growth of the United Kingdom in the medium to long term.””
This new clause would require the Certification Officer to advance the objectives of the international competitiveness of the economy and its growth in the medium to long term.
New clause 90—Regulations under Part 4—
“When making regulations under Part 4 of this Act, the Secretary of State must have regard to the following objectives—
(a) the international competitiveness of the economy of the United Kingdom; and
(b) the economic growth of the United Kingdom in the medium to long term.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State, when making regulations under Part 4 of the Bill, to have regard to the objective of the international competitiveness of the economy and its growth in the medium to long term.
New clause 98—Pressure to impose union recognition requirement—
“In the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, omit section 225 (Pressure to impose union recognition requirement).”
This new clause would remove section 225 from the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 on pressure to impose union recognition requirement.
New clause 99—Electronic balloting—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, lay before Parliament a statutory instrument containing an order under section 54 of the Employment Relations Act 2004.
(2) That order must specify that—
(a) permissible means may, in the case of any description of ballot or election, include (or consist of) electronic voting; and
(b) any ballot or election including (or consisting of) electronic voting must be conducted pursuant to section 230 (Conduct of ballot) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.
(3) The Secretary of State must not make an order under this section until a consultation with the Trades Union Congress and the Certification Officer has been conducted.
(4) An order under this section may not be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.”
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to make an order for electronic voting in a ballot or election pursuant to section 54 of the Employment Relations Act 2004 within six months of the passing of this Act, and following consultation with the TUC.
New clause 100—Notice to employers of industrial action: amendment—
“In section 234A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, omit subsections (3) to (9) and insert—-
“(3) For the purposes of this section a relevant notice is one in writing which—
(a) identifies—
(i) the day or the first of the days on which, at the time of the service of the relevant notice, the union proposes to call industrial action; and
(ii) the categories of employee the union intends to call on to take industrial action; and
(b) must be provided to the employer as early as practicable after the ballot result is known and the decision to take industrial action in furtherance of it has been taken.
(4) If the industrial action relates to an event which has already taken place, no relevant notice shall be required.””
This new clause replaces the provisions in section 234A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 to define a relevant notice for industrial action, when one must be provided and when one is not required.
New clause 103—Public sector contracting: trade union recognition—
“(1) The Procurement Act 2023 is amended as follows.
(2) In Part (2) (principles and objectives), after section 14A insert—
“14B Obligations of contractors to recognise trade unions
(1) The Secretary of State has a duty to ensure that any contract entered into after the coming into force of this Act by a—
(a) government department;
(b) executive agency of government;
(c) non departmental public body; or
(d) non Ministerial department,
is compliant with the requirements set out in subsection (2).
(2) A contract under subsection (1) must require the contractor to such a contracting authority to—
(a) recognise an independent trade union for the purposes of collective bargaining, and
(b) take steps to ensure that any sub-contractor to the contractor which carries out any obligation under the public contract recognises an independent trade union for the purposes of collective bargaining.
(3) For the purposes of this section, “recognises”, “independent trade union” and “collective bargaining” have the same meaning as in the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.
(4) An independent trade union may make a complaint against a contracting authority, which is a party to a public contract, that it or a contractor or sub-contractor which carries out any obligation under the public contract is in breach of the term in subsection (2).
(5) The complaint may be made to the Central Arbitration Committee.
(6) If the Central Arbitration Committee finds the complaint to be well founded, it shall grant a declaration to that effect.
(7) Where the Central Arbitration Committee makes a declaration in accordance with subsection (6), it shall order that the respondent contracting authority shall take whatever steps appear to the Central Arbitration Committee as necessary to ensure that the contracting authority and every contractor or sub-contractor which carries out any obligation under the public contract comply with the implied term in subsection (2).
(8) The steps that may be taken under subsection (7) include termination of the contract, which shall not be regarded as a breach of contract by the contracting authority concerned if a principal reason for the termination is compliance with an order of the Central Arbitration Committee under subsection (7).
(9) An appeal lies on a point of law to the Employment Appeal Tribunal by either party to proceedings brought under subsection (5).””
This new clause is designed to ensure that all public contractors comply with the duty to recognise a trade union for the purposes of collective bargaining and that such contractors take steps to ensure that any sub-contractors do the same. The terms “contracting authority” and “public contract” are defined in section 2 and 3 of the Procurement Act.
New clause 106—Collective bargaining—
“(1) The Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 209, after “industrial relations” insert—
“and in particular to encourage the extension of collective bargaining and the development and, where necessary, reform of collective bargaining machinery.””
This would add duties around collective bargaining to the general duty of ACAS.
New clause 107—Whether agreement intended to be a legally enforceable contract—
“(1) The Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 is amended as follows.
(2) For section 179, substitute—
“179 Whether agreement intended to be a legally enforceable contract
(1) A collective agreement shall be conclusively presumed to have been intended by the parties to be a legally enforceable contract unless the agreement—
(a) is in writing, and
(b) contains a provision which (however expressed) states that the parties do not intend that the agreement shall be a legally enforceable contract.
(2) A collective agreement which satisfies those conditions shall be conclusively presumed not to have been intended by the parties to be a legally enforceable contract.
(3) If a collective agreement is in writing and contains a provision which (however expressed) states that the parties intend that one or more parts of the agreement specified in that provision, but not the whole of the agreement, shall not be a legally enforceable contract, then—
(a) the specified part or parts shall be conclusively presumed not to have been intended by the parties to be a legally enforceable contract, and
(b) the remainder of the agreement shall be conclusively presumed to have been intended by the parties to be such a contract.
(4) A part of a collective agreement which by virtue of subsection (3)(a) is not a legally enforceable contract may be referred to for the purpose of interpreting a part of the agreement which is such a contract.””
This new clause replaces Section 179 on whether agreement intended to be a legally enforceable contract in the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
New clause 108—Industrial action: workers’ rights—
“(1) The Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 219, insert—
“219A Right to strike
Every worker shall have the right to take industrial action, whether or not in breach of any contract, subject to the provisions of this Part.”
(3) Omit section 223 (Action taken because of dismissal for taking unofficial action).”
This new clause would establish a clearer right to strike and remove provisions from the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 that make strike action unlawful on the grounds that it turns out (retrospectively) that the action the worker took was unofficial.
New clause 109—Industrial action and ballots—
“(1) The Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 is amended as follows.
(2) Omit—
(a) section 224 (Secondary action)
(b) 225 (Pressure to impose union recognition requirement)
(c) 226A (Notice of ballot and sample voting paper for employers)
(d) 228 (Separate workplace ballots), and
(e) 228A (Separate workplaces: single and aggregate ballots).
(3) In section 234 (Period after which ballot ceases to be effective), omit subsections (1) to (5) and substitute:
“(1) Industrial action that is regarded as having the support of a ballot shall cease to be so regarded when─
(a) the dispute which gave rise to it ceases, or
(b) the union has taken no steps to pursue the dispute for a period of six months.”
(4) In subsection (1) of section 244, (Meaning of “trade dispute" in Part V)—
(a) omit “a dispute between workers and their employer” and substitute “a dispute between workers and one or more employers”.
(b) omit “which relates wholly or mainly to” and substitute “connected with”.
(5) In subsection (5) of section 244, omit “a worker employed by that employer” and substitute “a worker employed by an employer”.”
This new clause would remove provisions that ban all forms of secondary action; make changes to the definition of “trade dispute”; enable industrial action to be taken to achieve recognition for collective bargaining; remove obligation on a TU to provide a ballot paper to the employer; give TUs more freedom to choose which constituencies they will ballot; and remove an obligation on the union in a long running dispute to re-run the ballot every six months.
New clause 110—Review into the impact on small businesses—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within three months of the passage of this Act, lay before Parliament a review on the impact of Part 4 (Trade Unions and Industrial Action, etc) of this Act on small and medium-sized enterprises.
(2) The review under subsection (1) must have regard to—
(a) administrative costs;
(b) legal costs; and
(c) tax changes affecting small and medium-sized enterprises taking effect from the 2025-26 financial year.
(3) For the purposes of this section, small and medium-sized enterprises are businesses employing 250 or fewer employees.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish a review on the impact of Part 4 of this Bill, on Trade Unions and Industrial Action, on SMEs within 3 months of the passage of this Act.
New clause 111—Legal aid in employment tribunals—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within three months of the passage of this Act, lay before Parliament a report on the options for expanding the right to legal aid in employment tribunals.
(2) The report under subsection (1) must consider—
(a) the impact employers' compliance with measures contained within this Act; and
(b) the impact on employees’ personal finances.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to report on the impact of expanding the right to legal aid in employment tribunals within 3 months of the passage of this Act.
New clause 112—Review of single enforcement body—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within three months of the passage of this Act, lay before Parliament a review on the impact of a single enforcement body as provided for under Part 5.
(2) The review under subsection (1) must assess the impact of the single enforcement body with the impact between 2019 and 2025 of the following four enforcement bodies—
(a) Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority (GLAA)
(b) Employment Agencies Standards Inspectorate (EAS)
(c) His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (HMRC)
(d) Health and Safety Executive (HSE)
(3) The review under subsection (1) must have regard to—
(a) business compliance costs
(b) Employers’ compliance with employment law
(c) the number of employees seeking support in relation to employment disputes.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to review the impact of a single enforcement body compared with separate enforcement bodies within 3 months of the passage of this Act.
Amendment 270, page 61, line 14 leave out clause 50.
New clause 70 is intended to replace clause 50.
Government amendments 162 to 164.
Amendment 282, clause 50, page 61, line 31, after “workplace” insert, or
“(b) the right to use to any digital communications tools used by workers in the workplace.”
This amendment aims to ensure that access for unions to workplaces includes digital means of communication with workers.
Government amendments 165 to 185.
Amendment 271, clause 51, page 69, line 18, at end insert—
“(2A) In paragraph 22 (collective bargaining: recognition)—
(a) leave out sub-paragraph (1)(b) and insert—
“the CAC has evidence, which it considers to be credible, that a majority of workers constituting the bargaining unit want the union (or unions) to conduct collective bargaining on their behalf’.”
(b) leave out subparagraphs (3), (4) and (5).
(2B) In paragraph 25 (collective bargaining: recognition)—
(a) in sub-paragraph (3)(a) leave out “20 working days” and substitute “10 working days”, and
(b) leave out sub-paragraph (3)(b).
(c) after sub-paragraph (4)(a) insert “(aa) by secure electronic voting,”
(d) in sub-paragraph (4)(c) leave out “and b” and substitute “to (c)”
(e) after sub-paragraph (4)(c) insert—
“(d) only amongst those who are employed in the proposed bargaining unit and were so employed at the time the application was made”.
(2C) In paragraph 26 after sub-paragraph (4) insert—
“(3A) In the event that the union (or unions) consider that such access has been unreasonably refused, it (or they) may apply to the CAC for a declaration and order that access be granted and in the event that such a declaration or order is made and the union (or unions) consider that such a declaration or order has been breached it (or they) may apply to the High Court for relief.”
(2D) In paragraph 26 after sub-paragraph (4B) insert—
“(4BA) The sixth duty is to refrain from any act or omission, direct or indirect, likely to encourage a union member or members to resign from union membership or likely to discourage a person from joining a union or any particular union.
(4BB) It shall be unlawful to compel a worker or workers by threat of detriment or dismissal to attend any meeting in which the employer, its servants or agents expresses the view directly or indirectly that—
(a) membership of a union or any union; or
(b) recognition for the purposes of collective bargaining of a union or any union by the employer,
is undesirable.”
(2E) In paragraph 27B(2) leave out “must be made on or before the first working day after” and substitute “must be made within 20 working days after”.
(2F) In paragraph 29 (collective bargaining: recognition) leave out sub-paragraph (3)(b).
(2G) In paragraph 35(1) leave out “a collective agreement under which a union (or unions) are recognised as entitled to conduct collective bargaining” and substitute “a collective agreement under which an independent union (or independent unions) are recognised as entitled to conduct collective bargaining”.
(2H) In paragraph 35(1) after “in the rules” insert “‘in relation to all pay, hours and holidays”.
(2I) In paragraph 39(2)(a) leave out “years” and substitute “months”.
(2J) In paragraph 40(2)(a) leave out “years” and substitute “months”.
(2K) In paragraph 41(2)(a) leave out “years” and substitute “months”.
This amendment makes changes to the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 regarding union recognition and balloting.
Amendment 291, page 71, line 1, leave out clause 52.
Amendment 292, clause 52, page 71, line 6, at end insert—
“(2A) In subsection (1) of section 82 (Rules as to political fund), after paragraph (d) insert—
“(e) that trade union members who have not opted out of the political fund must signal, in writing, their agreement to continue contributing to the fund at the end of a period of 12 months after last opting into the fund, and
(f) that trade union members must be given an annual notice about their right to opt out of the political fund.
(1B) A notice under subsection (1)(f) must include a form that enables the member to opt out of the fund.””
This amendment would require trade unions to notify their members every year of their right to opt out of the political fund, and to obtain an annual opt-in to the political fund from their members.
Government amendments 186 to 191.
Amendment 293, page 73, line 6, leave out clause 54.
Amendment 294, page 74, line 14, leave out clause 55.
Amendment 296, clause 55, page 75, line 3, after “employee”, insert—
“, and
(c) in relation to a public sector employer, the performance condition is met.
(3A) The performance condition is met if the Secretary of State is satisfied that the public sector employer is meeting any performance standards set out in a relevant enactment.”
This amendment prevents facility time for equality representatives from being provided unless the relevant public sector organisation is meeting its statutory targets for performance.
Amendment 295, page 78, line 5, leave out clause 56.
Amendment 299, page 78, line 30, leave out clause 58.
Government amendments 192 to 199.
Amendment 315, page 79, line 28, leave out clause 60.
This amendment would leave out Clause 60 on electronic balloting for industrial action. NC99 is intended to replace clause 60.
Government amendments 200 to 201.
Amendment 297, clause 61, page 80, line 6, leave out “seventh” and insert “fourteenth”.
This amendment would increase, from seven to 14 days, the notice period that trade unions are required to adhere to when notifying employers that they plan to take industrial action.
Government amendment 202.
Amendment 348, page 80, line 9, at end insert—
“(3) The Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 is also amended as follows.
(4) In section 231 (Information as to result of ballot), omit from “shall” to after “told” and insert—
“display, reasonably prominently on its website, on a webpage reasonably easy to find and which is freely accessible to the general public—”
(5) Omit section 231A.”
This amendment would change the requirements for notification about the results of a union ballot.
Amendment 346, clause 62, page 80, line 19, at end insert—
“(3) In section 220 (Peaceful picketing)—
(a) in subsection (1), after “attend”, insert “a place of work”;
(b) omit subsections (1)(a) and (1)(b); and
(c) omit subsections (2) to (4).”
This amendment, along with amendment 348, would remove the restriction confining pickets to a worker’s place of work.
Amendment 300, clause 63, page 83, line 9, at end insert—
“236E Actions short of a strike: exemption
(1) The right of a worker not to be subjected to detriment under section 236A does not apply in cases where the worker is involved in one or more of the following activities—
(a) intimidation at picket lines;
(b) protests organised by trade unions in furtherance of a dispute—
(i) at the premises of a company;
(ii) at the private residences of senior managers; or
(iii) at the premises of other organisations that are connected with the dispute;
(c) harassment or bullying of non-striking workers, or those who are covering for striking workers;
(d) victimisation or harassment of senior managers; or
(e) action aimed at damaging property or disrupting business contingency planning.
(2) The Secretary of State must ensure that the circumstances under subsection (1), in which the right of a worker not to be subjected to detriment do not apply, are set out in a code of practice.”
This amendment would disapply the right not to suffer detriment as a result of industrial action in certain circumstances.
Government amendments 203 to 226 and 236 to 239.
Government new schedule 2—Trade union recognition.
Government amendments 247, 249, 251 to 261.
New clause 77—Employment Law: Scotland Act—
“(1) The Scotland Act 1998 is amended as follows—
(2) In Schedule 5 of the Scotland Act 1998, omit section H1 (Employment and industrial relations).”
This new clause would remove matters related to employment from the list of the reserved matters that remain the responsibility of the UK Parliament alone and would enable the Scottish Parliament to legislate on those matters.
Justin Madders
I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and declare my membership and financial interests in trade unions, as I have done throughout the passage of the Bill.
I thank Members from both sides of the House for their contributions to yesterday’s debate. I look forward to another good debate today as we work together to ensure that the Bill works in practice for workers and businesses of all sizes across the whole country. Similarly to yesterday, I will use my opening remarks to explain to the House the amendments put forward by the Government in parts 4 and 5 of the Bill.
The Government are moving a number of amendments that represent a significant step forward in modernising our industrial framework. Amendments to clause 50 will strengthen the provisions of trade union access rights. They will ensure that the framework functions effectively and delivers on our commitment to modernise working practices. They will streamline access provisions by allowing a single Central Arbitration Committee member to make a fast-track decision on whether access should take place. In making a decision about whether it is a single person or a panel that will consider the application, the CAC will be required to have regard to the complexity of the case, as well as whether the proposed terms of the agreement are model terms. Various criteria will be prescribed in secondary legislation following consultation.
The amendments will also clarify that supporting a worker is a legitimate purpose for access, and they will provide a power to bring forward secondary legislation to make further provision as to how the CAC is to determine the level of penalty fines for non-compliance with access agreements. They will expand access rights, enabling access agreements to cover communicating with workers in ways that do not involve entering premises—for example, connecting digitally using technology—therefore modernising our antiquated industrial relations framework.
New clause 39, new schedule 2 and associated amendments insert new provisions into the Bill, replacing clause 51, and will address unfair practices and access arrangements in the recognition and derecognition process. The amendments will extend the application of unfair practice protections to the point at which the CAC accepts an application for recognition or derecognition, and will ensure that employers cannot increase the size of the bargaining unit for the purposes of the recognition application after the application is made. That will end the deliberate gaming of the system that we have seen in recent years.
The amendments will also delete the second test for determining an unfair practice complaint, which currently requires the CAC to consider how an alleged unfair practice may have affected workers’ votes in the recognition, or derecognition, ballots. They will extend the time limit in which unfair practices can be reported after the ballot closes to five working days. They will ensure that an employer cannot recognise a non-independent trade union after receiving a request for voluntary recognition from an independent trade union as a means of thwarting the independent trade union’s subsequent application to the CAC for statutory recognition.
We will bring forward and formalise the process for agreeing access arrangements between the employer and the union during the recognition and derecognition process. These amendments will streamline the recognition process, reduce opportunities for unfair practices to occur, and ensure that unions that seek recognition have a fair and transparent statutory route to enable them to do so.
Today’s amendments on industrial action rules will reduce the costly, complex and bureaucratic requirements on unions in relation to industrial action and ballot notices, while ensuring that employers have the necessary notice and information to prepare for industrial action. New clause 42 will simplify notice to employers of industrial action ballots and industrial action, reducing the chance of spurious challenge and making the information required more proportionate. New clause 43 will extend industrial action mandates from six to 12 months, reducing the need for repeated ballots. Amendments to clause 61 will mean that the notice period for industrial action will be set at 10 days, giving businesses time to prepare and safeguarding workers’ rights. Amendments to clause 58 will mean that the 50% ballot turnout threshold repeal will be subject to commencement on a date to be set in secondary legislation.
Turning to political fund ballots, new clause 40 and associated amendments remove the requirement for unions to hold a ballot every 10 years on maintaining a political fund. Instead, unions will provide reminders about members’ right to opt out every 10 years, ensuring transparency without imposing costly and time-consuming ballots.
The Bill will bring together the various agencies and enforcement bodies that enforce employment rights in the new Fair Work Agency, so that where employers are not doing what is right, a simplified and strengthened enforcement system will protect workers and ensure justice in the workplace. The Fair Work Agency needs the right tools to do the job. A series of amendments form a package that will give the Fair Work Agency the tools that it needs to hold all employers to account more effectively. That is fair for workers and businesses.
The Government are moving amendments to introduce new powers that are key to the Fair Work Agency’s core enforcement role. New clauses 44 to 56 create a civil penalty regime. Under the regime, enforcement officers will be able to issue notices of underpayment, and impose a penalty on employers who have underpaid individuals, in breach of statutory pay rights that are within the remit of the Fair Work Agency. As a result, the agency may be able to help workers get the money they are owed more quickly than if they had to go through an employment tribunal. Where proceedings before the tribunal are necessary, we want the Fair Work Agency to be able to support individuals and ensure that the tribunal’s time is used as effectively as possible. New clause 57 does that by enabling the agency to bring proceedings before the employment tribunal if individuals are unwilling or unable to. Under clause 58, the agency can also offer advice and assistance to individuals bringing employment-related cases before the courts or tribunals.
The Government are also moving amendments to upgrade the powers that the Fair Work Agency will need to tackle labour abuse effectively. The Bill Committee heard from stakeholders, including Eleanor Lyons, the UK Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner, about bad practices in the social care sector. The Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority is prevented from investigating many cases because they do not meet the modern slavery threshold. The Fraud Act 2006 covers situations that amount to labour abuse but fall short of being modern slavery. Today we are bringing forward two amendments that will deliver the Government’s commitment to give the Fair Work Agency the strong powers that it needs to tackle labour exploitation. We will enable Fair Work Agency enforcement officers to use their powers to investigate such cases, helping the agency to protect the most vulnerable in the workforce. We will also give enforcement officers the ability to issue special warnings following arrests. In practice, that means telling suspects that if they refuse to answer questions about certain items or their whereabouts, that could be used against them in court.
Liam Byrne (Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North) (Lab)
Only 21 employers have been prosecuted for national minimum wage violations since 2007. The measures that the Minister is bringing forward will improve enforcement. He touched on the Modern Slavery Act 2015, but he did not address the points made in the debate yesterday. Will he use this opportunity to say more about the Government’s intention to update the Modern Slavery Act?
Justin Madders
I am grateful for the Chair of the Select Committee’s intervention. We accept that there are gaps between the modern slavery network enforcement processes and current employment rights enforcement. We are working with the Home Office and the GLAA to improve that. These are things we can continue to work on as we develop the scope and remit of the Fair Work Agency.
As well as reforming and strengthening the powers, the Government are moving amendments to expand the remit of the Fair Work Agency to ensure effective enforcement of statutory sick pay and holiday pay. Today’s amendments will bring Northern Ireland SSP legislation into the scope of the Fair Work Agency, and will introduce a requirement for the Secretary of State to obtain the consent of the Northern Ireland Executive before bringing any further devolved legislation in scope. Further amendments will bring within the agency’s scope the duty in the working time regulations for employers to retain records relating to holiday pay and annual leave for six years. It is the Government’s intention for the Fair Work Agency to take on enforcement of new protections relating to zero-hours contracts. That is subject to a consultation on the detail, and to the outcome of the spending review.
New clause 60 gives the Fair Work Agency the power to recover the cost of taking enforcement action from businesses that are found to be non-compliant with the law. That is in recognition of the “polluter pays” principle. It is similar to how other regulators operate, such as the Health and Safety Executive. We will consider carefully and discuss the matter with businesses as appropriate before exercising that power, but it is an important principle that where there is wrong, the person in the wrong makes some contribution towards the cost to the taxpayers of enforcing the law.
To sum up—I know many people are eager to speak in the debate—the Bill will ensure that workplace rights are fit for a modern economy, empower working people and contribute to economic growth. I urge hon. Members to support the Bill and the amendments that we are moving today, which show that we are pro-business, pro-worker, pro-family and pro-growth.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
Ahead of getting into the detail of the many amendments before us, which the Minister rattled through in just 10 minutes, let me say that overnight we learned that the Government are moving the responsibilities of one quango to another. They are moving the responsibilities of the Payment Systems Regulator to the Financial Conduct Authority, putting one quango into another. Conveniently, they already share a building. The Prime Minister has hailed that as “the latest step” in the Government’s attempt to “kick-start economic growth”, though the amendments we are discussing do the very opposite.
The Chancellor said:
“The regulatory system has become burdensome to the point of choking off innovation, investment and growth”,
but that is precisely what the Bill does. I do not know how the Government can say that with a straight face when, as we stand here today, blocking regulatory burdens cost every business in the land—small, medium or large—£5 billion.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
In the Chamber yesterday, it was quite clear that the Minister and his team did not fully understand the definition of a small business. I am sure that my hon. Friend the shadow Minister does understand it. Does he agree that that is fundamental to understanding why the balance of this legislation is wrong?
Greg Smith
My right hon. Friend makes a superb point, as she always does. Every single small business that I have talked to in my constituency is very concerned about the measures in this—
Greg Smith
I will if, 24 hours on, he can name a small business that supports the Bill.
Justin Madders
I am asking the shadow Minister to give way, but the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) could have intervened on me during my speech. One of the reasons why there is so much confusion about the definition of a small business is that the shadow Minister moved an amendment in Committee that said that a small business
“means an organisation or person employing 500 or fewer employees”.––[Official Report, Employment Rights Public Bill Committee, 3 December 2024; c. 177.]
So if there is any confusion, it is on the Conservative Benches.
Greg Smith
Twenty-four hours later, the Minister still cannot name a small business that supports the Bill. That shows how out of their depth this trade union Government are when it comes to supporting businesses in this land. In the words of the Chancellor, this Bill is
“choking off innovation, investment and growth.”
To pretend otherwise would be taking the public for fools.
On new clauses 89 and 90, almost everything this Government have done is contradictory to the objective of growth, if that remains their objective this week. Whether it is the national insurance jobs tax, the changes to business rates or this Bill, everything they do seemingly goes against growing the economy. It is little surprise that, under Labour, the economy is flatlining.
The Prime Minister said earlier this year that everything the Government do will be subject to a “growth test”. However, the details of that test have been sparse, at best—so sparse, in fact, that people may well think it does not exist.
Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)
Could the shadow Minister describe Liz Truss’s growth test?
Greg Smith
Well, cut red tape for a start. We see from Lib Dem Members that “The Orange Book” tradition of the Liberal Democrats is well and truly dead; they now position themselves firmly to the left of the Labour party.
There is no greater evidence that the growth test does not exist than the Bill, because if such a test did exist, this Bill would fall at the first hurdle, but today I come with good news: I have two amendments that the Government can back this afternoon to help them to grow the economy. Those amendments are, of course, new clause 89 and new clause 90.
New clause 89 would require the certification officer to advance the objective of the international competitiveness of the economy, and new clause 90 would require the Secretary of State, who is again not in his place, to have regard to international competitiveness when passing regulations under part 4 of the Bill concerning the trade unions. The Government have been asking regulators for ideas to boost growth—it is a contradiction in terms to ask the regulator to boost growth—but we are happy to help them with their quest. The Government should be able to support these amendments. If they cannot, it shows that they are not serious about economic growth and, more tellingly, that they do not intend to use the powers in part 4 of the Bill to achieve growth or international economic competitiveness, because they do not intend to exercise them in a way that is compatible with those objectives.
New clause 88 on trade union political funds will, I am sure, get the Government a little bit hot under the collar. This is a “Labour party first, country second” Government. Nowhere is that clearer than in the changes that the Government are making to the political fund through the Bill. Let us be in no doubt that the changes have one simple purpose: to bolster the coffers of the Labour party.
Clause 52 will mean that members of trade unions will automatically contribute to their trade union’s political fund without being asked about it first. Members will have to opt out, rather than opt in, as they do at present. [Interruption.] Did someone want to try to defend that? No? Okay. If trade union subscriptions are to be used for party political campaigning, it should be a conscious decision of the trade union member to endorse such campaigning.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
The shadow Minister may recall that in Committee, every single Labour member of the Committee declared sponsorship by the trade union movement. Does he agree with me that this clause is simply payback for the trade union movement, after its financial support for the Labour party?
Greg Smith
My hon. Friend served assiduously on the Committee, raising many good points, including the one that he just made, which I absolutely agree with. The public will be asking serious questions about this.
Greg Smith
If the hon. Gentleman wants to try to defend that, I will give him the opportunity.
Gareth Snell
I am happy to declare my interest as a member of three trade unions, but I got less from them than the shadow Minister got from a small business—I think his declaration is £12,500. Does he feel the need to declare that, given that he is now making a case against legislation that would impact that company?
Greg Smith
I am making a point about the trade union movement, which I have never been a part of, and certainly never received any money from. I am happy for the hon. Gentleman to look at all my declarations in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
Gareth Snell
We can find out, Madam Deputy Speaker; I believe it is. Can you advise whether Conservative Members who received money from businesses affected by this legislation should make a declaration in the same way that we trade unionists do?
Madam Deputy Speaker
This is going to end up in a back and forth on things that are not a matter for the Chair. Declarations are the responsibility of individual Members to make appropriately through the right processes.
Greg Smith
For the avoidance of all doubt and in all transparency, I declare all my entries in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests for all to look at. They are all there for anybody to see.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
This argument about opting in and opting out of trade union levies goes back to at least the 1970s—probably beyond—when I remember arguing about it as an undergraduate. If there are to be levies that people have to opt out of, a defensible case can be made for them provided that the process of opting out is easy and advertised to every member. Does my hon. Friend know whether the Government propose to institute mechanisms to make it known to every member how easily they can opt out?
Greg Smith
My right hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point. If we look at the detail of this Bill, it is very clear and obvious that the Government are trying to make it as difficult as possible for people to opt out of the trade union political fund. That is the very point of them changing this legislation.
Greg Smith
I will make a bit of progress, then I will come to the hon. Lady.
An opt-in is the default under consumer protection law and information law. Combined with the 10-year reminder change, it is highly likely that many trade union members will not be aware that their subscriptions are being used in this way or that they are eligible to save money on their trade union fees by not being a member of the political fund. Despite all the talk of supporting working people, it is clear that that concern simply does not apply when working people’s money is being taken to fund the Labour party and other political causes. We have tabled amendment 291 because we believe fundamentally that people should consent explicitly to what is, in effect, a subscription trap. Amendment 291 would simply maintain the status quo; it is the right thing to do.
Mrs Russell
I draw attention to my entries in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests: I am a member of Community and the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers. Can the hon. Gentleman tell us how many times such a ballot has actually resulted in the closure of a political fund? I think he will find that the answer is none.
Greg Smith
The hon. Lady is putting up a smoke-and-mirrors argument to try to cover the fact that the Government are changing the status quo from an opt-in system to an opt-out system. To me, it is just straightforward common sense that people would expect to have to opt in rather than, in this particularly egregious case, being casually reminded every 10 years that they could save a bit of money by opting out of a cause that they perhaps did not even agree with in the first place.
In fact, the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, the right hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds), pledged to end auto-renewal subscriptions. When the Conservatives were in government, we passed the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024, which contained two significant proposals on subscription contracts that are notable here. One of those was reminder notices. Businesses need to provide notices to consumers to remind them that their subscription contract will renew and payment will be due unless the consumer cancels. The second proposal was to allow consumers to be able to exit a subscription contract in a straightforward, cost-effective and timely way. Businesses need to ensure that the process for terminating is not unduly onerous and that consumers can signal their intent to end the contract through a single communication.
The Labour party, which was then in opposition, supported those aims—in fact, the Bill did not go far enough for Labour at the time. On Report, the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones) tabled new clause 29, which the Labour party voted to add to the Bill. The new clause had a two-pronged approach. It required traders to ask consumers whether they wished to opt into subscriptions renewing automatically either
“after a period of six months and every six months thereafter, or…if the period between the consumer being charged for the first and second time is longer than six months, each time payment is due.”
The second aim of the new clause, which the Labour party used to support, would have required that if the consumer did not opt into the arrangement described, the trader had to
“provide a date by which the consumer must notify the trader of the consumer’s intention to renew the contract, which must be no earlier than 28 days before the renewal date.”
If the consumer did not provide a notification, the subscription contract could not renew.
Where am I going with this? [Interruption.] Government Members are chuntering too early, because there has been a considerable shift in the Labour party’s policy position on subscription traps. It seems to believe that consumers should be given every possible opportunity to cancel subscription contracts with businesses, but that it should be as hard as possible to cancel a subscription to the trade union political fund. Under amendment 292 and new clause 88, trade union members would have the same rights, pushed for by Labour, as other individuals with a subscription.
New schedule 2 could be used to give sweeping powers to Labour’s trade union paymasters, as the Secretary of State could reduce the threshold for trade union recognition to as little as 2% of the workforce. Trade unions could easily be imposed on workplaces across the country, with small employers being particularly vulnerable. In a workplace of 200 workers, fewer than five of them would be required for workplace recognition. Paired with the other measures in this Bill, that will strike fear into business owners across Britain, who could now be forced to deal with all-powerful trade unions as part of Labour’s return to the 1970s. The way in which Labour has gone about this is just another example of the shoddy nature of this Bill and of Labour’s approach to workplace regulations. The Attorney General has said that
“excessive reliance on delegated powers, Henry VIII clauses, or skeleton legislation, upsets the proper balance between Parliament and the executive. This not only strikes at the rule of law values I have already outlined,”—
I am quoting him—
“but also at the cardinal principles of accessibility and legal certainty.”
On facility time, amendments 293 and 295 would remove clause 54, “Facilities provided to trade union officials and learning representatives”, and clause 55, “Facilities for equality representatives”. They would remove the requirement to provide reasonable time off for facility time, the creation of facility time for equality representatives and clauses that will reduce transparency requirements over facility time, respectively. Together with amendment 296, they would prevent facility time for equality representatives from being provided unless the relevant public sector organisation is meeting its statutory targets for performance. Trade union facility time already costs the Government nearly £100 million a year. Under the last Labour Government, the civil service spent 0.26% of its annual pay bill on facility time, compared with 0.04% in the private sector. Under the last Conservative Government, in 2022-23, the average for the civil service was 0.05%.
Labour councils are still the worst culprit. The transparency data collected by the Government in ’22-23 shows that Transport for London under the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, has 881 full-time equivalent union officials on the books, costing £8 million a year. Bankrupt, Labour-run Birmingham city council has 30 full-time equivalent union officials on its central books, costing £1.2 million—no wonder that it went bankrupt. Furthermore, the council had 12 full-time equivalents in its maintained schools, costing £583,000.
Clauses 54 and 55 will increase that cost by giving more time off to public sector union officials at the taxpayer’s expense. That is not right when the Chancellor is asking Ministers to make cuts to their Departments across the board. Public services will be worse and the taxpayer will be expected to contribute more.
Furthermore, the Bill extends the right to facility time to equality representatives, who will now be allowed paid time off work to carry out activities for the purposes of
“promoting the value of equality in the workplace…arranging learning or training on matters relating to equality in the workplace…providing information, advice or support to qualifying members of the trade union in relation to matters relating to equality in the workplace…consulting with the employer on matters relating to equality in the workplace”
and
“obtaining and analysing information relating to equality in the workplace”.
Those are all noble goals, but that should not be done at the taxpayer’s expense.
Sir Ashley Fox
Does the shadow Minister agree that the only jobs that will be created by these Bills are for people employed by trade unions?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Before Mr Smith responds to that intervention, I must add that we have just shy of 40 people hoping to contribute to this debate, and I want to get them all in.
Greg Smith
As ever, Madam Deputy Speaker, I take your advice and will speed up. [Interruption.] The Minister urges me to carry on, but of course I would not ignore your advice—never say never again.
I make no comment on the value that those activities will add to public sector employers and their productivity. What I will say is that we have already seen this Government being happy to hand over large pay increases to trade unions with no guarantee of anything in return. That is why we have tabled amendments 293, 295 and 296, in an attempt to ensure that the taxpayer gets something out of this latest concession to the trade unions.
On amendment 297, trade unions can create significant disruption in the economy, whether by stopping work from taking place or preventing people from getting to work, school, hospital appointments or many other activities. We must strike a fair balance between the ability of trade unions to strike and the public whom we all serve.
Our amendment 297 will mean that vital public services such as the NHS can better plan and prepare for strikes. It simply seeks to keep the status quo of two weeks’ notice. Without adequate warning, constituents of Members from across the House are more likely to miss hospital appointments, not be able to travel to see loved ones or get to work, or suffer greater disruption when schools close due to strikes. That is part of the reason why, in the consultation on thresholds, 58% of those who responded supported retaining the 14-day period as it currently is, with 7% preferring a longer period. Two thirds of respondents therefore wanted the period to stay the same or be longer. Labour promised that it would work with business on this Bill, but its response to that consultation is just another example of the Government having their fingers in their ears and simply not listening. The reduction to 10 days is against the wishes of business and will do harm to all our constituents. That is why we have tabled amendment 297 to retain the notice period of 14 days.
On amendment 299, strikes should only take place when there is a clear mandate for them, but clause 58 will mean that strikes can happen with low thresholds by removing the 50% turnout requirement and the 40% support requirement. Combined with Government amendments to extend the mandate for strikes from six months to 12 months, this Bill allows unions to unleash waves of low-support, rolling strikes. Those costs will come on top of the national insurance jobs tax and changes to business rates—mistakes that the Government are already making—making it more difficult to run a business. That is why we have tabled amendment 299, which will remove clause 58.
There is much in this Bill to speak to, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I will not test your patience or the patience of the House further by going into those things. I look forward to a thorough debate that will further point out—not least through Conservative Members’ contributions—why the amendments to this Bill that the Government have tabled this afternoon will harm our economy, destroy jobs, and just give more power to the trade unions.
Several hon. Members rose—
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Is it pertinent to the actual debate?
Jerome Mayhew
Yes, Madam Deputy Speaker. As we all know, Members are required to draw attention to any potential conflicts of interest prior to speaking, in order to avoid any impression of, among other things, paid advocacy. Given that clause 52 will lead directly to increased payment of money from unions to Labour Members of Parliament, I ask for guidance on the proper declaration of interests. Most Labour Members due to speak this afternoon have received thousands of pounds from the unions—totted up, I make it £283,974.86. In addition to a general reference to their entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, in this instance, where there is a direct link, should they not also set out the actual amount of money they have received?
Madam Deputy Speaker
Obviously, further clarity on this issue is required, as it was raised earlier. It is the responsibility of individual Members to ensure that they declare their interests properly. The procedure for raising a complaint of this sort is by writing to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. The guide to the rules sets out the rules relating to the declaration of interests in debates. This is not otherwise a matter for the Chair. I hope that brings some further clarity to the issue.
I call the Chair of the Business and Trade Committee.
Liam Byrne
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will start with my declaration of interests, as a former member of the Confederation of British Industry and a current member of the trade union Unison.
I will try to introduce a few points of consensus to the debate. I am old enough to remember when Conservative Members such as the former Member for Harlow were writing pamphlets for think-tanks such as Demos with titles like “Stop the union-bashing; why conservatives should embrace the trade union movement”. Of course, that was an echo of something that Harold Macmillan famously used to say in the 1950s: “We used to think that we could not have a modern industrial society without trade unions. I still think that.”
I think we would all benefit from a little acknowledgment that industrial relations in this country have not been in a good place. In 2023 more days were lost to strikes than at any point in the past 30 years, and the Office for National Statistics calculated at the back end of 2022 that 2.5 million days had been lost to strike action. That is not a record that any one of us in this House should be proud of. It is incumbent on all of us to modernise industrial relations in this country, so that we are not divided in the workplace in this way.
As such, I welcome the measures in this Bill. I hope that the Minister will seize the moment—not only the fact that we have the Bill, but the advent of an industrial strategy that will introduce governance arrangements that get businesses and unions around the table to talk about economic growth in our country. That is a big opportunity; it is a big moment in which we can bring our country together around a modern industrial strategy. I hope that once the Minister has got this Bill done and has had a little bit of a rest—maybe gone on holiday for a bit—he will think about how the Government will then publish a modern industrial strategy for the future, backed by the restoration of some of the data that we used to have in this country, such as the workplace employee survey. We had that until about 2012, when it was stopped. We need to be more thoughtful about harmony in the workplace, because that is in the interests of the constituents we serve.
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
The right hon. Member used the term “modernising industrial relations”, which sounds a little like a euphemism. Taking him at his word, however, is he not therefore surprised that the pay rises that have been given to doctors, train drivers and a number of other unions since this Government came in have not been accompanied by any requirement for increased productivity? If we are to have modernised industrial relations, surely the increased pay that unions want should be combined with the productivity gains that this country needs.
Liam Byrne
The hon. Member will no doubt have heard the remarks made by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster at the weekend. I suspect that the hon. Member, like every Member of this House, will see some pretty radical steps taken in the comprehensive spending review to improve the efficiency of the civil service. Of course, the civil service grew very significantly in the years after covid, and now it has to be reinvented for new times. I am confident that those productivity gains will come.
My second point was to draw the House’s attention to some of the evidence taken by our Select Committee. That evidence is contained in our report, which I commend to all hon. Members. What struck me about the evidence we heard from the most productive firms in the country, such as Jaguar Land Rover, Rolls-Royce and BAE Systems, was that those are world-beating companies—some of the most productive companies in our country—and what characterises the workplace arrangements of all of those companies is that they have very long-standing, robust and deep partnerships with good trade unions. Those trade unions help make decisions, help de-conflict things and help businesses thrive and succeed. That is why stronger collective rights are important.
We also took evidence from companies where, I am afraid to say, there was not that harmony, such as Amazon. It has had to call ambulances to its warehouses 1,400 times in just five years. We on the Committee received whistleblower evidence from workers who were literally having to urinate into bottles because they did not dare take time out from their tasks to go to the bathroom and back. We heard all kinds of whistleblower complaints about injuries being sustained, and pay is rising much more slowly than sales.
When we had executives from that company in front of us, they could not—or would not—tell the Committee why strike action had been taken by workers in their firm. If a company executive cannot explain to a Select Committee of this House why so many of their workers are on strike, that is not a story of harmony or a recipe for success. That is why the measures that the Minister has brought forward in this Bill to improve the opportunities for trade unions to organise—in a way that was recommended by the former Member for Harlow, actually—are a good thing.
The Minister has gone some way in recognising recommendations made by our Committee, such as improving the window in which complaints can be heard beyond 24 hours, bringing in template access agreements and strengthening the role of the Central Arbitration Committee in dispute resolution. There is just one further step that I suggest, which is the subject of amendment 282. We suggest that access rights for trade unions should include digital access rights, because in the modern workplace, of which Amazon is a case in point, there simply is not an opportunity for workers to get information about the opportunities to join a trade union and make a fair choice one way or the other in the way that there could be in the modern economy.
My final point is about enforcement. The first factory Act passed by this House was the Health and Morals of Apprentices Act 1802. It was celebrated in parliamentary history as an Act that failed because there was no enforcement attached to it. Enforcement of this Bill is essential if it is to succeed, but labour market enforcement today is much too weak. Just 21 employers have been prosecuted for minimum wage enforcement since 2007, despite the fact that we all know that abuses of this sort are taking place in our constituencies.
Spending on labour market enforcement has been flat since 2014, and we are well off the International Labour Organisation target of one labour market inspector for every 10,000 workers. New clause 82 in my name would require the Secretary of State to set out a road map for reaching that ILO target, for ensuring there is greater use of penalties where appropriate, and for much stronger partnerships between the Home Office, the police and the Fair Work Agency. We cannot have a situation in this country where the best of British firms are being undercut by the worst labour market practice.
In conclusion, I welcome this Bill. Some of the amendments that have been tabled would improve it, but ultimately we have to remember that if we want to create a genuinely pro-business, pro-worker economy, the measures in this Bill are long overdue.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
I rise to speak to parts 4 and 5 of the Bill, and specifically to new clause 19, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Steve Darling), and new clauses 110, 111 and 112, which stand in my name. I wish to put on record my thanks to my two Liberal Democrat colleagues, my hon. Friends the Members for Torbay and for Chippenham (Sarah Gibson), for their work in the Public Bill Committee, alongside many other Members of the House.
Overall, throughout its passage, we Liberal Democrats have indicated our support for many aspects of the Employment Rights Bill, such as those we debated yesterday, including boosting statutory sick pay, strengthening parental pay and leave, and giving people on zero-hours and low-hours contracts more certainty. However, a lot of crucial detail has been left to secondary legislation, to lots of new Government amendments and to continuing consultations, which makes it impossible to explicitly endorse the Bill as a whole at this stage. Even with 264 amendments in Committee and 457 Government amendments on Report, major issues are still yet to be determined, especially in part 4. Even after all those amendments, the Government say that they intend to
“consult further on modernising the trade union landscape following Royal Assent”
of this Bill, including on admissibility requirements, a code of practice and secondary legislation. It is therefore clear that part 4, which we are debating today, is still far from finalised.
We Liberal Democrats believe that employee participation in the workplace is vital, but we also believe that it should go hand in hand with wider employee ownership. That is so important for diffusing economic power, promoting enterprise, increasing job satisfaction, improving service to customers and getting long-term economic stability and growth. The Government’s proposals on trade unions are aimed at strengthening employee rights in what can often be a combative and confrontational working environment, and we Liberal Democrats see this Bill as a missed opportunity to improve employee engagement and ownership to provide collaborative working environments and long-term growth, whether by reforming company purpose rules or putting a duty on employers to encourage employee ownership in large listed companies. However, given what we have before us, we have tabled a few amendments.
First, new clause 19 is about the right to be accompanied, and it does what it says on the tin. It would expand the right for staff to be accompanied by a certified companion at disciplinary and grievance hearings. That is a long-standing Liberal Democrat policy, and I hope it is not too controversial, as it simply rectifies an anomaly. The current law allows only trade union representatives or colleagues to accompany an employee, and that leaves many without proper support. Some sectors, such as the medical profession, already allow accompaniment by non-union companions, yet that is not reflected in law. Our targeted amendment would fix that anomaly, and I urge the Government to accept it.
New clause 110 simply requests that the Government conduct a review on the impact on small business. Throughout the Bill’s passage, we have expressed concern about the cumulative impact of all the Government’s work in this area and the impact it will have on small businesses in particular. Just the other day, the Federation of Small Businesses told me that it spends thousands and thousands of hours giving advice to small businesses on employment matters, and these new obligations will create a huge amount of extra law for them to understand, interpret and apply.
Small businesses do not have the same resources as big business. They often have no legal department, no compliance team and perhaps no human resources specialist. Because small businesses are often rooted in their community, they are conscious of their reputation. They know their employees and they want to get things right. That means it will take extra time, effort and cost for them to navigate and comply with this part of the Bill, and that is before we get to everything else that the Government are seeking to introduce.
Small businesses are telling me that, taking the measures of the employment Bill together with the changes to national insurance and business rates and everything else, they feel overwhelmed. All that new clause 110 does is ask the Government to conduct an impact assessment. We know that small businesses are passionate about their employees. Small businesses are often the ones to give people their first job. They are often the companies that give people a second chance. They provide part-time, flexible working and opportunities to return to work, so I encourage the Government to look at the impact of part 4 on small businesses.
New clause 111 is about introducing legal aid in employment tribunals. When legal aid was first introduced, the intention was for it to become the NHS of the justice system, but we know that today legal aid is far from that. Our amendment would require the Secretary of State to report on options for expanding the right to legal aid in employment tribunals. We already know that many employees cannot afford legal representation, and that creates an imbalance of power when facing well-resourced employers. The amendment simply asks the Government to look at the options that might be available in that regard.
New clause 112 asks for a review of the single enforcement body. We Liberal Democrats positively support the Government’s efforts to create a single point of contact, rather than four. A similar measure was in our manifesto, where we called for a powerful new worker protection enforcement authority. As a matter of good practice, when putting different organisations together, it is important to make sure that no gaps are created in that protection. The review we ask for is not just a formality, but an important safeguard to ensure that employment rights enforcement is effective, fair and fit for purpose.
There is much in the Bill that we Liberal Democrats welcome, but there are many parts of it that we simply cannot support because it is not yet clear what the Government’s intentions are. We urge the Government, in the strongest possible terms, to look at the impact on small business, as it is an area about which we are deeply concerned.
Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to speak in the debate, following the speech from the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith). I have to remind him that trade unionists are the bedrock of our communities. They are the producers of the wealth in this country. They are taxpayers, and they are ordinary, hard-working people. They should not be described as, basically, the dirt on the shoes of other people. The shadow Minister could hardly hide his disdain for ordinary working people; he could not hold himself back from opposing everything in the Bill.
I begin by declaring my interest as a proud trade union member—a member of the National Union of Mineworkers and Unite the union, and an honorary member of the Prison Officers Association—and as the chair of the trade union group of Labour MPs.
It is a pleasure to speak about a piece of legislation that turns the tide on decades of anti-trade union laws—laws that have restricted the power of workers and seen the wealth of those at the top grow exponentially. On a personal note, let me say that it is fitting that the Bill should be before the House this week. Last Wednesday marked 40 years since I—along with my father, who has sadly passed on, my brothers and thousands of my colleagues—marched back to work at the end of the miners’ strike. The fact that, although bruised and battered, I am still here today speaking about the Bill proves that while the party of vulture capital may have won a victory in 1985, they did not win the war. This is a good Bill, but it could have been a lot better. Through further time, further discussion and further legislation, it will prove to be a great Bill, and I believe that the new clauses and amendments that I have tabled would strengthen and enhance it.
Workers in the UK have never, ever had the right to strike, but since 1906 their unions have had protection against common-law liability, subject to the meeting of statutory conditions. New clause 108 would establish a positive right to strike, bringing the UK into line with most of the democratic world. It would also remove provisions that make strike action unlawful if it turns out, retrospectively, that the action the workers took was unofficial. That is important, because workers currently have to take it in good faith that the union has managed to navigate the bureaucracy of taking action, and that unscrupulous bosses cannot summarily dismiss them if it has not.
New clause 109 is wide-ranging. The UK’s ban on secondary action is almost unique in the world, condemned on every occasion when the International Labour Organisation has considered the position since 1989. When P&O Ferries flouted its legal obligations by not consulting over mass dismissals and by dismissing people unfairly, the unions were unable to react by calling on dock workers, lorry drivers and workers in other industries on the dockside to boycott the vessels in dispute. That was outrageous: we need to bring back solidarity action. I want to support people in industrial disputes, and new clause 109 would put situations like that right by ending the ban on secondary action. It would remove the need to provide a ballot paper to the employer, remove the obligation on unions in long-running disputes to rerun the ballot every six months, and enable industrial action to achieve recognition for collective bargaining.
Amendments 347 and 348 would change the requirements for notification about the results of a union ballot, meaning that they could be displayed online with easy access for the public. Amendments 345 and 346 would remove the restriction confining pickets to the worker’s workplace. The reason secondary picketing was banned in the first place was the fact that it was a tool that benefited workers and advanced their cause. Solidarity action should be an important part of seeking the resolution of disputes.
The Bill brings measures that aim to end discrimination and place equality at the heart of the workplace. It gives key workers in social care and school support more say in pay and conditions through their unions. It brings measures to tackle exploitative zero-hours contracts, gives protection against unfair dismissal from day one, and extends sick pay rights. It repeals minimum service level laws and the majority of the reactionary Trade Union Act 2016, provides greater rights for workers to organise collectively through their trade unions, and reduces bureaucracy affecting trade unions during industrial action processes.
The howls of derision from Opposition Members show that the Labour Government are doing the right thing. This is a good Bill that should mark the start of a process. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister, who has done a fantastic job, understands that we are all just trying to strengthen the Bill through our amendments. While we accept those howls of derision from the Conservatives, it is worth reminding the House, and indeed the country, that the turquoise Trumpian Tories in Reform have also opposed the Bill at every step of the way. Perhaps it is because, as a company—for that is what they are—they want to ensure that their workers, such as the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe), are limited in how they can address workplace bullying by the owner; or perhaps it is because, while they masquerade as a party for the ordinary men and women of this country, in reality they are simply a Margaret Thatcher tribute act with a sprinkle of bigotry, determined to advance her destructive agenda at all costs, regardless of its impact on working people across our country.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. More than 30 Members wish to speak. I do not want to set a time limit, but if Members can police themselves and keep their speeches to just shy of eight minutes, everyone will definitely get in.
Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)
I wish to develop some of the detailed and eloquent arguments advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith), and to speak in particular about the amendments relating to part 4 of the Bill and the trade union movement.
Before he leaves, let me thank the right hon. Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne) for his very measured comments. I enjoyed his referral back to the industrial relations of the 1950s, although I should point out that we have moved on a little since then; I will say more about that shortly. I also thought that he simplified the Opposition’s position. We are not here to bash the unions. We support a progressive, modern trade union movement in which the balance is struck correctly between employer and employees. Unions should not and do not run businesses, but they are an important part of our industrial relations landscape.
There can be little doubt that this is, unfortunately, a Bill drafted by the few to the detriment of the many, and the numerous provisions that will largely abolish the Trade Union Act 2016 threaten to drag the country back to the dark days of the 1970s. The very enjoyable speech that we have just heard from the hon. Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery) perhaps illustrates that return to the 1970s. I am pleased to see a number of his friends from the rebellious left on the Government Benches, and I look forward to hearing their comments in due course.
The Trade Union Act 2016 was brought in by the last Conservative Government to reflect the modern British economy and workplace. It moved the trade union movement into the 21st century and ensures that hard-working people are not disrupted by little-supported strike action.
Mrs Russell
In my constituency of Congleton, we have been blighted by approximately seven years of strike action by Northern. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the key to modern industrial relations is to have good industrial relations, not to pull apart Bills that make things better?
Charlie Dewhirst
I think the best solution would be proper privatisation of our railways, including nationalised services like Northern, which is constantly on strike. I would use Hull Trains, which serves a lot of constituents in my area and is very rarely, if at all, on strike, as an example of an excellent, private open-access firm. Rail franchises that have been nationalised have a far greater problem with strike action than those that have not.
I wish to go back briefly to the ’70s—the height of the trade union movement. The number of trade union members peaked in 1979, at around 14 million. Since then, the number has declined considerably to around 6 million, the majority of whom are in the public sector. It is often for good reason that people in the public sector are members of a union, but it means that the landscape has changed. We have moved away from being a society and an economy of heavy industry and large manufacturing, and of towns that may have been built on one or two industries, or one or two factories, where everybody in that area was largely employed, either directly or indirectly, in those places. That was where the trade union movement was required, where it was strong and where it was needed.
The modern workplace is very different. We are now largely a services-based economy, and the relationship between employer and employee is much more modern and much more flexible. We have heard about the need for the traditional trade union movement, and about a return to secondary action, flying pickets and so forth. Clearly, there is no place at all for that in the UK now.
Jerome Mayhew
The hon. Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery) suggested that we should have a return to secondary action. What is my hon. Friend’s view?
Charlie Dewhirst
I do not want to speak on behalf of the hon. Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery), but he made his views very clear. I am sure that we will hear more in that tone as we go through the afternoon.
It is really important that the Bill does not take us back to a place where growth is stifled. The Government talk about the importance of growth but, taken together, this Bill and the Budget will cause us a very severe problem, because there is very little point in having extra trade union representation if unemployment is going through the roof. Those who are unemployed will not be represented.
My big fear is that, overall, this Bill is an act of economic sabotage. It protects the dinosaurs from extinction, it damages the UK economy and it ensures only that trade union donations continue to flow into the Labour party.
Katrina Murray (Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch) (Lab)
My membership of Unison, and of the national executive of Unison prior to my election, is well documented. I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
What people on this side of the House probably do not know is that I am also an associate member of the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, the professional body for the people profession, and I have spent over 20 years as a manager and an employer. I have therefore spent most of my career working with people, managing people and employing people. I have ensured that staffing levels are maintained on the hours that people are contracted and available to work, and I have managed their flexibility without having to resort to bank or agency staff every week. However, as a trade union rep, I have prepared for and worked on consultative ballots, statutory industrial action ballots and—oh yeah—political fund ballots. I have done the hard yards: I have walked the wards at 3 o’clock in the morning to speak to the night shift, and I have gone out to remote workplaces to engage with people. But I have also met management to agree on what essential levels of service are.
I pay tribute to all of those who have worked on this Bill to get it to the place where it is today, and I welcome its coming back to the House. I believe in fair work; a relationship between the employer and the worker that is based on equality; a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work; and the right of an individual to withdraw their labour should workers collectively vote to do so. We discussed yesterday what a healthy employment relationship looks like, and it is about more than just pay. It is about how people are treated at work, and it is about ensuring that work pays and that people have not only a job but guaranteed hours, if that is what they want. If someone wants to work full time, they should not have to work two or maybe three contracts with the same employer to make up those hours, or to work the same excess hours every week for months and months—until they want to take an annual leave day, when they lose their entitlement to that.
Today’s amendments focus on two main aspects of the Bill: the rights of trade unions to organise in a way that we recognise in the 21st century, and how this vital piece of legislation is enforced. As we have been reminded, the world of work has changed fundamentally in the last 20 years, and so has the world of trade unions. I listened very carefully, and with great respect, to the hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper), who spoke of the combative and adversarial nature of trade unions, but that is not the world that I recognise.
Daisy Cooper
I am grateful to the hon. Member for addressing some of my concerns, and I look forward to hearing what she says. Just to be clear, I was talking about what can be a combative working environment for employees and employers, and I said there was a missed opportunity to create more collaborative environments. I was not necessarily accusing the trade unions, but working environments can be combative.
Katrina Murray
Thank you very much for your intervention. I have 20 years’ experience of working in a partnership arrangement, and staff-side trade unions have been the agreed and recognised bodies for staff in the NHS. It is natural to sit down together and say, “These are our issues. How do we resolve them?” It is a lot more financially advantageous if we do not end up in a situation that is adversarial.
Electronic balloting has long been common practice, but not for statutory trade union ballots. This is not just about public votes on “Strictly Come Dancing” or “I’m a Celebrity…Get Me Out of Here!” I noticed that the Conservative leadership election in 2024 made great use of electronic balloting. It is absolutely time for trade union ballots to be brought into line with society, so I welcome the measures in the Bill to widen the methods of voting in industrial action ballots.
While I am on the subject of balloting, let me also say that I support the extension of the period of time before a re-ballot takes place to extend the mandate for strike action. The ultimate aim of any form of industrial action is for disputes to be resolved by all of the parties involved, ideally before any action is taken, before labour is withdrawn, before individuals lose their money and before the public are affected. The role of the Government should be to ensure that intransigent parties get round the table and talk in order to resolve any issues. Conservative Members have reminded us that when faced with that opportunity, they did exactly the opposite. They introduced the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023, a piece of legislation that is so useless that it has stopped precisely zero strikes. It was used precisely zero times and is rightly being repealed as part of this legislation.
What Conservative Members do not recognise is that trade unions and trade union members do not take action lightly. I do wonder what the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith), was thinking, because he has obviously never talked to trade union members. People know their rights, they want to belong to things and they want to be involved. People collectively make such decisions, and they individually make decisions about their subscriptions—and by golly they know, because they have told me. These provisions have not been brought in with businesses kicking and screaming. Most businesses that work well with people know exactly what is going on.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Miss Murray, you used the term “you”. If it makes it easier, you can speak focused on the Chair, and that way you will not make such a mistake. Saying “thank you” means thanking me, and it gets very complicated for Hansard, so it is best not to do that. Just focus on the Chair, and that will help.
I need to make a correction. I should draw Members’ attention to a printing error in Government new clause 52 as it appears in the printed version of today’s amendment paper. The closing words at the end of subsection (1) should read:
“the Secretary of State may withdraw it by giving a notice of withdrawal to the person.”
A corrected version of the amendment paper is available online.
Jerome Mayhew
This is a chaotic mess of a Bill, cobbled together in 100 days to satisfy a press release. We have the unedifying spectacle of an amendment paper that is 274 pages long, as the Government try to correct their many mistakes.
The main thing that I want to address in my short speech is the idea that Labour is beholden to the unions. That is often suggested, but let us just look at the facts, because we need to put this to bed. Between 2019 and 2024, Labour received only £31,314,589 from the unions, and in this Parliament more than 200 Labour MPs have been paid directly by the unions. The Ministers in the Department for Business and Trade have collectively received about £120,000 from unions. What are the unions paying for? Whatever it is, they have been handsomely repaid in the drafting of this Bill. To make it easier for Labour Members, who were all here to hear my point of order, perhaps they could put their hands up if they have not received any cash from the unions—oh dear, oh dear!
Clause 52 suggests that there should be a requirement to contribute to political funds when people join a union. It changes the rules on how union members should donate and how they should contribute political funds to the Labour party. Clause 52(2) changes subscriptions from an opt-in to an opt-out. That raises the question: why do we need this clause? What is the problem that the Labour party is trying to fix? Is £31 million just not enough? This clause encourages unions, when signing up members, to take advantage of their distraction, because members will not be focused on that and they will fall into what is in effect a subscription trap.
In other circumstances, the Labour party does not think that subscription traps are a very good idea. In fact, the Government sent out a press release on 18 November 2024 entitled, “New measures unveiled to crack down on subscription traps”. That sounds good so far. It says:
“Consultation launched on measures to crack down on ‘subscription traps’ and better protect shoppers…Unwanted subscriptions cost families £14 per month per subscription and £1.6 billion a year in total”.
It goes on:
“New proposals to crack down on subscription traps have been unveiled today…‘Subscription traps’ are instances where consumers are frequently misled into signing up for a subscription…It comes as new figures reveal consumers are spending billions of pounds each year on unwanted subscriptions due to unclear terms and conditions and complicated cancellation routes.”
The Business Secretary says:
“Our mission is to put more money back into people’s pockets and improve living standards across this country, tackling subscription traps that rip people’s earnings away is an important part of that.”
Clause 52 flies in the face of that press release.
Mrs Russell
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is a massive difference between major corporations wanting to take money out of people’s bank accounts every month and trade unions wanting to represent people as effectively as possible in the workplace?
Jerome Mayhew
I do not accept that difference. Taking advantage of people’s inattention, as this clause expressly sets out to do, is taking advantage of people for financial gain. The difference is that the people who gain in this instance are Labour Members. That begs the question: why have they drafted this clause and why, shamingly, will they vote for it later?
Jerome Mayhew
I will in a moment.
Here we have it: a clause of direct financial interest to Labour Members. We have so far had two speakers who have both received very significant sums from the unions, to which they did not directly refer. The first was the hon. Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery), who has received £20,000 from the unions, according to his entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. The second is the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch (Katrina Murray), who has received £14,000 directly from the unions. This is germane to this debate.
Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)
As has been said already in this debate, trade union donations have been declared, but donations from employers who have a direct private interest in particular sectors that we have debated in this place have not been declared. If any of the hon. Member’s colleagues have not drawn attention to such an interest, will he encourage them to do so? Does he agree with us on the Labour Benches that they were wrong not to make such a declaration?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. There were two points of order on declarations earlier, and I think I made the situation quite clear. I just wish to let Mr Mayhew know that, if he is referring to Members directly with any form of criticism, he is meant to give them prior warning, so he should be mindful of that for what comes next in his speech.
Jerome Mayhew
The intervention from the hon. Member for Birmingham Northfield (Laurence Turner) is a classic distraction technique. This Bill addresses the unions and union membership, and clause 52 moves money from unsuspecting union joiners directly to the Labour party. There is no other explanation for the clause.
Jerome Mayhew
I will give way to the hon. Lady, and then I will make some progress.
Becky Gittins
The hon. Member is working incredibly hard to try to make a case for vested interests in relation to this Bill. Those vested interests are in the working people of this country. Nevertheless, I appreciate his efforts, and he certainly has earned his afternoon snack today. This precedes my time in this Chamber, and my hon. Friends may be able to help me, but was he as vociferous during the pandemic—a time of national crisis—when close relationships with senior Government figures secured contracts that produced no personal protective equipment when the country was in such desperate need?
Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)
The hon. Member for Clwyd East (Becky Gittins) has just made a point suggesting that working people are not impacted by the behaviours of trade unions, but does my hon. Friend agree that it is the working people of this country who are hammered the most when Labour Members’ paymasters, the trade unions, go on strike?
Jerome Mayhew
I completely agree with my hon. Friend. I cannot add any more to that. He has hit the nail on the head.
I support amendment 291, in the name of the Opposition, which would remove clause 52. At the moment, this is a circular Bill of self-interest: Labour Members get money from the unions, the Bill increases union powers and that clause increases the amount of money from the unions. The clause is brazen and shaming, and it should be removed.
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
I draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, and to my proud trade union membership—I am a member of the Communication Workers Union and the GMB. For too long, working families in Paisley and Renfrewshire South have been let down by outdated employment laws unfit for a modern economy, leaving too many workers trapped in insecure, low-paid jobs. When the Conservatives crashed the economy, who bore the brunt? Not them. People in insecure, low-paid roles were left to bear the brunt of their economic incompetence.
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)
I would like to address the hon. Lady’s point that being pro-worker is pro-business. We Conservative Members believe that. The only problem is that this legislation is not pro-worker or pro-business. It will drive up unemployment and the regulation of businesses. The workers whom she purports to represent and support are exactly the people who will suffer as a result of this legislation. We Conservative Members absolutely get that.
I will talk in favour of amendments on the political fund, new clause 88 and amendments 291 and 299, and will refer to access to the workplace. I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, not least because I worked in a small family business and retain an interest in the family business. Also, before being elected, I was president of the Greater Birmingham chamber of commerce, one of the largest and oldest chambers of commerce in the country and the world, representing thousands of small businesses.
Let us be in no doubt: this is a terrible piece of legislation. It is a love letter from the Labour Government to trade unions, and it will lead to a trail of socialist carnage and destruction that will leave the country reeling for many, many years to come. It harms business, undermines employment, will drive up unemployment and will do nothing to increase growth or investment in the United Kingdom, the purported aims of the Government. In fact, the Government’s original impact assessment, when the Bill was first introduced, talked about the cost to business being about £4.5 billion, reaching almost £5 billion. We are yet to see the impact of the new amendments—a further move to a more socialist version of the Bill—and their cost to businesses.
The right hon. Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne), who is a friend and neighbour, talked about the modern workplace. I agree that the workplace has changed since the 1950s and even the 1970s, but the Bill will take the workplace back to the 1970s. It fails to achieve a balance between working people and businesses, and a relationship between trade unions and businesses. In fact, it goes way, way down the line in favouring trade unions, and it makes it much harder for people to run businesses. When I was president of the chamber of commerce, I was perfectly fine with trade unions and having good relationships with them. I had friends who joined trade unions, even though they were not in a unionised workplace. I encouraged it. They needed representation, and I thought it was a good thing to do. I have no problem with trade union relationships in the modern workplace, but a balance must be achieved.
A comment was made about economic units. Economic units are the businesses that create economic growth. Of course workers are really important. My employees were really important to me, because my business could not run without them. The majority of business owners recognise that. Conservative Members recognise that there is a symbiotic relationship between the people who run businesses and the employees who work in them. Those individuals running businesses are drivers of economic change. They are innovators who come up with the ideas. They are the risk takers who turn a profit, which pays the taxes that fund our public services. Unfortunately, the Bill does not recognise any of that. In fact, businesses are anxious and are worried about what it is introducing.
Saqib Bhatti
They are absolutely are. The Deputy Prime Minister, when challenged to name a business that supported the Bill, could not do so. [Interruption.] I am sure the hon. Member will have an opportunity to speak on the matter in his own way.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the Bill is also badly drafted? Even if Members support the content, it is a badly drafted Bill that was brought before the House far too quickly. Such a huge Bill of this nature should have had time. It is hardly surprising that the Government are tabling so many amendments, because they are still writing it.
Saqib Bhatti
I could not have made the point better. The number of amendments, and the cost and regulatory burden being placed on businesses, large, medium and small, have worried many businesses, not just in my constituency but across the country. This will do immense harm, and it will take a long time to fix the mess that has been created.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
There are 24 Members sitting on the Government Benches. Would my hon. Friend like to issue an open invitation to them to name a single small business that has been in touch to say that it supports this legislation?
Saqib Bhatti
I am more than happy to extend that invitation. Madam Deputy Speaker may get annoyed with me if I take 24 interventions, although I do not see anyone jumping to their feet, so we will take that for what it is.
There is also anxiety about the clauses on access to the workplace. The Government have now gone further and talked about digital access. This is a huge burden to put on small businesses, and it is shameful of the Government wilfully and blindly to ignore their concerns. Labour Members will have to answer many questions from businesses in their communities. Those same businesses contribute to the Treasury coffers and pay for the public services that Labour Members champion. This will be really important, and the burden will of course increase.
Before—and after—the election, and during the passage of this legislation, Labour has said time and again that it was listening to businesses. Clearly that is not the case. Businesses continue to feel that they have been led up the garden path by this damaging Labour Government.
Johanna Baxter
We in Labour have listened to business. Ann Francke of the Chartered Management Institute has gone on record as saying:
“The Employment Rights Bill represents a significant step forward in improving conditions for the UK’s workforce.”
Saqib Bhatti
The hon. Lady should speak to the Deputy Prime Minister, who failed to name a single supportive business when challenged to do so.
In the short time I have left, I will make a couple of quick points. Labour Members keep saying that the Bill will lead to fewer strikes. It will not; it makes it easier to strike. In fact, the Transport Secretary today said that strikes will be necessary in the areas covered by her portfolio. The Bill will make it easier to strike, not harder. [Interruption.] Labour Members are exercised; I am sure that they will get a chance to comment. The country is at risk of being turned into a 1970s-style striking country. This Bill should be a wake-up call for all working people and businesses that will be undermined. As we have heard from Members from across the House, only the Conservatives will stand up for businesses.
I have questions for all Labour Members. People ask what this Labour Government stand for. They undermine businesses and working people, so that is a legitimate question. I fail to see who, other than trade unions, the Labour party now stands for. When people asked what we Conservatives stand for, Margaret Thatcher had a very good answer. She said that the Labour party—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter), who spoke before me, read out a quote; I think I should do so as well. Margaret Thatcher said:
“The Labour Party believes in turning workers against owners; we believe in turning workers into owners.”
Antonia Bance (Tipton and Wednesbury) (Lab)
I proudly draw attention to my membership of the Unite union and my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, and I thank my friends at the GMB and ASLEF for their support of my election campaign.
I am in this place to stand up for working people, and that is what I will do. The best protection anyone can have at work is the support of their workmates, organised together in a union, and bargaining with management, sitting down with them as equals at the table, and making sure that the business grows and thrives, and that everyone takes home a fair wage. This Bill and the Government amendments will make it easier for working people to choose their union, be represented by their union, and get all the benefits of being in a recognised union, so that we have an economy where better terms and conditions at work go hand in hand with the growth that we need. Let us be clear: this Bill supports growth. It could add £13 billion to the economy through improvements to employee wellbeing, reduced stress, improved national minimum wage compliance, reduced workplace conflict, and increased labour market participation. That is the type of growth that we want.
Joe Robertson
I invite the hon. Lady to acknowledge the £5 billion cost to businesses that the Government’s own analysis says will be caused by the Bill.
Antonia Bance
I do acknowledge that, every single of which will go into the pocket of a working person in improved rights and higher wages, alongside £13 billion of increased productivity, reduced stress, better employee wellbeing and reduced conflict in the workplace.
On the amendments, I will start with access to workplaces, which are the key to getting more workers into unions. I strongly welcome provisions to give unions the right to access workplaces for meeting, representing, organising, recruiting and collective bargaining. I am glad the Government amended the rules to ensure they cover digital as well as physical access, and I am glad to see the Central Arbitration Committee oversight and penalties when employers do not comply, as is sometimes the case.
Once a union has established membership in a workplace, it will want to seek recognition. Most employers do not have to be forced to recognise a union—it is just what they do as a responsible employer—but where employers refuse, statutory recognition can be triggered. Until now that process has been absolutely mad and totally dysfunctional, and the cards are stacked against the working people and their union at every turn.
The worst example of this in recent years is at BHX4 in Coventry where a company dedicated to keeping unions out of its warehouses brought its US-style industrial relations to the UK, and took on its own workers who wanted no more and no less than for management to have to sit down and negotiate with their union, the GMB. Amazon is a £27 billion company in the UK yet its sales are growing three times higher than its frontline workers’ wages and it has had 1,400 ambulance call-outs in just five years. BHX4 in Coventry is not a safe workplace, with fulfilment centre workers getting injured, being asked to pick up too much, to load from the back of vehicles on their own, and to lift heavy weights above their heads. Those workers at that Amazon plant were forced to take 37 days of industrial action over poverty pay. At the Select Committee, the company’s badly briefed, evasive executives could not bring themselves to acknowledge that.
Recognising the GMB is a modest request, something 1,000 companies would have accepted without question, but not Amazon. At the Select Committee, the GMB organiser, Amanda Gearing, told us that Amazon flooded the bargaining unit; there were 1,400 workers when the GMB first sought statutory recognition but, strangely, just 27 days after that application went in the number went up to 2,749. Amanda told us how Amazon delayed the access agreement— 52 days to agree access to the workplace, a chance for the company to swamp the workers with anti-union propaganda. All the screens in the warehouse and the app used for work allocation were anti-union, threatening to close the site if workers unionised. When the access scheme was finally agreed, the GMB got a tiny number of screens and one 45-minute session with each worker, while Amazon had five one-hour sessions and screens everywhere. It induced GMB members to leave the union and in every way impeded access.
I pay tribute to the GMB leaders at Amazon in Coventry: Ceferina Floresca, Garfield Hylton, Paramanathan Pradeep and Mohammednur Mohammed—heroes, all of them. Standing up to huge intimidation and under huge pressure, they ran a brilliant campaign, but the deck was stacked against them, and they lost the ballot by a heartbreaking 29 votes. The GMB’s general secretary, my friend Gary Smith, is clear: if the legislation we are debating today had been in place, the GMB members at Amazon would have won their fight.
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
The hon. Lady is a fearsome campaigner on the Business and Trade Committee. She talks about intimidation and paints a lovely picture of unions working actively for their workers, but how can we square that with the version of intimidation that the hon. Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery) seems to be referring to with the return of flying pickets?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Before the hon. Lady responds, she will no doubt realise that she is close to eight minutes. I know she will want to speak for a little while, but not too much longer.
Antonia Bance
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thank my fellow member of the Business and Trade Committee for his intervention. As he will have seen from the amendment paper, the Government are not proposing the return of secondary picketing.
New schedule 2 will give unions greater protection from unfair practices during a recognition process and make winning it more likely. I wish that Ministers had gone the whole hog and deleted the three-year lockout; perhaps there will be an opportunity to take that forward.
In conclusion, as a whole, this package of modern industrial relations will lead to more sitting roundtables sorting out issues, fewer picket lines, fewer strikes, more productive relationships, more long-termism across our industrial base, better jobs, higher wages, higher skills and higher productivity. That is why the changes in this Bill to both collective rights and individual rights are so crucial, and so opposed by the Tories and the absent Reform party. This is the type of growth that my party stands for—the type of growth where proceeds are shared by all. It is time to make work pay.
Lincoln Jopp
It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Tipton and Wednesbury (Antonia Bance). She is such a compelling advocate that I am tempted to go on strike myself. I do sense a certain amount of antipathy between the two sides of the House, so, before I come on to make a fair point in support of amendment 292, I want to prepare the ground by doing two things.
First, I want to try to convince Labour Members that they missed an opportunity, because I am, at heart, a rabble-rousing potential motivator of people. When, about three Christmases ago, the ambulance drivers went on strike, it irked me that the soldiers who were going to stand in for them at no notice would have their Christmas ruined, so I started a campaign to try to get them an additional £20 for every day they stood in for the ambulance drivers. This plan was—the Chancellor would have loved this—net positive to the Treasury. Of course, the departments that employ the ambulance drivers and the arm’s length bodies do not pay them on strike days, and the pay differential between them and the £20 bung to the soldiers meant that the Government still saved money. I managed to get The Sun on board and get a letter into the paper, and did a bit of television.
Mrs Russell
Is the hon. Gentleman not ashamed that, under his Government, hard-working ambulance drivers felt they had to go on strike?
Lincoln Jopp
I think the hon. Lady has slightly missed the point of what I was saying. Reading the body language of Members on the Government Benches, I think they all wanted to hear how this story ended up.
It did help that the then Secretary of State for Defence was a friend of mine, with whom I served in the Scots Guards. We did get the £20 bung for all the service personnel who stood in—regardless of the fact, interestingly, that all the generals, air marshals and admirals were against it, as were all the officials. There you go—I very much have the same values at heart.
Secondly, to win over the other side of the House to the very fair point I will come on to make, let me pay tribute to the remark of the right hon. Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne), in respect of union membership, that he wanted people to
“make a fair choice one way or the other”.
I note that the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch (Katrina Murray) also referred to fair work. I want to come back to that theme of fairness in addressing amendment 292.
The Bill is, to put it politely, something of a cat’s cradle of clauses, so I will briefly remind the House that the Bill seeks to place on employers an obligation to give their workers a written statement that they have the right to join a union, and, if they do join, to contribute to the political fund. Amendment 292 would simply inject a bit of balance into the legislation by requiring trade unions to notify their members annually that they have a right to opt out of the political fund and to obtain an annual opt-in from their members.
This all puts me in mind of November 1988, when Mrs Thatcher was about to visit Poland. At Prime Minister’s questions, just prior to her going, an Opposition Member stood up and asked whether she would raise with Lech Wałęsa the right to join a trade union. There may be some Members present who were there—I will not be so ungallant as to ask. A roar went up from the Labour Benches, and the redoubtable Mrs Thatcher replied that she would raise with the Poles the right to join a trade union, but that she would also raise the right not to be a member.
The Bill seeks to whack the pendulum pretty hard in favour of union power; our amendment would bring it back into balance somewhat. We all know someone, after all, who has fallen prey to one of those charity muggers who stop people in the street and try to sign them up to whichever charity they are being paid by that day. I have known people who have done that job, and it is not an easy one. Similarly, any Member of this House who stood in a precinct and tried to sell their political brand and get people to sign up will attest to that completely. Sometimes, the charity collectors are successful, and the all-important direct debit details are extracted. In fact, I remember hearing a number of Labour Members railing against this practice in the previous Parliament.
Amendment 292 would remind workers that they still have an off-ramp, if they want one—they still have agency, and they still have freedom of choice. We have heard Member after Member stand up over the past two days of debate and declare—in some cases sheepishly, in some cases more proudly—the money they receive from the trade unions. This is only right and proper. The public can make up their own minds as to whether this money has coloured the judgment of Labour Members, or whether it is simply support from an organisation that shares their values. But to turn down amendment 292 would, in my view, be a dreadful look. This is a totally measured, balancing amendment and, if Labour Members vote against it, the public would be right to conclude that the Government are being motivated not by a sense of equality, fairness and justice, but instead by something else. I urge hon. Members to vote for amendment 292 and to give power to the people.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to be called to speak for a second time on Report. I proudly refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a member of Unite the union.
Much has been said about trade unions and strike action, as if the only purpose of a trade union is to get workers out on strike. It is a mischaracterisation of unions, as was so eloquently described by my hon. Friend the Member for Tipton and Wednesbury (Antonia Bance). It is also a mischaracterisation of corporate Britain to think that everyone is exploitative and abusive. The majority of companies in our country adhere to environmental, social and governance principles, and they make that commitment; they want to demonstrate that they are responsible people. They want that for their investors and for long-term sustained investment, so we have to draw back on those views and step away from the disdain and the contempt for working people and for trade unions, which is not helpful.
Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)
Although I have broadly welcomed the Bill as it has progressed through the House, I have caveated that by stating that the Labour Government should be bolder and must go further in future for the rights and protections to become entrenched rather than rolled back. Indeed, on Second Reading I quoted the Scottish Trades Union Congress general Secretary, Roz Foyer, who summarised the Bill by saying:
“the Employment Rights Bill isn’t the terminus. It’s the first stop. This can be the foundations on which we can build.”
I agree.
Antonia Bance
The hon. Member may not have had a chance to look at the Government website and encounter the document entitled “Next Steps to Make Work Pay”, which sets out a programme of continuing work to improve rights at work and parental leave and the review of employment status to come. I am sure he will be glad to hear that.
Chris Law
No, I have not had the chance to look at the Government website, but I thank the hon. Member for raising that. As I have broadly said, I support the Bill, but there are reasons why I am contributing to the debate, not least because of a lack of devolution to the Scottish Parliament, which I will come to shortly.
On Second Reading, the shadow Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and local Government, the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), made it explicitly clear that the foundations will not be built upon in the long term, as a future Conservative Government would simply repeal protections. He declared that
“many of the measures will be brought in through secondary legislation, therefore making it easier for a future Government to reverse some of the catastrophic changes.”—[Official Report, 21 October 2024; Vol. 755, c. 58.]
Employment rights for workers in Scotland cannot be dependent on the merry-go-round of Westminster politics. They have seen their rights attacked and diminished by years of Conservative Governments, and where the Bill reverses some of the worst excesses of those Governments’ policies, that must be protected and strengthened in the long term. Westminster cannot guarantee that for the people in Scotland, so I have tabled new clause 77, which would amend the Scotland Act 1998 to devolve employment and industrial relations to the Scottish Parliament.
Back in 2014, all Unionist parties, including the Labour party, promised maximum devolution for Scotland, as displayed on the front page of a national newspaper days before the independence referendum, in which Scotland voted no. This Labour Government have failed to devolve a single power to Holyrood since coming to power in July—not a single one—despite the Scottish Parliament voting for employment rights to be devolved.
In November, the STUC called on the UK Government to
“end the excuses and devolve powers over taxation, migration and, importantly, employment law from Westminster to Holyrood.”
Moreover, Scottish Labour’s 2021 election manifesto stated:
“We support further devolution of powers to Holyrood including borrowing and employment rights”.
Here is a question for Scottish Labour MPs: will they respect the wishes of the Scottish Parliament?
Chris Law
I care about the people of Scotland and what they say. Will Scottish Labour MPs listen to trade unions and deliver on the promises made by their party by supporting the new clause, or will they continue to follow instructions handed to them from No. 10? Silence. I thought so. They are too scared to stand up for the people of Scotland.
Johanna Baxter
The hon. Gentleman says that he is a big supporter of workers’ rights. Would he like to comment on the fact that for every year of the last nine years that I was lead negotiator for local government workers in Scotland, they had to have consultative ballots for industrial action just to get a decent pay rise out of the Scottish Government? Does that really mean standing up for workers in Scotland?
Chris Law
I thought I was asking a question of the Scottish Labour MPs, only to be asked another question. The hon. Lady will be well aware that the Scottish Government have worked collectively with both unions and other bodies to ensure that the living wage in Scotland is higher than in any other part of the UK. I remind her that it was Scottish Labour in November 2023 that voted with the SNP for employment rights to be evolved through the Scottish Parliament.
Throughout its existence, when powers are devolved to the Scottish Parliament, decisions are taken in the interests of the people of Scotland and outcomes improve: publicly owned rail and water, higher per-head education and health spend, free prescriptions, free tuition, a more humane welfare system and a progressive taxation system. Fair work practices are being delivered already by the SNP Scottish Government, such as supporting collective bargaining, achieving real living wage employer status and closing the gender pay gap faster than anywhere in the rest of the UK.
Katrina Murray
Does the hon. Member agree that it is an absolute failure of collective bargaining for the Scottish Government to have walked away from the commitments they made in a deal with health service unions two years ago on the reduction of the working week? They are failing to go through with reducing the working week by half an hour as of 1 April 2025.
Chris Law
I listened to the hon. Member with interest, but I suggest that she has that debate in the Scottish Parliament. After all, we are talking about the devolution of powers here in the UK Parliament.
A framework for collective bargaining in the adult care sector has been developed by the Scottish care unions—Unison, the GMB and Unite—along with the Scottish Government and care providers, with a Scottish social care joint council proposed. The Scottish care unions have intimated that the constitution, composition, remit and function of the Scottish social care joint council is preferable and should assume the role of the Adult Social Care Negotiating Body for England. Scotland already has a 10-year history of joint commitments to fair work, whereas England is only embarking on that journey. Furthermore, there is a need to extend sectoral bargaining to all sectors of the economy, not just adult social care.
Measures such as creating a single status of worker for all but the genuinely self-employed, strengthening protections for those with unfair contracts and increasing the minimum wage to at least the national living wage, and then in line with inflation, are all missing from the Bill. The SNP Scottish Government would support those measures if employment law were devolved, and they would be delivered if this Government respected the votes of the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Labour manifesto.
Just as the Bill should be the first stop rather than the terminus, devolution is a process, not an event. Not only has devolution moved at a glacial pace, but we live in the world’s most asymmetrical political union, where each nation has differing devolved powers. Why is it that employment law is devolved in Northern Ireland but not in Scotland? I want to see employment rights strengthened continually rather than in a cycle of piecemeal progress when Labour is in power, only to be reversed when the Tories next get their turn. The gains for workers’ rights in the Bill must therefore be protected. That is why the SNP remains committed to advocating for, at a minimum, the urgent devolution of employment powers. That is the best way, short of independence, of protecting workers’ rights in Scotland.
Baggy Shanker (Derby South) (Lab/Co-op)
I, too, refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I have been a proud member of Unite the Union for over 35 years, although many Members may find that hard to believe given my youthful looks.
Baggy Shanker
Absolutely.
I welcome the measures in the Bill, which I know will make a real difference to the lives of working people and their families in Derby and across the UK. I will focus on how the Bill will, through Government amendment 163, transform employee access to trade unions, empowering more employees to act as a collective so that they can secure better pay and conditions. When I speak to business leaders in small and large employers, they all say that their biggest asset is their people. The Conservatives can harp on about trade unions as much as they want, but in practice the best solution is for employers to work with employees and trade union reps to create the best working conditions for businesses and individuals to succeed.
I know about the importance of union membership from first-hand experience. When I left school at the age of 16 and began work as an engineering apprentice, I joined the union on day two. I knew how important that would be in supporting me and my colleagues at work. Much later on, when campaigning to save Alstom in Derby last year, I saw how hard Unite and other trade unions fought to secure jobs at the Litchurch Lane facility. They stood up for working people in our local community when it mattered most.
However, employees cannot access the benefits that union membership can bring if they do not know about the support offered by trade unions in the first place.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on his youthful appearance. Does he agree that, just as businesses are about the employees, trade unions are about their memberships and giving individual members their rights?
Baggy Shanker
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This is about individual members coming together to do what is right for themselves, for their trade unions, and for the companies and businesses that they work for.
I welcome the Bill’s introduction of a right of access for unions to meet with workers. Government amendment 163 expands union access agreements, so that unions can communicate with workers digitally as well as by entering the workplace. I urge meaningful implementation of those digital access rights to enable direct conversations between unions and workers, as would take place during in-person meetings in the workplace.
When we work together, we get more done. It is important that workers have access to union representatives and know how joining a union can support them in the workplace. I welcome the measures in the Bill to expand that access, which will further strengthen the rights of working people in Derby and beyond.
Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
There are 5,310 businesses registered in my constituency of South Northamptonshire. Of those, 99.6%—or specifically 5,245—are small businesses. This Bill, among many of the Government’s policies, is a calamity for those small businesses. Not only are many of them rural, meaning that they will be affected by the family farm tax and now by the removal of the sustainable farming incentive, but as the chair of the Federation of Small Businesses has said, these small and medium-sized enterprises will struggle to adapt to the 28 major changes that the Bill makes to employment law.
First, it was the Government’s jobs tax, then it was their cuts to rate relief for hospitality businesses, and now they are smothering SMEs with red tape. Analysis published by the Department for Business and Trade says that this will impose a cost on businesses in the low billions of pounds per year, but that is not money that many of my small businesses can afford right now. This is why the Opposition have called for small businesses to be exempt from the parts of the Bill that would heap unsustainable costs on them.
Why do the Government seem to hate small businesses so much? Perhaps it is because the majority of the Cabinet have spent their careers in the public sector and have zero understanding of what life is like for the many entrepreneurs with SMEs across the UK, including in my constituency. We learned this week that, for the first time since records began in 2012, the number of companies registered at Companies House has fallen. Growth forecasts have been downgraded and the number of vacancies has declined. All this is a result of the choices the Government have made and continue to make in this Bill.
With all of this, the UK risks becoming a globally uncompetitive economy, particularly when other countries such as the United States are slashing regulation and unleashing their businesses to grow their economies. The Opposition have tabled new clause 90 for exactly this reason. It would ensure that when the Secretary of State makes regulations under part 4 of the Bill, he has to have regard to growth in the medium to long term. I join the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith), in calling on the Government to support new clauses 89 and 90 to ensure that growth happens. Our economy is already struggling under the weight of Labour’s tax rises. Why are the Government opposing our efforts to ensure that they consider how burdensome regulation might impact on businesses?
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
A lot of people outside this place might feel that the answer to that question is that the trade unions have funded Labour Members—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Derby South (Baggy Shanker), who is talking from a sedentary position, received more than £27,000 from two unions in the latest year of declarations and did not think it appropriate in this debate even to mention that number, which may well have influenced his thinking and led to the dire outcomes that my hon. Friend is explaining to the House.
Sarah Bool
My right hon. Friend makes a powerful point, and I think all Labour Members must reflect on this because we need the public to understand truly why this legislation is going through.
That the Government have seen fit to table 87 of their own amendments at this stage alone is indicative of how uneasy they must feel about the Bill. We are even told by the media that the Treasury has warned the Deputy Prime Minister and the Secretary of State about the consequences for the economy of enacting these laws, yet they seem to have seen fit to plough them through anyway. As per usual, Labour is paying lip service to growth while sticking true to form with their socialist ideology. I was not born in the 1970s but it appears that I am going to live through the equivalent in the years ahead, as Labour plays Abba’s 1976 hit “Money, Money, Money” for its trade union paymasters.
Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Ind)
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am a proud trade unionist and a member of Unite the union. I have been supported from across the labour movement with the cleanest money in politics, which I do not think Conservative Members can say about themselves.
For over a year, Swedish Tesla workers have been on strike demanding the basic right to collective bargaining. Their struggle has inspired solidarity across industries. Postal workers, painters, electricians, cleaners and dock workers have all launched secondary action in support. Denmark’s largest trade union, 3F Transport, has also joined the fight, preventing Danish dock workers and drivers from handling Tesla shipments bound for Sweden. This level of solidarity is possible because Swedish trade unions are not shackled by restrictive laws designed to suppress collective action. Unlike here in the UK, the legislative landscape in Sweden does not act against the interests of organised labour. Almost 90% of Swedish workers are covered by collective agreements, and their labour laws ensure that workers have the right to negotiate and defend their conditions without undue interference.
As a result, Swedish trade unions are more than a match for billionaires like Elon Musk. When Tesla refused to sign a collective agreement, it was not just Tesla workers who fought back—the entire trade union movement did. That is what real industrial democracy looks like, and it is a powerful reminder of what British workers have been denied for too long by some of the most draconian anti-union legislation in the western world.
While I welcome the repeal of the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023 and much of the Trade Union Act 2016, the fact remains that many of the worst Thatcher-era anti-union laws are still in place. One of the most damaging is section 224 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, which makes secondary action unlawful. That ban on sympathy strikes isolates workers, weakens their bargaining power and prolongs disputes—all to the benefit of exploitative employers. That is why I have tabled new clause 31 to repeal that restriction and return power to working people.
Secondary action built the trade union movement as we know it. It helped us secure the very rights that we all benefit from today. But in an era of outsourcing and subcontracting, the ban is even more harmful than it was three decades ago. Under current legislation, two workers performing the same job in the same workplace cannot take industrial action together if one is directly employed and the other is outsourced. Employers exploit that loophole to divide workers. They shift responsibility through complex corporate structures, like what we are seeing at Coventry University in my constituency, and undermine union action by transferring work or hiving off companies. Workers are even prevented from taking action against parent companies and suppliers during disputes.
In many ways, secondary action is more essential than ever in the fight for fair pay and conditions. Most European nations, including Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Belgium and the Netherlands, allow secondary action in some form. Even those with restrictions, such as Germany, France and Spain, stop short of imposing an outright ban. Labour’s new deal for working people committed to repealing anti-union laws and ensuring that the UK’s industrial action laws comply with international obligations, including those under the International Labour Organisation and the European social charter. Yet, as it stands, the Bill fails to deliver on that promise.
International bodies have repeatedly condemned the UK’s ban on secondary action. The European Committee of Social Rights and the ILO criticised the UK for that restriction most recently in 2023 after the P&O Ferries scandal, when 800 crew members were sacked via video call and replaced with agency workers. P&O knew that it could get away with its disgraceful actions because the law prevents other workers from striking in solidarity.
I also support a number of amendments, including those tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald), such as new clause 61, which would define employment status in law to end bogus self-employment. That is long overdue. For too long, employers have exploited gaps in employment law to deny workers basic rights. Today, in our country, black and Asian workers are disproportionately trapped in precarious, low-paid jobs on bogus self-employment contracts and denied statutory sick pay, holiday pay and protection from unfair dismissal. This two-tier system must end.
Every single worker deserves dignity and respect in the workplace, and by strengthening the Bill with these amendments, we would be taking a step forward towards rebuilding the power of the working class. I urge Members across the House to stand on the right side of history and with the workers who keep this country running.
Gregory Stafford
I rise to speak again on the second day of Report stage to raise serious concerns about the role of the Bill in facilitating unprecedented and dangerous access for trade unions and the destruction of business, especially small businesses. I am glad the Minister is in his seat because yesterday he was challenged to name a small business that supported the Bill, and 24 hours later he still cannot. That is due not to the assiduity of the Minister, who I am sure is very assiduous, but to the simple fact that no small business supports the Bill.
Gregory Stafford
I have hardly started. There cannot possibly be anything that the hon. Gentleman wants to intervene on me for just yet, but I will come to him.
Gregory Stafford
I will come to the hon. Gentleman in a minute.
Yesterday, we heard that Labour clearly does not understand business, and today we get to what it really does understand: how it can support its trade union paymasters. Government Members have given us a masterclass in how to support trade unions. Opposition Members have mentioned the 1970s. When I heard Government Members speaking, especially the hon. Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery), John Williams’s score from “Jurassic Park” soared in my mind. But instead of Jeff Goldblum being savaged by the dinosaurs, the dinosaurs that walk among us today will be savaging our economy. We know that because the growing influence of the unions, especially under the Bill, impose a heavy burden on corporations, stifling their ability to operate efficiently. As new businesses struggle to adapt to the new regulations, which the Government’s very own impact assessment predicts will cost £5 billion to implement, industry leaders have publicly shared their fears—
Andy McDonald
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. We have had directions from the Chair on this matter, and I ask for your guidance. The hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) has just been immensely critical of my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery), who has a history of standing up to defend his industry, and who had the courage to go on strike for 12 months. Was he given notice that he would be named in this debate in that way?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I thank the hon. Member, but he will be aware that that was not a point of order. As the hon. Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery) has spoken in the debate, it is perfectly in order to refer to the comments that he made.
Gregory Stafford
I return to what industry leaders are saying. They have shared their fear about
“union influence slowing down decision making and hindering flexibility”,
making it harder for companies to remain competitive in global markets. The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development’s survey found that 79% of organisations expect measures in the Employment Rights Bill to increase employment costs, placing further strain on companies that are having to grapple with increases to national insurance contributions and the rising national minimum wage. It is also likely that the measures will lead to
“more strikes, more disruptions, and ultimately less productivity.”
Antonia Bance
The hon. Member has referred a number of times to yesterday’s proceedings. I am sad that he was not able to join us in the Division Lobby in voting against the amendments and in favour of the Bill, given that 73% of his constituents in Farnham and Bordon support statutory sick pay for all workers from day one, and 67% of his constituents support banning zero-hours contracts.
Gregory Stafford
I am sorry that I am such a disappointment to the hon. Lady, but maybe she will get over it.
The Bill is a roll-back of the most important changes that we made when we were in government. It is no surprise that trade unions have warmly embraced the legislation, over 200 amendments having been hastily shoehorned in to satisfy those who line the Government’s pockets. Perhaps it is purely coincidental that their wishes have been granted, although one might wonder if the £5.6 million in donations the Labour party has received since July has something to do with it.
Graham Stuart
Despite her proud membership of trade unions, the last Labour Member to be called to speak, the hon. Member for Coventry South (Zarah Sultana), did not mention the more than £9,000 that she received just in the last year, any more than the Labour Member who spoke before her, the hon. Member for Derby South (Baggy Shanker), mentioned the £24,000 plus that he received. If Labour Members were truly proud of the way that they have been bought and paid for by the trade unions, perhaps they would be open about how much they have received.
Gregory Stafford
My right hon. Friend makes a key point. The change since yesterday has been interesting. Yesterday, Labour Members were clear about declaring that they were members of trade unions, but only today have they suddenly realised that they should be declaring the amount of money that they are receiving directly.
We heard yesterday from the shadow Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), that the legislation will allow unions to bypass current rules, such as the rules on opting out of political donations. It must be fantastic news to the Labour party that it will now receive donations from workers by default, while businesses will face reduced notice periods for strikes, leading to even more disruption and economic damage. It is clear to me, and to the hundreds of businesses that have pulled their support for this Government, that this is not about protecting employment rights, but about consolidating union power.
Let us briefly look at some of the amendments. Amendment 292 would require trade unions to notify their members every year of their right to opt out of the political fund, and to obtain an annual opt-in. That change would ensure that unions do not continue to fill Labour’s piggybank, and do not lock workers into automatic donations unless they actively opt out, which is as much a memory test as an admin task. Unamended, clause 52 is not about transparency, but about keeping the money flowing to the political party with the most to gain.
Likewise, there are new clauses and amendments that would have introduced transparency about the facilities provided to trade union officials, learning representatives and equality representatives. Clauses 54 and 56 are designed to reduce transparency and accountability for union spending, allowing union officials to continue to benefit from facility time without proper scrutiny.
Sir Gavin Williamson (Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge) (Con)
Will my hon. Friend give way?
Sir Gavin Williamson
Does my hon. Friend agree that there is an interesting contrast in the Government’s approach? They are quite happy to put extra burdens, responsibilities and work on businesses of all sizes, yet when it comes to any element of transparency or giving members of trade unions a real choice and understanding of where their money is going, they refuse to do that.
Gregory Stafford
The disparity—I will put it no stronger than that—that my right hon. Friend mentions is stark. Anybody watching these proceedings outside this House will absolutely agree that the Government want to put extra burdens and regulations on business, but when it comes to the trade unions, transparency goes out the window. Why is that happening? The answer is simple and clear: unions have significant influence over this Government. While the Deputy Prime Minister and her Cabinet colleagues are pushing for these changes, they do not even do what the measures state. Key figures including the Chancellor, the Foreign Secretary and the Home Secretary are all guilty of hiring under terms that are odds with the new regulations. Why would they introduce such a Bill when they themselves do not comply with it?
Just like the more than 200 Labour MPs who have taken union donations, the Deputy Prime Minister has her own interests to consider. In her opening remarks yesterday, she proudly disclosed her union membership while conveniently admitting to the £13,000 in union donations that she has taken. It is clear that union influence is driving this legislation and most likely writing the speeches of Labour Members. The Government claim to be
“pro-growth, pro-business and pro-worker”—[Official Report, 21 October 2024; Vol. 755, c. 46.]
Gregory Stafford
I will not, because I have only a minute to go.
Perhaps it is time that the Government started listening to the real industry experts—those with practical experience in the sector—not just the trade unions or those within the confines of Whitehall. The Conservatives have tabled key amendments to support growth, in new clauses 89 and 90; international competitive duty, in new clause 87; and a limit on trade union influence on our business-driven economy.
We need to ensure that the Government’s policies do not burden our businesses, stifle innovation or lead to long-term economic harm. This Bill is not just poorly thought-out, but a direct threat to the very fabric of our economy, and we must challenge it before it causes irreparable damage and crushes our already crippled economy.
Dr Allison Gardner (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
I declare that I am a proud member of Unison, and I refer the House to my entries in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
I rise to speak in support of this groundbreaking Employment Rights Bill, which will deliver pro-business and pro-worker reforms. It will establish day one rights, such as rights to parental and bereavement leave for millions of workers, and, crucially, will put more money into people’s pockets—people who have had to endure low pay, job insecurity and a cost of living crisis created by 14 years of Tory rule. By strengthening protections for the lowest-paid workers and preventing exploitative employment practices, the Bill will give our working people the solid foundations on which to build a better quality of life.
I will very briefly comment on a couple of topics debated yesterday, which are of personal relevance and relevant to my constituency. [Interruption.] No? I will skip it; I did not think I would get away with that. This Bill will give a voice to working people by tackling the exclusion of independent unions from workplaces. If anyone has experienced a management of change process—I once did, almost three weeks into joining a new job, which was not fun—or workplace bullying, they will know the value of having a union backing them. Unions are fab. I personally thank Unison, including the incredible Trudie, for supporting me in my workplace.
I have seen the impact on those who have experienced issues such as workplace bullying when they have not had the backing of a union, or a union in their workplace, and the stress and pressures on them were immense. Indeed, they ended up with the choice of either putting up with it, leaving—we then have worker turnover—or going off sick. I have known people to go off sick for quite a period of time, which is of course comes at great cost to the company.
When a person joins a union, I have seen the difference that backing and advocacy makes to them, and the voice it gives them. I have experienced that as a normal person who once had a proper job, who was not a union activist but felt the value of unions—I make that comment as an observer. The work that unions do with management for the workers, to provide a workplace that is productive and secure, benefits companies as well. It is not in the interests of unions for businesses to fail; everyone wants a productive working environment.
It would be remiss of me, however, to not acknowledge the concerns that many small business owners have raised with me in recent months. They have been worried about this Bill, and I am grateful to many businesses that have reached out, including 1882 and Crossroads Care. I also want to thank Rachel Laver of the Chamber of Commerce for her excellent engagement, and for giving a voice to local businesses—I have engaged with them regularly. Their concerns are noted, but I also note comments like that from Claire Costello, chief people and inclusion officer at the Co-op:
“It’s our belief that treating employees well—a key objective of this Bill—will promote productivity and generate the economic growth this country needs.”
That comment has been echoed to me by local businesses.
My businesses in Stoke-on-Trent South have my word that I will support them and their workers, and so will this Labour Government, by delivering improved productivity and growth. I am sad that the Conservative party, which has tabled blocking amendments, does not want to support the working people of this country. This Bill’s comprehensive set of impact assessments show that the Bill will have a positive impact on growth, with vital measures such as those on sick pay boosting productivity and growth. Protecting the super-rich and relying on the myth of trickle-down economics have failed. It is time for trickle-up economics, and empowering the working people of this country.
Alison Griffiths (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)
As has been said many times yesterday and today, this Bill is deeply flawed. The Government have ignored the serious concerns raised by business leaders and independent economists. The Federation of Small Businesses has warned that these rushed changes will lead to job losses and deter employers from hiring. The Institute of Directors found that 57% of business leaders will be less likely to hire because of the additional red tape imposed by the Bill, and incredibly, the Government’s own impact assessments fail to account for the Bill’s real economic consequences, simply dismissing them as too hard to calculate. Our new clause 90 would ensure that any regulations made under part 4 of the Bill must consider economic growth and international competitiveness, yet Labour has refused to accept even that common-sense measure, proving that its approach is anti-growth at its core.
Prioritising the interests of trade unions over economic stability makes it harder for businesses to hire, grow and compete. It is no surprise that trade unions have declared victory, as the Government have effectively handed them a blank cheque at the expense of businesses and workers alike. Our amendments seek to restore fairness and balance. Amendment 292 would require trade unions to notify their members annually of their right to opt out of political fund contributions, ensuring basic transparency and fairness. Labour has hypocritically opposed this measure, despite previously supporting similar provisions—during the passage of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024, it called automatic renewals a “subscription trap”. It seems that Labour only cares about consumer choice when it does not impact on its own funding.
The Government claim that removing this requirement is about cutting red tape for unions, while adding lots of other red tape. In reality, the change strips away individual choice and accountability. As several of my hon. Friends have said, trade unions donated over £31 million to the Labour party between 2019 and 2024. Workers should have the right to make an informed choice each year about whether they want to contribute to political causes, rather than being automatically signed up without clear consent. Labour Members’ refusal to support the amendment reveals their true priority: protecting their own financial interests, rather than standing up for transparency and workers’ rights.
Graham Stuart
The impact assessment states that these measures could have a £5 billion impact, in addition to the £25 billion impact of the national insurance contribution changes. Does my hon. Friend agree that what the impact assessment is missing is how much union funding the measures will drive directly to the Labour party as a result? We ought to know how many hundreds of thousands or millions extra will come to the Labour party and to Labour Members to make them support this growth-killing set of measures.
Alison Griffiths
It is a fascinating question, and we wait to hear the answers from Government Members.
Gregor Poynton (Livingston) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to speak on this vital Bill as it passes its remaining stages. I draw the House’s attention to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am a proud member of the GMB and Community trade unions. I am particularly pleased to speak in today’s debate, because at one of my regular coffee mornings on Saturday, a constituent of mine, Phil, told me that I needed to be doing more to promote the benefits of this legislation. I am not sure that making a speech in the House of Commons meets Phil’s expectation of promotion, but that conversation showed me how important this legislation will be for working people in the Livingston constituency.
The Government have rightly tabled amendments to the Bill to ensure that we deliver reforms that are both pro-business and pro-worker. Although Conservative Members have tried to make much of the number of Government amendments, we remember that they are still the party of “Eff business”. With their opposition to the Bill, they show that they are “Eff workers”, too.
What the amendments in fact demonstrate is the commitment of the Minister and the Government to listening and consulting with a huge range of stakeholders on these issues, delivering the largest upgrade in workers’ rights in many decades, but in a way that does right by businesses and good employers, ensuring that they have the conditions and environment they need to encourage investment and create jobs.
This Bill will support the Government’s critical mission for growth by increasing productivity and putting money back in people’s pockets. It will deliver real-life improvements.
Sir Gavin Williamson
Can the hon. Gentleman set out five ways that the Bill will improve productivity for businesses?
Gregor Poynton
I will certainly come on to that, but one way is that the Bill will improve employment relations in workforces. In the past 14 years, we have seen strike after strike because of the Conservatives’ approach to industrial relations. This change will improve productivity.
The Bill will deliver real-life improvements that will be felt across Britain. Key amendments that strengthen protections for the lowest-paid workers will ensure that all workers are treated with the decency they deserve. I welcome the vital steps that the Bill takes to extend protection, from exploitative zero-hours contracts, to protecting the voice of working people and strengthening statutory sick pay.
As a member of the Business and Trade Committee, I have been able to scrutinise large businesses that choose to have zero-hours contracts in place. In one evidence session, I heard from a company representative who revealed that employees can have their shift changed at 24 hours’ notice, but not receive a single penny in compensation. The Bill is vital in addressing the challenges of financial planning faced by families who are dependent on zero-hours contracts. More than 1 million people on such contracts will benefit from the guaranteed hours policy. Crucially, the Bill will ensure that Governments work with businesses, and will support employers who endeavour to comply with the law. With the Government amendments, it will also expand and strengthen the powers of the fair work agency to bring civil proceedings against non-compliant employers at employment tribunals and to issue civil penalties, such as fines, to employers who breach pay-related rights and underpay their staff.
Graham Stuart
Given that the measures we are debating will give so much more power to the trade unions, why has the hon. Gentleman not felt it incumbent on him to declare the thousands of pounds that he has received from trade unions in the last year?
Gregor Poynton
I thank the right hon. Member for highlighting that, because I am proud of the money that I receive from unions. I am also proud of the fact that entrepreneurs and business people donate to my campaign as well. The right hon. Member neglected to mention that when he brought the subject up. Because I am both pro-business and pro-worker, I want to see growth in the economy. I am proud to receive donations from employers and people who have created wealth in this country, and I am also proud to receive donations from trade union members in my constituency.
Daisy Cooper
Is the hon. Member surprised, as I am, that there is so much support on these Benches for caps on political donations and greater transparency about them?
Gregor Poynton
We have mentioned that, of course, and it is certainly the case. I would love to see more transparency from the Conservative party.
It is right and proper that we reward the good businesses that contribute to good employment and sustainable growth, and it is right and proper that we take action against rogue employers that do not. With this Bill, the Government are also calling it quits on the Tories’ scorched-earth approach to industrial relations, which led to the worst strikes chaos in decades. A new partnership of co-operation between trade unions, employers and Government will ensure that we benefit from more co-operation and less disruption.
North of the border, the Bill signals the largest upgrade of workers’ rights in Scotland for a decade. It marks an end to exploitative zero-hours contracts and fire and rehire practices. It will establish day one rights to paternity, parental and bereavement leave for millions of workers. However, it will also be beneficial for employers in Scotland, helping to keep people in work and reduce recruitment costs by increasing staff retention and levelling the playing field on enforcement. It is both pro-worker and pro-business.
Members of the Scottish National party—including the hon. Member for Dundee Central (Chris Law) today —have been calling for the devolution of employment law for many years, but at no point have they explained how, beyond the banning of zero-hours contracts, those powers would be used to improve workers’ terms and conditions, to increase productivity and to accelerate economic growth. Moreover, it might be nice if the SNP practised what it preached. During the Rutherglen by-election in 2023, it chose to use zero-hours contracts to employ people to deliver leaflets. In government, the same party has chosen to include zero-hour contracts in their definition of positive destinations for school leavers. Financial insecurity, anxiety and stress do not sound like my idea of a positive destination.
The SNP says that it wants to transform Scotland’s economy for the better—to boost wages and productivity and grow key sectors—but the fact is that Scotland has a higher rate of zero-hour contracts among people in employment than any other UK nation. How are people supposed to plan financially and improve their quality of life when they wake up on a Monday morning to find out via text message whether this week they will have eight shifts, two shifts, or no shifts at all?
The reality is that the Scottish Government already have the powers to introduce changes to many workers’ terms and conditions through public procurement, but they choose not to do so. They would always rather blame someone else, and further constitutional grievance, than use the extensive powers that they have to improve the lives of ordinary Scots. That is why the Bill is of such paramount importance. Across the UK, acute benefits will be delivered to the people who need them the most, and in Scotland the Bill will right the wrongs of the SNP’s laissez-faire approach to regulating zero-hour contracts.
The tenure of this Labour Government is still measured in months and not years, but this Bill is yet another example of their delivering the new direction that the workers, businesses and people of Scotland and the wider United Kingdom deserve.
Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)
As any sensible people would know, changes to business regulations need to strike a careful balance to not deter both business investment and job creation, but I am afraid that this Bill gets the balance wrong. Labour’s weakening of a variety of trade union laws, particularly on the threshold for industrial action, is a recipe for disaster for both the public and businesses, particularly SMEs.
As a London MP, I have heard this fairytale from those on the Labour Benches before, because London has too often been paralysed by strikes under Mayor Sadiq Khan. Infamously, the London Mayor promised our city “zero days of strikes” in 2016, but he has comprehensively broken that promise. In Sadiq Khan’s first two terms, there were more than 135 strikes, which is almost four times more than the number of strikes under his predecessor —a record that Mayor Khan labelled a “disgrace”. If 35 strikes are a disgrace, the 135 under Mayor Khan represent a catastrophic failure. My fear is that this Bill and the Labour Government’s amendments will make strikes even more common in London.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
Does the hon. Member recall how many strikes there were under the last Conservative Government?
Mr French
As we have seen already—this is what I was talking about—the fairytale says that if we improve industrial relations and give trade unions all the money they want, suddenly there will not be any strikes. But what has happened in practice since the Labour Government came in? Trade unions have been given all the money, and they are still threatening to go on strike.
This Bill really does read like a militant trade union wish list. Strike mandates have doubled from six to 12 months, allowing trade unions to impose rolling strikes for a whole year without balloting their members. Turnout requirements have been abolished so that a minority can call strikes, and the Government have removed the requirement for 50% of members to vote and 40% to support industrial action. The Bill reduces the notice for strikes by four days and gives employers less information, making strikes even more damaging to businesses and disruptive to people’s lives. It also allows unreasonable paid facility time for trade unions, making the taxpayer and companies pay out even more for trade union representatives at the same time that the Labour Government are raising everyone’s taxes and cutting public services.
Gareth Snell
I guess that the hon. Gentleman has never been a member of a trade union or participated in an industrial ballot. Members choose to go on strike once the ballot has finished; no one forces them to go on strike. When members give up a day’s pay to go on strike, they do so because they are fighting for improvements to their terms and conditions. He is making out as though they are somehow compelled to strike. When members turn out for a strike, they do so because of their strength of feeling about the conditions they face—nothing more.
Mr French
I would have some sympathy for that argument if the threshold for the percentage of workers voting for a strike was being maintained, but we are now clearly leaving the door open for a minority of militant trade union members to go on strike and cause mass disruption. I will be honest and say that I have never been a member of a trade union, but my experience of trade union bosses is that they live a life that I could never dream of as a working-class man, to be quite frank. As a working-class person from a working-class background, I learnt at a very young age that trade unions and the Labour party stopped representing working-class people many years ago, and this Government are proving it yet again.
Becky Gittins
Given the hon. Gentleman’s comments about a small number of militant trade unionists taking industrial action if this Bill becomes law, it is worth noting that over the last 10 years, a small and militant group of Conservative party members have managed to choose successive Prime Ministers with fewer requirements than those applied to members of trade unions when they vote to take industrial action in their workplaces. Does he think that is fair?
Mr French
I thank the hon. Lady for her rather odd intervention. It has nothing to do with this Bill, but if more people had a chance to vote on issues such as who should be the Prime Minister today, I suspect that they would come to a completely different answer from the one they came to last July, because this Labour Government have broken every single promise that they made at the election. I cannot wait for the public to have the opportunity to vote out this shocking Labour Government, so I am all for people having more chance to do so.
As I and other Conservative Members have said already, this Bill was written by the trade unions and for the trade unions. Why are the Government granting this wish list to the trade unions? The simple answer is that the Labour party will benefit from these proposals. As I was taught as a young man, “Follow the money.” [Interruption.] Yes, I did not follow it by coming into this place. Over the past five years, the Labour party has received more than £31 million in political donations from the unions. This Bill will remove the requirement for trade union members to opt in to those contributions; instead, they will have to opt out, which means more will unknowingly contribute to political causes that they do not support. The Government’s amendment will mean that trade unions no longer need to renew their political resolutions every 10 years, and ultimately this will make it even easier for trade unions to divert cash to political causes, including the Labour party.
In short, this Bill means more strikes more often and more money for the Labour party, and strikes will be grinding business to a halt, shutting down public services and closing public transport systems again.
Daisy Cooper
As I noted in my speech, there are problems with the Bill. The hon. Member has mentioned the problems on public transport. Does he recall that in 2022 the train unions and the train operating companies actually resolved their dispute, and does he regret that the Transport Minister at the time intervened to block that agreement to resolve the strikes?
Mr French
My experience as an MP is great frustration, particularly in outer London, about train companies constantly going on strike, with a very small minority of train drivers going on strike. What we saw from this Government was a load of money going straight to those same unions, without the productivity changes that we would like to see, and no adaptation in the system. My personal opinion on some of these proposals is that it is increasingly likely that automation and a loss of jobs will be direct consequences of the rigid trade union laws being forced on to more businesses. I suspect that the only thing that will rise in this Parliament is unemployment.
These strikes are costly, disruptive and damaging to Britain. They ought to be a last resort, but this Government’s proposals will take us back to the 1970s—before I was born—when strikes were a political tool for division, damage and disruption. This is yet more evidence that Labour is not on the side of working people or of serious economic growth, as its own impact assessment—even partial—tells us. Londoners will not thank this Government if this results in yet more disruptive and longer rolling strikes that grind our city down even further than Mayor Khan has. Working people will not thank this Government for empowering their trade unions to bring our country to a standstill, especially as we pick up the Bill as they fill their pockets.
Mr Frith
I draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests—
Mr Frith
If the right hon. Member listens, he will hear.
From my entry, Members will see that I am a proud member of the GMB and that my donations include those from entrepreneurs and businesspeople alike who are collectively sick of the 14 years of the Conservative Government. I will take no lessons from that party, given its record over those 14 years, and none of the speeches by Conservative Members have defended any achievements that were made in 14 years relating to this Bill or anything to do with our economy. That is the party of “Eff business”, of a striking NHS, of 60% furlough settlements for Manchester workers, of cash for covid contracts, of inflation highs, of Liz Truss, of the mini-Budget disaster, of zero growth, of the collapse of infrastructure, of public spending power disappearing, and of the state of our roads and of our prospects. It is for this reason that my entry includes a combination of GMB membership, given the members and the workers that we represent, and of the entrepreneurs who wanted rid of that lot over there.
Mr Frith
I will make some progress. The right hon. Gentleman has said plenty already, and he came in only halfway through the debate.
I am proud to stand on the Labour side of the House as someone who has founded a business, run businesses for others and run my own business. Fifteen years ago, I made a commitment to be the voice of experience for good small businesses in the proud Labour movement that we now have in government, not least to challenge the claim of the Conservatives that they alone represent business interests. I am proudly pro-business and pro-worker, just as this Government are. Fixing the foundations of our economy means fixing the foundations of our employment. Just as the Government are strengthening our economic base, they are now laying down stronger employment foundations.
Running a business is hard work. It requires an initial leap of faith, the courage to embrace risk, the ability to adjust, the resilience to overcome failure and the perseverance to celebrate success. The role of government is to improve life and living for everyone in this country. The role of good employment is exactly the same. Small businesses are at the heart of this effort. That is why the Government are right to focus on skills, value for money with public spending, opening up public sector commissioning to SMEs and challenger companies, and, crucially, the Bill making employment a more positive, rewarding experience. Insecure work leads to insecure living, and neither will improve life in Britain. We should highlight and support those employers who are already leading the way. Much of this legislation simply catches up to their high standards.
The weight of responsibility that comes with creating somebody else’s payslip cannot be overstated. It is humbling, sometimes worrying and never easy. It requires teamwork and the skills of others, but also leadership—sometimes lonely leadership. It means shouldering risk and sharing rewards. That is why the Government’s ambition for growth is the right one. The focus must be on net growth, locking in certainty for those in work by upholding rights for the many, while fostering new opportunities to expand our economy.
I want to salute those businesses and entrepreneurs for whom much of this legislation emphasises the good practices they already uphold. In Bury, businesses such as the Lamppost Café, where—a declaration of interest, Madam Deputy Speaker—my daughter works part time, Life Store in Ramsbottom, Wax and Beans record and coffee shop in Bury, Bloom, Avoira, MSL Solution Providers, Ernill’s Bakery, Wallwork Aerospace Heat Treatment, and Hargreaves. These businesses, often family run, are the backbone of Bury, and so they build the backbone of Britain; rooted in their communities; providing stability, pride and good honest work for an honest day’s pay. Many stand ready to do more to grow, invest and create more opportunities.
Graham Stuart
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Could he tell us which of that fine list of businesses have said that they support the Bill?
Mr Frith
I have had conversations with the vast majority of them. They support the general emphasis—[Interruption.] Actually, if the right hon. Gentleman has been listening, he will know that the argument I am making is that on much of the proposed legislation—giving rights on day one, being fair minded, making work pay—they are already doing that. The point I am making—[Interruption.] I have just named several. The most recent conversation I had was with MSL Solution Providers. Its challenges and arguments are around R&D tax credits, an argument I will make in due course. But the Conservatives’ claim of being the voice of small business and entrepreneurship is misguided, misrepresented and, frankly, out of date.
Once we have laid the new employment foundations, we must support them in building their businesses further. In particular, for some that means ensuring that AI enhances and expands prospects and prosperity in the employment market and the wider economy.
Lastly, I am proud to highlight my support for extending bereavement leave to those who experience a miscarriage—a compassionate and essential measure that I proudly support alongside my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen).
The Bill is not just about a legislative process; it is about our values. It is about recognising that a thriving economy and a fair society must go hand in hand with tackling our inequalities. It is about ensuring that whether employer or employee, the foundation on which our employment is built ensures strength for all.
John Cooper
I rise as a former member of a trade union, and the harsh lessons I learned then are what concern me about this Bill. As a low-paid journalist on a local paper, I had hoped that the union would go in to bat for me. Instead, it was more interested in Cuban socialism and collective bargaining, more concerned about traducing Mrs Thatcher’s legacy than the tribulations of a junior reporter, more interested in funding the Labour party than supporting me and my newsroom colleagues. That is why I am backing amendments such as amendment 292, which seeks to defuse what has been called a subscription trap, where inertia is used to allow political donations taken from members to tick up year in, year out. Is this the clean money of which the hon. Member for Coventry South (Zarah Sultana) spoke?
In the Business and Trade Committee we have heard that good relations are possible between employers and trade unions. Of course they are—not all union reps are agitators, any more than all bosses are grasping exploiters of the workers. But stripping out existing protections, as this Bill does, risks tilting the law too far in favour of the unions, making strikes more frequent and more damaging thanks to, for example, lower notice periods.
We know that the unions are already restive; just ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, unable to attend an event with, ironically, the Scottish Confederation of British Industry in his own office because he would not cross a picket line, and he has had to cancel at least one other event as the pickets strike on. If a Cabinet Minister is already at the unions’ mercy, what chance do the general public have?
We have heard about positive trade union benefits, but it is not all sunlit uplands. One rail union refuses to let bosses use email for rotas, insisting on fax machines— I imagine I am one of the few Members who remembers those. Another left passengers inconvenienced when it ordered members not to use a footbridge as it had a skim of snow on it no thicker than the icing on a cake. They must be licking their lips at clauses that remove previous thresholds for strike action such as the 50% turnout requirement and the 40% support requirement. I think the public will support amendments that would keep existing benchmarks as modest guardrails, not to crack down on unions but to limit the damage that hotheads might inflict.
This skimpy Bill, cobbled together with indecent haste to meet Labour’s “first 100 days” deadline, bears all the hallmarks of a thank you note from Labour to its union backers. If it passes, the unions are going to party like it’s 1979. However, Labour Members pocketing supposedly pristine union donations should have a care, because that 1979 winter of discontent saw the public lose patience with a Labour Prime Minister captured by the unions. History does not repeat precisely, but this does look awfully familiar.
Mrs Russell
This afternoon I want to talk about a point that I think many of us across the House would agree on: employment rights are quite useless without any sort of enforcement mechanism. I should first mention that I am a member of the Community union and the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers, and I refer everyone to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
On enforcement, I am very pleased with clause 122 increasing the time for bringing employment tribunal claims from three to six months. It is a result of extensive campaigning by Pregnant Then Screwed and other organisations including the National AIDS Trust. They were very aware on behalf of their members of something I used to see regularly as a solicitor: a lot of people who have been very badly treated in their employment are so traumatised that they cannot come forward and make their claims within the three-month time limit. In addition, that reduces the potential time available for negotiation between former employees and their former employers, which is not in the best interests of either employees or employers. It is therefore really good news for both parties that we will have this increase in the amount of time available to bring those claims.
The other measure that I am particularly delighted about in the Bill is the creation of the Fair Work Agency. We absolutely need there to be accountability for employers that are not paying the national minimum wage. They are few and far between, and those that are not doing paying it need to be properly monitored and subject to enforcement, in order to create a fair playing field for all companies. I am sure that Opposition Members would completely agree that the national minimum wage is a fundamental part of our society and that everyone should be paying it.
The other matter I want to draw attention to is the Adult Social Care Negotiating Body. In my constituency, significant numbers of people need adult social care, and having a stable workforce is important in delivering that.
Alison Griffiths
I think the hon. Lady possibly misrepresents the intent of Opposition Members. We are not anti-trade union; we are anti the drafting of this Bill. I think it is important to make a clear distinction between the two.
Mrs Russell
I thank the hon. Lady for her point, but I think it is a very difficult distinction to make: that they are pro-trade union but anti things that make it easier for trade unions to effectively represent workers.
To return to my point, access to trade unions means access to good-quality advice, quicker resolution of disputes and a reduction in unrepresented litigants in person, which, in my experience, can make life genuinely difficult for well-meaning employers. Every single thing in this Bill will be good for workers, but it will also be good for employers, and I will be very pleased to vote for it later today.
Jayne Kirkham
I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and declare my Unison membership, although I am also an ex-solicitor. I am going to address the Government amendments relating to enforcement, rather than trade union rights.
We have a large demand for social care in Cornwall, as is the case in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs Russell). Our population tends to an older demographic and, with many people leaving friends and family to retire to Cornwall, the availability of care is very important. Our social care system is close to breaking point due to the combination of years of underfunding and a fragmented privatised system. Skilled care workers are chronically underpaid for what they do, often at minimum wage, and we struggle to get and retain care workers.
The Bill contains many provisions that will help: strengthened sick pay; parental leave; protection from unfair dismissal from day one; improved family-friendly rights and flexible working; measures to tackle zero-hours contracts, including for agency workers and workers at umbrella companies, as well as for direct employees; and strengthened redundancy rights. The Bill also specifically gives social care workers respect and recognition through a fair pay agreement, and reinstates the School Support Staff Negotiating Body. It will be a game changer for those low-paid workers—mostly women—who work in care and schools.
Daisy Cooper
The hon. Lady will be aware that there is a debate on the National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill next week, where we will debate whether health and social care providers should be excluded from national insurance contributions. Would she care to comment on whether Labour Members will support that amendment made in the House of Lords?
Jayne Kirkham
Local government funding will, of course, be increasing to take that into account, and funding for adult social care is rising and will rise further in the next three-year settlement under this Government.
To return to my speech, in Cornwall we have seen the rise of care workers coming from other countries to work on sponsorship visa schemes. These workers are often in a financially precarious situation, which increases their dependency. Some have been charged by their employers for induction, travel or training; in some cases, workers receive a salary below the minimum wage to make up the cost of their flights to the UK.
Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)
I refer colleagues to my entry on the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech about the situation in her county. Does she agree that this is a national problem that affects all our constituencies? It is certainly the case in Berkshire, and in Reading in particular, that we need better pay for care workers and more understanding about the pressures they face in their very valuable work.
Jayne Kirkham
I agree with my hon. Friend. This matter affects the entire country. Unison, for example, has a campaign about migrant care workers, so, yes, this is a national issue.
In Cornwall, those care workers are often given the early morning and late evening shifts with no flexibility. Some sit on benches, stranded in Cornish villages that buses do not pass through, waiting from their morning shift to their first evening shift.
Many health and social care workers on sponsorship visas are afraid to raise concerns about their employment and living conditions for fear of losing their employer’s sponsorship. Employers in turn can be aware of that, and some even use it as an explicit threat. That brings me to the enforcement provisions in the Bill. Enforcement of statutory pay and employment rights is poor in the social care sector. Pay enforcement relies on individual workers reporting breaches. His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs investigates fewer than 1% of care providers each year. International workers and those from minority ethnic backgrounds are particularly vulnerable. For individual rights to become a reality, a collective voice in the workplace and effective enforcement are key.
The Law Society reports that the backlog in employment tribunal cases stands at 44,000, which is 18% higher than it was in 2023. This backlog needs clearing and investment needs to be made in employment tribunals.
The new Fair Work Agency will have a crucial role to play in reducing the burden on the employment tribunal system by providing a focal point for advice on enforcement under Government amendment 208, in enabling the disclosure of information under Government amendment 212 and in taking on some of those enforcement powers under Government new clauses 57 and 58 on behalf of those workers. Those powers could really help low-paid or migrant workers who do not have access to funds or to union representation to enforce their rights, or who fear dismissal if they take steps in that direction.
Government amendment 249 will allow the Fair Work Agency to investigate and combat fraud and exploitative employers, thereby tackling the kind of modern slavery of international workers in the care industry that we have seen recently.
Government new clause 60 will also give the Fair Work Agency the power to recover the cost of enforcement, which would help with the funding of the system. However, real investment will need to be made into enforcement for the new powers to have teeth, with a timeline, resourcing and fast-track procedure for the new Fair Work Agency. I welcome confirmation of the Government’s commitment in this area.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
May I give Members a brief reminder that we are today talking to the new clauses and amendments on trade unions, industrial action, enforcement of labour market legislation, and miscellaneous and general provisions?
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Ind)
I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I wish to deal with new clauses 8 and 9, which relate to recognition of the POA’s right to strike. I therefore also declare that I am an honorary life member of the POA. The word “honorary” means that there is no financial relationship, and I am assured that I would not even get a south-facing cell or an extra pillow.
New clauses 8 and 9 try to restore the fundamental right of prison officers to take industrial action in its various forms. The union has existed for 90 years and, although organised as a trade union, it has never taken any form of industrial action that has endangered the prisoners the officers care for, other staff or the wider community. Through all of its long history, there was an industrial relations climate in which negotiations took place and disputes were resolved.
Then in 1994, the Conservative Government, under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, made it a crime to induce any prison officer to take strike action, or even to work to rule. The trade union was told very clearly that that would be a criminal act and any trade union officer organising action, even a work to rule, could be prosecuted. What the Government then did—this was why people became extremely cynical at the time—was to plan increases in the pension age, make extensive salary cuts and cut staff numbers. There was no way the union could fight back in any form to protect its members.
Some hon. Members who were about at the time may recall that, in 2019, the POA faced high six-figure fines in the High Court. When it took action on health and safety grounds by convening meetings of members, it was threatened with legal action and the union leaders were threatened with imprisonment. Ironically, it would have been interesting to ask who would lock them up—but that is another question altogether.
When the police had their right to strike taken away, it was almost like a covenant and they were given very specific commitments around how they would be protected on pay, pensions and conditions of work. That was never offered to the POA and there was never any negotiation like that, where it would at least be given some security in return for the loss of that right. That was never given.
The POA took the Government to the European Court of Human Rights in 2024 and the case was accepted. The Court urged the Government to engage with the union in good faith over what remedies would be available. The then Government refused to engage and the current Government are still not engaging, so one of the reasons for tabling the new clauses is to urge the Government to start engaging with the union around that particular issue.
All the union is asking for is that its members be treated like any other workers and for the Government to engage. The right to strike in Scotland was restored 10 years ago and there has been no strike action since. That has created an industrial relations climate that is conducive to working together—not to entering into conflict but to negotiating problems out. I think that that is a result of both sides knowing that there is the alternative, if necessary, of taking part in industrial action.
As most people know, industrial action in public services is often not a strike; it is usually a work to rule to start off negotiations. I have been a member of a trade union for 50 years; I have been a trade union officer, a lay official and so on. Every union that I have known, where there is any form of industrial action that in any way involves a public service, always puts in place negotiated arrangements to protect the people that they are serving—that is not just life and limb protection, but often ensures a standard of service that is still acceptable to people. I therefore urge the Minister to get back round the table with the POA.
There was a debate in Committee on this matter, which angered people and angered me. I have gone over the debate. It showed a shameful disrespect for prison officers and an ignorance of the role that they play and the working environment that they work in. There are references to screws and guards and things like that, and about how, somehow, if the right were restored, the union would allow prisoners to run amok and put the whole community at risk. That is never the case—it never has been and never would be. There is a lack of understanding about what those workers put up with. As many hon. Members know, there is overcrowding. Prison officers deal with prisoners with huge mental health issues, drug problems and health problems overall. There are record levels of violence in prisons and prison officers are injured almost daily as a result of assaults.
I have to say that the disrespect demonstrated in the Committee was part and parcel of the demoralisation of even more of our workers in those key roles. I therefore ask the Minister to re-engage, to get back round the negotiating table and to recognise that the issue will not go away. These members want their basic trade union rights back and, if necessary, they will go back before the European Court. I believe they will win and that we will, unnecessarily, go through another period in which the demoralisation of workers continues because of people’s lack of respect for their basic trade union rights. We are suffering real problems in recruitment and retention, so I urge the Government just to take that one step back to the negotiating table with the POA.
Becky Gittins
I rise in support of Government new clauses 57 and 58. I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my proud trade union membership.
I ask the Opposition to consider their comments today in what has proved to be a very ideologically driven debate on their part. I feel somewhat as if I have been transported back in time to a previous reforming Labour Government’s last upgrade to employment rights—the minimum wage debate. This afternoon’s fearmongering about productivity, growth and unemployment is reminiscent of it. We also have seen some crossover in the personnel who were part of the Conservative opposition. The then shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), said that the minimum wage would
“negatively affect…not hundreds of thousands but millions of people.”—[Official Report, 4 July 2017; Vol. 297, c. 526.]
Laurence Turner
My hon. Friend will remember that in 2017, when the Conservatives announced the employment Bill that was never produced, they said that it would represent the biggest upgrade of workers’ rights by any Conservative Government ever. Would she care to speculate on why they set their ambitions so low?
Becky Gittins
Some comments from Opposition Members today have made it very clear to the public what the Opposition think about people’s rights at work.
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Reform)
The hon. Member is making a passionate and inspiring speech about the national minimum wage. Is she aware that just last year, the leader of the Scottish Labour party admitted that his family business was not paying members of staff the living wage? Does she think that is rank hypocrisy?
Becky Gittins
I think that everyone should be on board with the national minimum wage and the living wage. I hope that we can encourage all Members of all parties to get on board. I am very pleased to hear that commitment and concern from the Reform party. It is unexpected, but I respect it.
On Second Reading, I welcomed this legislation as a central tenet of this Government’s policy of putting working people at the heart of our economy and making work pay. I am delighted to see the Bill return to the Chamber, and I pay tribute to those who served on the Public Bill Committee. The Bill modernises the UK’s outdated employment laws, bringing in more than 30 much-needed and welcome reforms, including: day one rights of employment, banning exploitative zero-hours contracts, abolishing fire and rehire, establishing bereavement leave, increasing protections from sexual harassment, introducing equality menopause action plans, strengthening rights for pregnant workers and establishing the Fair Work Agency.
I am pleased that, during the scrutiny process, the Government have tabled amendments to strengthen protections for low-paid workers, including those relating to statutory sick pay. In real terms, 1 million people on zero-hours contracts will benefit from the guaranteed hours policy. Nine million people who have been with their employer for less than two years will benefit from day-one rights relating to the unfair dismissal policy. Because of the Fair Work Agency, holiday pay rights will be enforced for the very first time.
The measures before us strengthen the Fair Work Agency. New clause 57 will enable it to bring proceedings against a non-compliant employer in an employment tribunal, in place of the worker. New clause 58 enables the provision of legal advice or representation for those who have become a party to civil proceedings related to employment or trade union law.
Although the vast majority of employers across the country, including hundreds in Clwyd East, will certainly obey the law, there are still those that sadly do not. A Citizens Advice report states that higher-paid workers are 50% more likely than lower-paid individuals to bring an employment tribunal claim, despite the fact that lower-paid individuals are more likely to have their rights violated. As Unison points out, leaving the burden of challenging workplace injustice to individual workers seeking redress at tribunal compounds inequalities of power in the UK labour market.
The Low Pay Commission figures highlight key reasons to implement these important measures. We know, for instance, that 20% of workers were paid less than minimum wage in 2023, and that nearly 1 million workers did not get any holiday pay. The agency will bring together existing state enforcement functions, and will be a single place to which workers and employers can turn for help. I am pleased that the agency will aim to resolve issues upstream by supporting employers that want to comply. I understand from evidence gathered by the Bill Committee that there was considerable support for a single enforcement body in place of what is currently quite a fractured system. On accountability, the Bill requires an annual report on the Fair Work Agency’s enforcement actions, and will allow Parliament to monitor progress in protecting workers’ rights.
I am encouraged to hear that, to produce its strategy, the Fair Work Agency will consult an advisory board made up of trade unions, businesses and independent experts. It is vital that we continue our collaborative approach in developing employment legislation and policy that is pro-business, pro-worker and, ultimately, pro-growth. I welcome the new clauses and the Bill as a whole. It is an important part of the Government’s strategy to move our economy forward, improve work security and ensure greater productivity.
Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)
In speaking in support of the Bill, I declare that I am a Unison member.
The Bill and the Government amendments to it will deliver real-life improvements for working people across my constituency and across Scotland. Key amendments will strengthen protections for the lowest-paid workers in my constituency, extend protections from exploitative zero-hours contracts, boost the voice of working people in the workplace, strengthen statutory sick pay to 80% from the first day of sickness, extend sick pay to 1.3 million of the lowest earners across the country, and provide greater protection from unfair dismissal, with 9 million people benefiting from day one protection. That is the real change that we promised to deliver for real people—public service workers in West Dunbartonshire, such as frontline staff in the service industry, essential utilities, social care, transport or health.
The days of exploitation are now over. The Labour party is doing what we do best and will always do: protecting working people, promoting decent pay and work, and delivering meaningful change for so many. We are putting power in the hands of working people. The Government’s commitment to growing the economy will be built on rebalancing rights at work and raising living standards in every part of this country; the two are interwoven. The Government’s amendments will ensure just that by boosting the enforcement of rights and giving the new Fair Work Agency the power to bring civil proceedings against non-compliant employers that seek to underpay staff. In 2023, one in five workers was paid less than the minimum wage. That will stop. Almost 1 million workers in this country did not receive holiday pay in 2023. That will stop.
The amendments will level the playing field. They include measures on digital access to employment agreements, allowing independent unions to apply for recognition and stopping the practice of employer lock-out, a 20-working-day window for employers and unions to negotiate access, and a new right for unions to access the workplace, which could be transformative as it gives workers a fair voice to improve their pay and conditions.
It is time to turn the page on the combative and unproductive approach adopted by the previous Government, and it is time to modernise the industrial relations framework. The Bill and the amendments support a much-needed reset of industrial relations across Great Britain. This Government have a clear mandate to deliver real change that working people in my constituency of West Dunbartonshire can see and feel. That change cannot come soon enough. The Employment Rights Bill is the crucial first step on that path. It is the biggest uplift in workers’ rights in a generation, and I am proud to vote for it and support it today.
Laurence Turner
I am grateful to be called twice on Report, and as is customary, I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my membership of Unite. I am also the chair of the GMB parliamentary group.
I start with comments that I had not planned to make at the beginning of this debate. Much has been heard about registers of interests. As the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith), who is in his place, said at the end of the Bill’s Committee, Labour Members have been assiduous in drawing attention to their membership of trade unions and their declarations in registers of interests, but I believe that the hon. Member for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti) was the first Conservative Member to draw attention to his own donations without being challenged first. Much of the tone of this debate has focused not on the substance of the Bill, but on ascribed motivations, which I believe has been demeaning to the standards and courtesies expected in this House.
There is much to welcome in the Government amendment. I wish to concentrate my remarks on new clause 40 and new schedule 2. On political fund ballots, the 10-year requirement dates to the Trade Union Act 1984. The requirement does not apply to any political funds that may be maintained by employers’ associations; nor does a successful ballot in any way infringe on a trade union member’s right to withdraw payments from the political fund at any time, so I think we can be confident about that policy’s intention: it was to tie up trade union time and resources, and in that respect it was successful. These ballots are a massive abstraction of resources, which gets in the way of trade unions’ and trade union members’ core business of representing people at work. In 40 years, not one union member has voted to discontinue a political fund.
Trade unions are democratic organisations. If there is discontent in a union over political fund expenditure, any member is entitled to inspect the accounts, and that expenditure can be stopped in whole or in part through existing democratic structures. There is, I think, a contradiction when this House, a representative democratic institution, may seek to instruct other organisations to make decisions by referendum.
To those who have suggested that trade union political expenditure is somehow illegitimate, I would just like to remind Members that trade union political fund expenditure is not synonymous with party political donations. In fact, many important campaigns that have won cross-party support in this place were made possible only because of trade union political fund expenditure. I draw Members’ attention to one such campaign, which I was proud to be associated with. The Protect the Protectors campaign started with the campaigning work of GMB and Unison members in the ambulance service and resulted in the Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Act 2018. If the measures that have been put forward at different stages in this process were successful in restricting that political fund activity, it would be harder to deliver that legislative change in this place on behalf of working people.
Much has been said in the debate and I do not wish to duplicate it, but I wish to say a few words about the situation at Amazon in Coventry. Much trade union work in the private sector in recent years has been focused on the warehousing and logistics sector, where a focus of trade union activity has been the increasingly intensive workloads, workers’ employment being terminated on the basis of unclear and unaccountable target setting, and high rates of musculoskeletal injuries, which have contributed to a high rate of people being out of work in the wider economy. When the GMB, in response to approaches from its members, initially contacted Amazon to seek voluntary recognition at that site in December 2022, the company reported that there were 1,400 people working at the site. The company refused to engage meaningfully with the union or attend talks at ACAS to resolve the situation. As has been said, in the space of just a few months, the number of people at the site was increased dramatically by 93%. Some of them were temporary workers transferred from other sites. It has been reported that others were new workers on student visas who were worried about the potential implications for their studying and immigration status if union recognition was voted for. As a consequence of that increase, the union could still meet the 10% membership threshold, but could not meet the requirement of 40% of the bargaining group being likely to support recognition.
Jo White (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
I refer Members to my declaration of interests, which clearly states my positive relationship with the trade union movement. I am a member of Community and the GMB, and that is where I want to begin my contribution. My father, a proud USDAW member, recruited me to his union the very first day that I had a proper job, aged 16, drawing a real wage with a pay packet and a pay slip. I had stepped into the grown-up world, and joining a union was part of my graduation.
I was brought up to believe that a union has our backs and can help with issues like unfair dismissal, discrimination, harassment and bullying. As an MP, when I am approached by a constituent with a problem at work, my first question is, “Are you a member of a trade union?” In Bassetlaw, good companies and organisations like Cargill, Schutz, Cinch Connectors, Cerealto, Autism East Midlands and Bassetlaw hospital have good partnerships with unions like the GMB, and I welcome that.
As a small business woman, I served for 10 years on the national executive of the long ago merged Manufacturing, Science and Finance union. That is where I reinforced my values and belief that a trade union is a force for good in the workplace, where partnership working with the employer serves to increase productivity, pride and shared understanding. Such partnerships mean that many of the key employment measures in the Employment Rights Bill have already been adopted by many major employers, who regard good employee relations as a key element for their competitive success in the markets in which they operate.
When people go to work but have no certainty about the hours that they will work or what their weekly income will be, it is unfair. When they go to work with the fear that they may be sacked tomorrow for no reason, it is unfair. When they are paid below the minimum wage for a day’s work, it is unfair. And when they are ill and face three days without pay, it is unfair. This Bill is about putting fairness back into work and putting pride into our workplaces. We need to end the zero-hour contracts and the trickery of fire and rehire; deliver day one protections from unfair dismissal; and extend rights to sick pay to 1.3 million people.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
I am also a member of a union, the British Medical Association. I have found that union to be useful to me as it has represented me in the past, so I can see the benefit of unions. I am concerned, however, that the measures that the hon. Lady is talking about in relation to day one sick pay, for example, could make it more difficult for those with disabilities to get a job, particularly with the changes to zero-hours contracts as well. I talked to a local businessmen in my constituency about a gentleman he employs who has a disability, who comes and goes because his disability makes it difficult for him to work for long periods of time, but he says that he simply will not be able to continue to employ him once the legislation comes into force.
Jo White
That is what good, strong trade union partnership is about: ensuring that a worker has the interventions that they need in order to be able to work. I will be supporting the benefits Bill that we will be introducing in the future because that will ensure that workplaces are open and accessible to people with disabilities. It is important that people have the right to work and the capacity to work when they need to.
The Bill is backed by my constituents, who want to work hard but also want fairness in the workplace. Tonight, I will be voting for strengthening rights at work for millions of British people. We can all stand up and be counted to support our constituents who deserve fairness and justice at work. To the Reform MPs who are no longer in the Chamber, supporting the status quo is a betrayal for millions of British workers. We all have constituents who need better workplace rights and this is our chance to deliver change.
Andy MacNae
I am a member of Unite the union, but I rise to make my remarks from the perspective of a business owner and employer, in response to comments made by Conservative Members, who have now wandered off, about small and medium-sized businesses. These are personal comments and I will give my personal perspective, but I know many businesses, large and small, that share this point of view.
Before coming to this place, I was running businesses of various shapes and sizes for well over 20 years. I did my MBA at Manchester Business School, I have started and led several businesses, and I have served on the board of many others, so I have been about a bit. Throughout that time, it was always clear in my mind that whatever the business, the critical success factor is always the skills, drive and quality of the people that the business employs or contracts. To succeed, any business must attract the best possible people. That is why I have always felt that the selection and recruitment process was my key role in any organisation that I led. I will always argue that great businesses, by which I mean those with sustained success, will always be good employers.
When I look at the measures in this Bill, all I see are the things that good employers are already doing. We know that support for employees when they have children pays off in the long term. We know that giving employees job security increases their commitment and productivity. We support our people when they are sick, and we know that taking holidays is vital to maintain performance. We do not unfairly dismiss, whether someone has been with us for one day or for many years. We have rigorous recruitment processes, and we make it clear that employees must show they meet requirements for a job during the probationary period. We pay as well as we can, knowing that employees who feel valued will deliver for our businesses.
Up until now, good employers have always felt the risk of being undercut by unscrupulous and short-term disruptors looking to make a quick buck. This is a real and serious issue—I have experienced it in business, and many other business owners have raised it with me. Businesses doing the right thing should not be disadvantaged, yet weak and outdated employment legislation has left them exposed. This Bill levels the playing field. Good employers can keep on doing what they do, knowing that their competitors can no longer undercut them by, for instance, employing a majority of their staff on zero-hours contracts, not giving holiday pay, firing and rehiring or just underpaying.
This Bill is good for good businesses and good for workers. It is good for growth and for society. It will put more money in people’s pockets and deliver real, tangible benefits for working people, and I am very pleased to support it.
Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)
I draw attention to my entries in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, which include my membership of GMB, Unison and the Chartered Society of Physiotherapy.
When I spoke on Second Reading, I welcomed the advancements that this Bill would make on statutory sick pay, maternity and paternity pay and protections around pregnancy, as well as its values of fairness. I support new clauses 44, 47 and 48: it is only right that if someone has done a fair day’s work and a business fails to pay them, the Secretary of State should have the authority to give notice of underpayment. No one in Britain should go home from an honest day’s work out of pocket and worried about paying their bills. I also welcome the Secretary of State’s interventions on imposing financial penalties on businesses that make underpayments.
I believe that poor practice in the workplace should be called out and that those responsible should be held accountable. However, we also need an adequately resourced fair work agency, so I support new clause 82, tabled by the Chair of the Business and Trade Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne). The agency should be agile enough to tackle issues upstream by supporting businesses that want to comply with the law, as well as having enough resources to tackle meaningfully non-compliant businesses. On the Business and Trade Committee, we heard from several businesses, some of which were great employers and some of which were unable to justify their malpractice, with evidence of modern-day slavery in their supply chains.
We cannot have companies getting away with poor practice where workers cannot use the toilet, are not entitled to their breaks or fail to get their fair pay. Transparency, accountability and enforcement are key, but we must remember that most businesses do their best by their workers, and I have witnessed that. Since Second Reading, I have met with business owners in several sectors, from steelworkers and scaffolders to restaurant owners and retail. During my visits and roundtables in my constituency of Dudley, both workers and employers often tell me that they want the same thing: the stability to grow and a fiscally responsible Government who care about them and their future. Stability is not a zero-sum game. Research shows that when businesses look after their employees, they create a more loyal and productive workforce, which in turn strengthens businesses and helps them to grow the economy. In 2023, digital research by Deloitte found that
“fostering trust, opportunities for growth, and employee well-being are the keys to increased workforce retention and satisfaction”.
To reassure businesses, we know that the implementation of this Bill will be in phases. That approach promises to allow step-by-step upskilling of HR professionals and to update employment practices one step at a time; they will not be expected to be employed until 2026. I therefore ask the Minister to provide a road map outlining details of future consultations, with a two-year timeline to help to guide business owners to provide stability for businesses. A road map would undoubtedly help to ease growing pains, allowing small businesses time to plan the necessary administration, upskilling and ability to resource for the fair work agency. Both workers and businesses in Dudley would benefit greatly from that stability, and I wholeheartedly support this Bill.
Steve Yemm (Mansfield) (Lab)
I rise to support the Bill, and in particular Government new schedule 2. I must also draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my membership of both the GMB and Unite trade unions. I should also make clear to the House my employment history, both as a chief executive officer and a managing director of companies in the United States, the UK and Israel, and my record as a company founder and employer.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
In 2023, BH Live, a company based in my constituency, was named as not paying 130 workers—130 of the lowest-paid workers in my constituency—the national minimum wage. Ultimately, BH Live did make payments, but does my hon. Friend agree that it is wrong for anybody to be paid less than the national minimum wage, and that through the introduction of the new Fair Work Agency we are going to be able to right wrongs like that?
Steve Yemm
I absolutely agree; my hon. Friend has spelled out why enforcement is so important.
I would happily speak further in support of so many of the amendments that have been tabled, but I am acutely aware that we are at the end of the debate.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman is coming to his exciting peroration, so I just wanted to say that he is absolutely right about the feckless behaviour of corporate businesses that disregard the interests of their workers, and I share his view of trade unions. However, does he recognise that there is a world of difference between the burdens we place on those organisations that can happily deal with them and the effects that some parts of the Bill will have—perhaps unintentionally—on very small businesses? I imagine that the businesses he started were such business, at least at the beginning. This Bill has caused fear among small businesses and microbusinesses. There is a real distinction between those heartless corporates and the hard-working SMEs in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency and mine, is there not?
Steve Yemm
As a small business founder and someone who has grown a business, I recognise the need for balance. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for raising that point. In my concluding remarks, I put on the record how proud I am of my unions, the GMB and Unite, for the work that they have done with this Government to help deliver this groundbreaking legislation. I will therefore be voting with pride to support the Bill in the Lobby later today.
Justin Madders
We have had another excellent debate. We might have to deal with a few misconceptions, but I am conscious that we need to move on to Third Reading, so I apologise if I do not address every single contribution we have heard today. I will start with the Chair of the Select Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne), and his new clause 82. The Bill already requires the Secretary of State to produce an annual report for employment rights enforcement, as well as an enforcement strategy every three years. Both documents will be laid before Parliament, allowing for parliamentary scrutiny. We are committed to giving the Fair Work Agency the resources it needs to do its job effectively. I agree with him that the number of prosecutions for minimum wage violations has been pitifully small in recent years. We should never tolerate lawbreakers in the business world. We should ensure that responsible and well-performing businesses are never allowed to be undercut by minimum wage violations.
My right hon. Friend’s amendment 282 would include digital means of communication with workers in unions’ rights of access to workplaces. I appreciate the good intentions behind the amendment, but the Government are already committed to modernising working practices and moving away from a reliance on ad hoc access arrangements. We recognise the importance of providing for a digital right of access, in addition to the physical access for which the Bill already provides. That is why we have amended the Bill to expand access rights, allowing for access agreements to include communication with workers other than by means of physical access to a workplace, such as digital means.
My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald) talked about procurement. His new clause would amend the Procurement Act 2023 to place a duty on the Secretary of State to ensure that any contract entered into by either a Government Department, an executive agency of Government, a non-departmental public body or a non-ministerial department must comply with certain requirements relating to the recognition of trade unions. We recognise that the recognition of trade unions for collective bargaining was an important feature of the previous two-tier code on workforce matters. The Bill contains powers to reinstate and strengthen the code by way of regulations and a statutory code, so I assure the House that the Government are committed to strengthening trade union recognition and collective bargaining rights.
New clause 77, in the name of the hon. Member for Dundee Central (Chris Law), would result in a change to the Scotland Act 1998 by removing employment law from the list of reserved matters, thereby bringing it within the competence of the Scottish Parliament. While his perseverance on this issue is not unnoticed, it would come as no surprise to him, were he here, that the Government have no intention of devolving employment law to the Scottish Parliament. Previous Scotland Acts have already created one of the most powerful devolved Parliaments in the world. When there were considerably more SNP Members here during the last Parliament, there was a ten-minute rule Bill on this very subject, and the SNP could not even get a majority of its own Members to support it, so why on Earth would we support such a measure now? I do not know.
I will turn to the amendments from my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) on prison officers’ right to strike. I thank him for his persistence and his active engagement on behalf of prison officers. As he said, prison officers are prevented from taking industrial action under current legislation. Their pay is governed by the independent Prison Service pay review body process, which acts as a compensatory mechanism for that restriction. There is limited contingency to deal with industrial action, and during such incidents the reliance is on a narrow pool of operational managers with some potential for very limited support from the police and Army in limited circumstances. That creates operational risks and is not sustainable for any period of time.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington referred to what he classed as disrespect to prison officers during that debate in Committee. I just put on record that there was certainly no disrespect shown by those on the Government Benches; we value and respect the work that prison officers do. I know that he will continue to pursue this matter, and I suggest that he contacts the Ministry of Justice, which has the remit. I hope it will be able to engage on the matter in future.
Let me now deal with some of the Liberal Democrat new clauses and amendments. The hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper) spoke about new clause 19, which would give the Secretary of State the power to set out and define in regulations the professional bodies that could represent employees at disciplinary meetings. It is unclear to us where the demand for that would come from, and I would expect it to benefit some businesses that have raised the prospect with successive Governments. What is clear, however, is that expanding the types of organisations that could be involved in representing workers at such meetings could lead to hearings requiring legal representation for both the worker and the employer. That would increase the cost of holding a hearing, would escalate matters, and would potentially decrease the chance of an amicable resolution as both parties became entrenched in dispute. We believe that trade unions are best placed to represent employees in disciplinary and grievance hearings in the workplace, and statutory provisions are already in place to enable them to do that.
The hon. Member for St Albans also tabled new clause 111, which relates to legal aid for employment disputes. I am committed to ensuring that workers are able to enforce their employment rights, and we are working closely with the Ministry of Justice to ensure that happens, looking into what further improvements we can make to the way in which ACAS and employment tribunals operate. A key benefit of moving enforcement to the Fair Work Agency is that it will make it easier and quicker for workers to secure justice, without the need for additional legal representation or legal aid. I hope that gives the hon. Lady some reassurance that we are looking seriously at the issue.
New clause 110, also tabled by the hon. Member for St Albans,
“would require the Secretary of State to publish a review on the impact of Part 4 of the Bill…on SMEs within 3 months of the passage of this Act.”
In the impact assessment, the Government have set out our initial plan for monitoring an evaluation of the impacts of the Bill, as well as some secondary legislation. I say this with the greatest respect to the hon. Lady: she has expressed concern about the burden on business, but if we had accepted all her party’s amendments yesterday, that would have added several billion pounds to the costs of businesses. The Liberal Democrats will have to decide, ideally tonight, whether they are in favour of workers’ rights or not.
Let me now deal with some of the amendments from the official Opposition. Amendment 297 seeks to
“increase, from seven to 14 days, the notice period that trade unions are required to adhere to when notifying employers that they plan to take industrial action.”
Our consultation on the creation of a modern framework for industrial relations sought views on what an appropriate notice period would be, recognising that the repeal of the Trade Union Act 2016 would reduce the notice period from 14 to seven days. The Government have listened carefully to the concerns expressed by respondents to the consultation who feared that a seven-day notice period would not provide enough time for unions to prepare for industrial action in some important sectors, such as transport, healthcare and education, with possible knock-on impacts on other services. The Government believe that employers should be given enough time to mitigate the most severe effects of industrial action, and acknowledge responses to the consultation arguing that seven days’ notice was insufficient.
Of course, we did have seven days’ notice between 2010 and 2016 under the Tory Government. The Tories’ lack of understanding of the Bill is clear from the number of times we heard that it would take us back to the 1970s, whereas in fact it will take us back to 2015, when an earlier version of the Bill was introduced. The Government’s view is that 10 days provides the appropriate balance in enabling employers to mitigate the impact of industrial action and reduce disruption and the knock-on impacts of strikes, while also respecting the right to strike.
Amendment 291 seeks to remove clause 52, which deals with political funds and which, I think, prompted the most heated debate. It is notable that when it comes to reducing Tory red tape, it is only trade unions that do not receive the same benefits as everyone else. There has, I think, been a fundamental misunderstanding of what a trade union is. It is a member-based, democratic organisation designed to protect those who are part of it. Comparisons with Netflix subscriptions and insurance contracts are bogus, because they are not the same thing at all. Membership of a trade union and a political fund is not a subscription that people sign up to for a fixed period; it is membership of a democratically organised and independent trade union, which they are free to leave at any time. Members have control of the organisation because it is democratically organised, and they can decide as a union whether to have a political fund at all. People cannot email the chief executive of Netflix and demand that it makes a programme starring their favourite actor, but if people are unhappy with a trade union, they have the opportunity to get involved and change it.
It should be noted that in the 40 years that we have had political fund ballots, no union has disaffiliated from the Labour party. There has been no closure of political funds, so it is very clear that this is simply red tape. Of course, it is not all about funding the Labour party, because nearly half of all unions that have a political fund are not affiliated with the Labour party. If Conservative Members are not satisfied with that, they should read the Bill that is before them, because the clause that they want to remove—clause 52—sets out in subsection (3) how members can opt out of a political fund. It even sets out the ways they can do so: by post, email or electronic means. Some of the patronising comments we have heard about people being trapped into something that they do not wish to be in does not reflect the reality of the situation or the ability of trade union members to make up their own minds and exercise their democratic rights. Had any Conservative Members ever been members of a trade union, they would understand that.
The repeated insinuations from Conservative Members that I or any anyone else on the Labour Benches have brought forward this Bill because we have been paid by the trade unions to do so is offensive and wrong in equal measure. They might think money buys you the chance to write the law, but that says far more about their approach to legislation than it does about ours. On the Labour Benches, we do these things because we believe in them. We believe that everyone deserves fair treatment at work, and this Bill delivers that. It is delivering on our values.
In conclusion, the Bill represents a generational shift in protection, a long-overdue reinforcement of workers’ rights in this country, and tangible proof of how a Labour Government can bring meaningful benefit to people’s lives. For many of us, it is fundamental to why we are in the Labour party, so now is not the time to shy away from our efforts. Now is not the time to talk about what might have been; it is the time to be bold, to be loud and to be proud that this Labour Government are delivering by putting fairness, dignity and security back into the workplace.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Angela Rayner)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I refer hon. Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and declare that I am a lifelong proud trade unionist.
Let me begin by thanking right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber for their positive and constructive engagement over recent months. In particular, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders) for his superhuman work in steering this Bill through its Commons stages, and all the members of the Public Bill Committee for their thoughtful scrutiny.
When this Government took office, we promised the biggest upgrade to workers’ rights in a generation—nothing less than a new deal for working people. We said we would introduce a Bill to deliver that within 100 days, and we heard from Conservative Members who said we should not; and there were those who said we could not, but we did. Today, this House is taking another giant step towards making work pay. Let us be clear: too many working people have had to wait for too long for change. Over a decade, wages flatlined, in-work poverty grew, and growth was strangled. We inherited a failing economy that served no one, but today a Government of working people for working people are turning the tide.
This landmark Bill—pro-growth, pro-business and pro-worker—will put fairness back into work. Almost 9 million employees will be protected from unfair dismissal, up to 2 million will receive a right to bereavement leave and 1 million workers on zero-hours contracts will get the security they deserve. In three weeks’ time, over 3 million workers will see one of the biggest rises in the minimum wage on record. We said that we would make work pay, and this Government meant it.
Our vision is backed by many of the best businesses such as the 1,200 members of the Good Business Charter, from FTSE 100 companies to small and medium-sized enterprises. They prove that if you treat people well, you get the best out of them. They know that being pro-worker is not a barrier to success, but a launchpad to it. That is why this Bill takes the very best standards from the very best businesses and extends them to millions more workers. It is also why we proudly say that this is a pro-business and pro-worker Bill.
But we know that this will represent change, and I understand that many businesses want to work with the Government to get the details right. Our commitment in the weeks and months ahead to is do just that. My message is clear: this transformative package is a huge opportunity. It is a once-in-a-generation chance to reshape the world of work, to drive a race to the top on standards, to deliver growth and to build an economy that works for everyone.
We know that the Tories, in lockstep with Reform, will fight this every step of the way. Over two decades ago, they did the same with Labour’s minimum wage. They said then that it would destroy 2 million jobs, and now they are queueing up to vote against every single measure in this Bill, but the truth is that they were wrong then and they are wrong now. The only thing they are consistent on is that every time they have had the chance to deliver basic fairness for workers, they have voted against it. We know that they cannot be trusted to stand up for working people, but this Labour Government will.
For too long, people in Britain have been overlooked and undervalued, and our plan changes that: with jobs that are more secure and family-friendly; with women supported in work at every stage of life; with a genuine living wage and sick pay for the lowest earners; with further and faster action to close the gender pay gap; with rights that are enforced; and with trade unions that are strengthened.
In July, after 14 years of failure, the country voted for change. We promised to deliver a new deal, and today this Labour Government deliver on that promise with a once-in-a-generation transformation to build an economy based on fairness, to raise living standards, to drive growth and to deliver a better Britain for working people. I commend this Bill to the House.
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
Before I summarise the Opposition’s view on the Bill, I pay tribute to those on the Conservative Benches who contributed during its passage. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith) has held the Government to account with forensic skill on Report and in Committee. He was joined in the Bill Committee by my hon. Friends the Members for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy), for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox) and for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford), and my hon. Friends the Members for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Alison Griffiths) and for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper) performed great service as members of the Select Committee. I also acknowledge the work of officials in the Department and in Parliament. Their job cannot have been easy, given the indecent haste with which the Bill has been produced.
We disagree on much, but it would be churlish of me not to recognise that today represents a personal victory for the Deputy Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner). While the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, the right hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds) and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Member for Leeds West and Pudsey (Rachel Reeves) lie low, there is no doubt who has been in the driving seat. [Interruption.] Well, he is now. He’s here now. It is very—[Interruption.]
Andrew Griffith
We welcome him to his place.
At least the Deputy Prime Minister is honest in her unwavering support for the trade union agenda. She is proud to walk in the footsteps of Neil Kinnock, Michael Foot and the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), a conviction politician in the proper sense of the word, not a politician with convictions like the Labour Member for Runcorn and Helsby (Mike Amesbury). It makes a welcome change—[Interruption.] Well, he’s going. It makes a welcome change from a Prime Minister who pretends the Bill is about growth.
It is not easy for the right hon. Lady. It is always awkward being at odds with your boss: he says grow, you say slow; he wants fewer regulators, you create new ones. We all remember how in 2021 she herself was a victim of fire and rehire by a bad boss. Just wait until he sees the higher unemployment, higher prices and lower growth that the Bill will bring. [Interruption.]
Andrew Griffith
I’ll do that again: higher unemployment, higher prices and lower growth. No wonder the right hon. Lady is in favour of making it harder to be sacked.
This is a sad day for business and a bad day for Parliament. Business will have watched the last two days with dismay—[Interruption.] They will watch this with dismay as well, Madam Deputy Speaker. As they struggle with the Chancellor’s job tax and with the business rates hike about to hit next month, they see hundreds of pages of red tape heading their way. They will have seen the Minister yesterday, asked to name a single small business who supports the Bill, reel off the names of three large ones, two of which turned out not to support it anyway and the third was a quote from the chief inclusion officer at the Co-op. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wetherby and Easingwold (Sir Alec Shelbrooke) put it well yesterday when he said the Government plan to increase the number of small businesses by starting with large ones and making them smaller.
No one who cares about Parliament legislating well can be proud of how we have got here: a rushed Bill which was introduced at half the length to which it has now grown; an impact assessment which the Regulatory Policy Committee described as not fit for purpose; over 260 pages of amendments, few of which were scrutinized in Committee; and speeches in favour that have leaned heavily in support of the trade unions who stand to gain so much financially from the Bill.
But my final word goes to the real—[Interruption.] I can do some more. The final word goes to the real victims—[Interruption.] They do not want to hear it, Madam Deputy Speaker. The final word goes to the real victims of this Bill. Faced with this legislation, employers will take fewer risks on new employees. As a result, this Bill will hit young people disproportionately hard. They do not have the track record to rely on someone giving them the chance, a first step into the world of work.
Unlike so many Labour Members, whose first job was at a comfortable desk in TUC Congress House, my first job was at a supermarket. That company was able to take a risk on a young Andrew Griffith with no career experience; it was able to take that chance because it knew that I could not start work in the morning and then file an employment tribunal claim in the afternoon.
I know that for many Labour Cabinet members career experience on their CV is a sensitive topic, but that does not excuse what is a vindictive attack on the next generation. The truth is that Labour do not understand business. They do not understand what it takes to grow; they never have and they never will. Every Labour Government have left office with unemployment higher than when they started, and that is why we cannot support this terrible Bill.
Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
The Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Jonathan Reynolds)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. It has come to my attention that in a speech that I gave on 28 April 2014, recorded in column 614 of Hansard, on the subject of high-speed rail, I made a reference to my experience of using our local transport system in Greater Manchester when
“I worked as a solicitor in Manchester city centre.”—[Official Report, 28 April 2014; Vol. 579, c. 614.]
I should have made it clear that, specifically, that was a reference to being at the time a trainee solicitor. This was an inadvertent error and, although the speech was over a decade ago, as it has been brought to my attention, I would like to formally correct the record, and I seek your advice on doing so.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I thank the right hon. Member for giving advance notice of his point of order and for placing his correction on the record.
Employment Rights Bill
Friday 14th March 2025
(1 year ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Employment Rights Act 2025 Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 12 March 2025 - large print - (12 Mar 2025)
Employment Rights Bill
Thursday 27th March 2025
(1 year ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Employment Rights Act 2025 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 12 March 2025 - large print - (12 Mar 2025)
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
That the Bill be now read a second time.
Welsh, Scottish and Northern Ireland legislative consent sought
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Information and Technology (Baroness Jones of Whitchurch) (Lab)
My Lords, when this Government came into office, we made a commitment to deliver the biggest upgrade to workers’ rights in a generation—a commitment I particularly support, given that I have been a proud member of UNISON for many years. We promised to introduce a Bill focused on improving workers’ rights and creating the necessary conditions for long-term economic growth within 100 days of taking office. This was delivered in October last year, fulfilling a key manifesto commitment.
This Bill addresses the pressing issues workers face today. Workers have waited too long for change due to the legislative stasis over the past decade and more. Average salaries barely increased under the previous Government and the average worker would now be over 40% better off if wages had continued to grow as they did leading up to the 2008 financial crisis. This lack of action means that there are far too many people in low-paid and insecure work. As few as one in six low-paid workers moves into and stays in better-paid work, and 2 million employees report feeling anxious about hours worked or shifts changing unexpectedly.
This is why Labour committed to making work pay as a key pillar of our election manifesto last year. In that manifesto, we were clear that our core mission as a Government would be not just economic growth but growth which raised living standards in every part of the United Kingdom so that working people have more money in their pocket. The mandate that the British people returned was clear. Further polling by Opinium and Focaldata since the election has highlighted that there is broad and strong support across the political spectrum for the policies in this Bill. British people have waited long enough. They now urgently want protections in their workplaces from day one of their job, an end to exploitative zero-hours contracts, and greater flexibility so that work works around their lives.
This legislation was developed in close collaboration with business and trade unions, and we are committed to ongoing engagement to ensure that all stakeholders, including SMEs, receive appropriate time to prepare for the ensuing changes. The improvements it offers in improving workers’ well-being, increasing productivity, reducing workplace conflict and creating a more level playing field for good employers would grant significant benefits worth billions of pounds per year. The Bill seeks to address the gaps and outdated provisions in current employment law and helps us turn the tide on the debilitating trend of in-work poverty.
I will now speak to the specifics of the Bill. Part 1 introduces changes to various high-profile areas of employment law. Here, we make good on our commitment to end exploitative zero-hours contracts. The Government are committed to ending one-sided flexibility, ensuring that all jobs provide a baseline of security and predictability so that workers can better plan their lives. The changes set out will require employers to offer qualifying workers guaranteed hours, reflecting the number of hours they work regularly during a reference period. This will be set out in regulations but is expected to be 12 weeks.
We will also require employers to provide in-scope workers with reasonable notice of shifts, as well payment for shifts that are cancelled, curtailed or moved at short notice. Corresponding rights are being introduced for agency workers who may also experience that one-sided flexibility. These changes could improve the security of work for around 2.4 million people, which is approximately 8% of all employed people in the UK.
On flexible working, this will be made the default, except where not reasonably feasible, to benefit workers and their families. Businesses also benefit from this change, as it will help give them access to a larger pool of candidates. However, we recognise not all workplaces can accommodate requests for flexible working. Businesses will still be able to reject unfeasible requests, provided the decision is reasonable and based on one of eight business grounds.
On statutory sick pay, the Government’s view is simple: no one should feel forced to struggle through work when they are unwell. This legislation will mean that the 1.3 million lowest-paid employees will have access to the safety net of sick pay at a rate of 80% or the flat rate, whichever is lower. We are also removing the waiting period for SSP, meaning employees will be able to access it from the first day of sickness, benefiting millions of people.
The previous Government took laudable steps to improve the law around tipping. We are building on this by strengthening the law to make it mandatory for employers to consult with workers at the place of business when developing their tipping policies.
Turning to entitlements to leave, we will improve access to paternity and unpaid parental leave by making them day-one rights and by allowing paternity and shared parental leave and pay to be taken in any order. This will give employees the peace of mind that changing jobs will not affect their access to this leave, and it will provide working parents with greater flexibility.
We will also establish a statutory entitlement for a day-one right to bereavement leave. Under this, at least 900,000 workers will benefit from bereavement leave following the death of a loved one every year. This sensitive issue is one we will consult on, with the detail to be set out in secondary legislation.
Regarding harassment in the workplace, it remains a sad reality that too many people often find their workplace unsafe. This can have a detrimental impact on people’s lives and careers, and this is particularly true for women. We are clear as a Government that we will do all we can to tackle this. We are legislating to strengthen the legal duty for employers to take all reasonable steps to stop sexual harassment before it starts, including harassment by third parties, and we will strengthen protections for whistleblowing to make it clear that, if an employee speaks up about sexual harassment, they can qualify for whistleblowing protections.
We are making changes around dismissal as well. First, we will make it unlawful to dismiss pregnant women and mothers during maternity leave and for a six-month period after their return to the workplace, although there will exceptions to this in specific circumstances. Secondly, we will create a new automatic unfair dismissal right for employees who have been unscrupulously fired and rehired, or fired and replaced, ending the unnecessary threats of these practices. Thirdly, we will ensure that all employees are better protected from unfair dismissal by making it a day-one right, benefiting nearly 9 million people.
Turning to Part 2, changes will be made to collective redundancy. These will ensure employers fulfil collective consultation obligations which will be triggered where 20 or more redundancies are proposed at one establishment, as is currently the case, or where a threshold number of employees are proposed to be made redundant across the organisation. The threshold number will be set in regulations following consultation with those with a stake in good employer-employee relations, and we will set the thresholds for this requirement at a level that balances the needs of growing business and protecting employee rights.
We are also amending notification requirements so that employers must notify the Government when they are proposing to make employees redundant across their business, and when they meet the new threshold. This will ensure employers acting in bad faith cannot circumvent their consultation obligations by proposing smaller numbers of redundancies across multiple worksites, allowing more employees to benefit from those collective consultations.
We are closing a loophole in the maritime sector to ensure seafarers have the collective redundancies protections they deserve.
We will also deliver on our commitment to reinstate and strengthen the two-tier code on workforce matters. This was first introduced by the last Labour Government and repealed by the coalition Government of 2010. By reinstating the code, we are taking a step towards ending unfair two-tiered workforces, where employees hired from the private sector to work on an outsourced contract have less favourable employment terms and conditions than those transferred from the public sector.
Our country has a national gender pay gap that stands at over 13%, so we are also taking overdue action through action plans. These will require employers to take action to improve gender equality, as well as to better support staff during the menopause. This is good for women, economic growth and our country as a whole.
Part 3 addresses pay and conditions in specific sectors. Chapter 1 will reinstate the school support staff negotiating body to give a voice to support staff, who make up roughly half of the school workforce. This body will not only negotiate pay and conditions but advise on training and career progression to properly recognise the vital role these staff undertake. While an important part of reinstating the body is to improve consistency, it does not commit us to a one-size-fits-all approach. Our intention is for support staff in all state-funded schools in England to benefit from a core pay and conditions offer, while allowing the flexibility for all schools to respond to local circumstances, above minimum agreements reached. We will be consulting on this over the summer. The body will help address the recruitment and retention challenges that state schools of all types face and drive up standards to ensure we give every child the best possible chances in life.
Chapter 2 will establish a framework for fair pay agreements in adult social care in England, and, after constructive discussions with the Scottish and Welsh Governments, this will be the case for the adult and children’s social care sectors in those nations too. This will help empower workers’ representatives and trade union officials, employers and others in partnership to negotiate pay, terms and conditions. The introduction of sectoral agreements aims to ensure that care professionals are properly recognised and rewarded for the important work they do. It will help tackle the long-standing workforce issues in this sector and improve the situation for workers and those for whom they care across Great Britain.
Chapter 3 focuses on two measures relating to seafarers. Together, these changes will benefit our seafarers, who are the present-day standard bearers of the UK’s proud maritime history, and send an important signal that we will continue to be a world leader in international maritime employment law. The first change will deliver a legally binding seafarers’ charter. This will be achieved by expanding the scope of the Seafarers’ Wages Act to provide powers to require harbour authorities to request safe working and remuneration declarations from operators in scope. It will require operators to confirm that they are meeting the requirements of these declarations, the exact details of which we will consult on in due course. Secondly, we will give effect to international maritime conventions the UK has ratified, such as the Maritime Labour Convention, which will fix a powers gap that has been left following the UK’s exit from the European Union.
Part 4 focuses on trade unions and the right to take industrial action. First, we will introduce a legal duty for employers to inform workers about their right to join a trade union. This aligns with the Government’s focus on empowering workers by ensuring they are fully informed of their rights. We will also be providing for a right of access for trade unions. This will provide a framework for the negotiation of access agreements between employers and trade unions. Once agreement is reached, trade union officials will be able to access the workplace to represent, recruit or organise members and to facilitate collective bargaining. These agreements can also cover digital forms of communication.
Changes will be made to the conditions for trade union recognition too. Where an employer refuses to recognise a trade union voluntarily, currently it can apply to the Central Arbitration Committee to obtain statutory union recognition. There are, however, unnecessary hurdles that apply to that CAC process that hinder the recognition process. The Bill will tackle these hurdles by, for example, deleting the current requirement for unions to have the support of at least 40% of the workforce in the proposed bargaining unit in a trade union recognition ballot. In future, unions will need only a simple majority of those voting, ensuring greater fairness in the process.
Other changes we are making include strengthening the existing right to reasonable paid facility time for union representatives to carry out their duties, simplifying the information required for industrial action notices, changing the law around blacklisting, ensuring those lists produced by predictive technology cannot be used to discriminate, protecting against detriment for those who take industrial action and protecting against dismissal for taking such action.
Turning to the punitive trade union legislation passed by recent Governments, we will be making repeals to the Trade Union Act 2016 to effectively return the law to its pre-2016 position. There are three exceptions to this. First, we will retain the industrial action ballot mandate expiration date but extend it to 12 months. Secondly, we will shorten the notice period for industrial action from 14 days to 10 days, rather than the seven days it was before 2016. Thirdly, we will retain the independence of the Certification Officer from political control.
We are also repealing the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act, which has failed to prevent a single day of industrial action. The framework set by the Bill will foster a new partnership of co-operation between trade unions, employers and the Government.
The current system of state enforcement is fragmented and inefficient, which is complicated for workers and employers. Part 5 focuses on the enforcement of labour market legislation and lays the groundwork for the establishment of the fair work agency. This agency will deliver upgrades to enforcement of workers’ rights. It will bring together existing state enforcement functions, including the regulation of employment agencies, national minimum wage enforcement, gangmaster licensing, action against serious labour exploitation and the unpaid employment tribunal award penalty scheme. This will simplify the overall enforcement process and improve access to rights for workers, while levelling the playing field for the vast majority of businesses that already operate in good faith.
We also expect the agency to be able to make more effective and efficient use of the resources currently used by enforcement bodies. Creating this agency is more than just shuffling deckchairs. It will have a wider remit than just the existing enforcement bodies, such as enforcing holiday pay for workers. These reforms will help to ensure that non-compliance does not pay. That is fair for workers and fair for businesses, too.
Finally, Part 6 contains provision to increase employment tribunal time limits for making claims from three to six months. This will benefit both employees and employers by providing more time for disputes to be resolved internally, potentially reducing pressure on the employment tribunal system. The additional time will support employees to consider the merits of bringing a case to the employment tribunal, which will help improve the quality of claims entering the system.
The Bill is a significant upgrade to legislation and I look forward to the forthcoming debate, including the maiden speeches from my noble friends Lady Gray and Lady Berger, and the noble Baroness, Lady Cash, and the noble Lord, Lord Young of Acton.
In the context of our ambitions to make work pay, I hope noble Lords will agree that this Government are delivering on improving workers’ rights. I emphasise that this legislation seeks to benefit employers and the economy by levelling the playing field between good employers who already go beyond measures in the Bill and the less scrupulous ones. These benefits are recognised by many of the businesses we have engaged with throughout the Bill’s development and passage to date, including Centrica, the Co-op, Richer Sounds and Thomas Kneale & Co.
In the words of Nick Cooper, managing director of the Manchester-based SME Adept Corporate Services,
“fair treatment and job security aren’t luxuries—they’re the foundation of a high-performing workforce”.
When less scrupulous businesses are challenged, it is those that are already doing right by their workers—as the vast majority already do—that benefit.
I urge the House to support the Bill and the commitment it represents to improving the lives of millions of people and growing the economy. I beg to move.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, I begin by drawing attention to my interests as detailed in the register, in particular as a practising solicitor and partner at DAC Beachcroft.
I thank the Minister for opening the debate and we look forward to the maiden speeches of my noble friends Lady Cash and Lord Young of Acton, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Berger and Lady Gray of Tottenham.
I have always believed fervently in workers’ rights and trade unions. Indeed, as a young solicitor, I often acted for the Transport and General Workers’ Union in a wide variety of cases. By the late 1970s, however, by which time I was a Member of Parliament, it had become abundantly clear that something had gone seriously awry with the trade union movement. The unions seemed to be abusing their powers, pursuing not only the legitimate interests of their members but an overtly political agenda.
I remember being in the House of Commons when, in the final year of the Callaghan Government, the unions all but brought the country to its knees. A new settlement was needed. Successive Conservative Governments, between 1979 and 1997, gradually changed the nature of the social contract between employers, employees and the unions. Days lost to strikes tumbled from tens of millions a year to a tiny fraction of what they had been. Thanks to the more flexible labour market we had created, renewed economic growth brought a dividend of rising employment and falling unemployment far more quickly than anyone expected. That was not the Wild West. Indeed, workers’ rights and protections were often extended, not diminished.
The last Labour Government, under both Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, broadly accepted that renewed social contract and embraced the flexible labour market that serves both employers and employees so well. So, what has changed? Furthermore, what has changed during the passage of the Bill? It has had a brief lifetime, yet we have already had 160 government amendments in Committee in another place, including 11 new clauses and two new schedules. This farrago was followed by a further 40 new clauses and five new schedules on Report.
It was an extraordinary decision to run the progress of the Bill in parallel with a series of directly connected public consultations. As they showered us with amendments of their own, Ministers used their majority in the other place to defeat some very sensible ones from my own party and from the Liberal Democrats. More amendments are now promised—or should we say threatened? No one can convince me that there has been fair, effective and comprehensive parliamentary scrutiny of this legislation, which is scandalous when we think of the profound effects it is bound to have on British business and how our businesses operate.
To date, 11 government Bills, including this one, have included Henry VIII powers. This Bill contains 11 such powers. So great is the uncertainty this creates that a meaningful Second Reading debate is almost impossible. What, in fact, are the principles of this legislation? Whatever they are today, might they change significantly with further amendments, or when the Henry VIII powers are triggered? Ministers are, in effect, asking Parliament today to empower them to do whatever they decide to do, whenever they decide to do it.
Apparently, in total, the Bill contains 173 delegated powers. I was musing that, if Henry VIII were alive today, he might be tempted to use this kind of skeleton legislation to legalise uxoricide—but whatever. Why are Ministers so disdainful towards the concerns expressed by the Attorney-General in his Bingham lecture on the rule of law last October, when he warned that
“excessive reliance on delegated powers, Henry VIII clauses, or skeleton legislation, upsets the proper balance between Parliament and the executive”?
He recommended
“a much sharper focus on whether taking delegated powers is justified in a given case, and more careful consideration of appropriate safeguards”.
Perhaps the most chilling warning about the specific inadequacies of the Bill came from the Regulatory Policy Committee, which identified eight of the Government’s individual impact assessments as being not fit for purpose, six of which were in the highest impact measure category. Surely it is the principal responsibility of Ministers fully to think through the potential impact of legislation before unleashing it on the world. This Government have failed in that basic task.
Meanwhile, the Recruitment and Employment Confederation’s Voice of the Worker campaign vividly reminds us that temporary work is often a choice made by workers, not an enforced compromise. Its survey of temporary agency workers found that 79% of respondents appreciated the flexibility that temporary work provides, while more than two-thirds believe it affords them a better work-life balance. These values—flexibility and balance—should be celebrated and supported by us all, not jeopardised by half-baked laws. Workers should be empowered to engage in the workforce in ways that best suit their personal circumstances. We must ensure that legislation does not restrict their ability to do so.
Although the intention may be to increase security, these measures risk overregulating agency workers, who are already well provided for under the Agency Workers Regulations. Under current law, these workers are made aware of permanent vacancies and enjoy protections that balance flexibility with job security. Additional regulations could well tip this balance too far, ultimately harming the very workers who the Bill seeks to protect. I also wonder whether Ministers have fully considered the financial, economic and social impact that the measure would have on public bodies, especially in the National Health Service.
Let us consider the proposal around statutory sick pay eligibility. Reducing the eligibility criteria and requirement for SSP to just one day would increase financial pressure on employers, particularly those who employ workers on temporary contracts or in sectors that rely on flexibility. Employers now face the prospect of greater tribunal risk when managing employees’ sickness leave, which could act as a further deterrent to hiring.
Small and medium-sized enterprises are so often the driving force in our economy, delivering growth in production and jobs. They need our encouragement and support, not new burdens. They will inevitably be more hesitant about taking on new employees, if they fear facing immediate legal risks from day one. I implore Ministers always to look at proposals from the point of view of an employer making a marginal decision on whether to take on that extra employee. The proposed new union recognition rules would also hit SMEs disproportionately and, as I will argue on these Benches, unnecessarily.
I turn, as the noble Baroness did, to strikes and ballot thresholds. Under current law, unions must provide 14 days’ notice before a strike, allowing employers sufficient time to prepare contingencies and manage the potential disruption. The proposed change to reduce this notice period to just seven days raises significant concerns. Will this help to generate the much desired and much needed economic growth about which we hear—and have heard today—so much?
In response to the latest ONS labour market data, the Institute of Directors shared some deeply troubling data of its own. That data showed that 47% of business leaders facing higher national insurance bills plan to reduce employment as a result. Business hiring intentions over the next year remain around lows last seen at the height of the Covid-19 pandemic. Even the Government’s own rather feeble impact assessment concedes that this Bill will impose a £5,000 million cost on businesses. What did they offer in return? Unfounded, optimistic speculation that this legislation could lead to growth—with no evidence and no guarantee. Their own declared primary mission is economic growth and yet they put forward a policy that actively undermines it.
The Bill is not only anti-business but, in my view, anti-worker. If it passes in anything like its current form, it would be more appropriate to call it an unemployment Bill. The measures in the Bill will make it harder for existing businesses to thrive and near-impossible for new businesses to emerge. The result will be a stagnating economy, diminished opportunities and worse outcomes for workers right across the country. The only growth that this Bill would deliver would be growth in industrial strife, growth in administrative costs for business, growth in uncertainty, and, ultimately, growth in unemployment. Unless it can be seriously improved, on these Benches we will oppose this Bill all the way, in the best interests of the working people of this country.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, it is a privilege to contribute to this important Second Reading today. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, I acknowledge that this Bill contains several provisions that, if implemented properly, could have a significant positive impact on many individuals. However, as we deliberate, I am mindful that the Bill presents both promise and areas of concern. In particular, I shall focus my remarks on the challenges faced by carers, an often-overlooked but integral part of our society. As the Bill progresses, their needs must be not only considered but prioritised. I shall rely on my noble friend Lord Fox to deal with many aspects of the Bill other than the bits that I am stressing.
First, I turn to paid carer’s leave. While the Government have committed to reviewing the Carer’s Leave Act 2023, I question why we delay a measure that is both necessary and beneficial. The Government recognise that carers’ inability to work costs the economy £37 billion annually. In light of this, paid carer’s leave should be a priority, not an afterthought. This is not an expensive proposal. Carers UK estimates that introducing paid carer’s leave would cost between £5.5 million and £32 million per year, depending on the level of compensation. In return, more than 2 million working carers would benefit, businesses would save billions through improved staff retention and workforce participation would increase. Given these clear advantages, why have the Government excluded this measure? During the passage of what became the Carer’s Leave Act, Members of the now-Government challenged this omission. It is striking that they have not prioritised it themselves. Will the Government commit to including paid carer’s leave in this Bill? To neglect this opportunity would fail both carers and the economy.
Beyond paid leave, employers should be required to consider employees with caring responsibilities in their equality action plans, alongside commitments to closing the gender pay gap and supporting employees experiencing menopause. If we are serious about workplace equality, we must acknowledge the specific challenges that carers face. Furthermore, the Government must prevent discrimination against carers. One solution would be adding caring as a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010. Many carers face workplace marginalisation and are penalised for their responsibilities. Will the Government explore this reform? Every year, 200,000 people leave the workforce to take on caring responsibilities, costing the economy £8 billion annually. By failing to support carers properly, we harm their well-being and weaken economic potential. Paid carer’s leave would help carers stay in work, strengthening both the labour market and the economy.
Another issue is the recognition of kinship carers. I recently heard of a couple caring for their grandchildren out of love and duty, yet they receive none of the employment rights or support given to foster carers. Is this not an injustice? The Government must consider extending employment rights to kinship carers.
Additionally, I support the Bill’s provisions on third-party harassment in the workplace. I have heard from young women in retail and hospitality who feel sick with anxiety knowing that they will face harassment during their shifts. Their employers must have a duty to protect them. While the Bill takes steps in the right direction—I acknowledge that—stronger action is needed to prevent non-disclosure agreements silencing victims.
I now turn to probationary periods. A balanced approach is needed to protect both employees and employers from unnecessary tribunal costs. I note what the Minister said on statutory sick pay, but will the Government consider a standardised probationary period of, say, three to nine months to provide greater certainty?
We must ask whether this Bill will genuinely drive economic growth. We can judge that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, thinks that it will not, but I would say there is a possibility. Economic growth is one the Government’s cornerstone ambitions. Business leaders and HR professionals I have consulted welcome the Bill’s aims, but question whether it strikes the right balance between employee rights and employer obligations. It must not stifle economic activity, but nor should it miss opportunities for meaningful reform.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, spoke about the number of amendments in the other place, and I will not repeat those remarks, but I think there were 200 government amendments on Report, which shows a certain amount of indecision, if nothing else.
I agree that this Bill is driven by noble intentions, but it risks becoming a tangled quagmire of complex employment bureaucracy, with uncertainty over whether it will genuinely recalibrate the balance between employers and employees in a way that promotes fair and productive employment. A Member in the other place—I like this—likened it to Snow White’s apple: appealing in appearance but ultimately sending the economy into a slumber. Let us ensure that this Bill is not a missed opportunity but a transformative step forward for carers, families and our nation’s economic future.
Lord Londesborough (CB)
My Lords, I have just four minutes, so I will not beat about the bush. While I understand the need to bear down on unscrupulous employment practices, this Bill is fundamentally misguided, out of date and out of touch and will wreck the spirit of enterprise. It will damage jobs, productivity and wages across both the public and private sectors. That is not just my view, but the OBR’s. The impact assessment, which claims that the Bill will have a net positive impact on growth, is guilty of fantasy economics, suggesting that its authors have little feel for, or experience of, creating jobs, developing careers or even meeting payroll.
Perhaps most troubling is that all the clauses in this 300-page Bill, and its 200 pages of Explanatory Notes, apply to all employers without exception, whether you are a UK multinational with a workforce of 100,000, a start-up with 10 staff or a family business with two employees. It is one size fits all, whether we are talking about day one rights, probationary periods, guaranteed hours or flexible working. This Bill shows scant regard for building a competitive economy with modem working practices. It discriminates against SMEs—our country’s engine of growth—and offers nothing for freelancers and the self-employed, for which perhaps we should be grateful.
My views are shaped by my lived experience over 30 years as an entrepreneur and employer, from a start-up with two employees around the kitchen table to building a workforce that grew to 10 staff, then to 50, 100 and eventually to 300 employees, plus 100 freelancers. I learned what it takes to recruit and train people effectively, to incentivise and reward them and to develop their careers from probation to permanent, from junior to management and from internship to becoming an equity partner. I took risks and made many mistakes along the way, from hiring the wrong people, holding on to staff for too long, overpaying, underpaying, growing too quickly and having to downsize in the rough and tumble of the free market. But here is the thing: I never once ended up in an employment tribunal and my experiences with staff and freelancers were overwhelmingly positive, driven by common mutual interest and without the need to resort to onerous employment manuals, interfering HR departments or, indeed, employment lawyers.
This Bill suffers from overreach and will kill entrepreneurial spirit, coming as it does on the back of the misguided NICs Bill, on which I have fought hard to protect our smaller businesses—and I will go into battle again on their behalf in Committee on this Bill, mindful that the Federation of Small Businesses reports that two-thirds of its members say that the proposals in the Bill will make them curb hiring. There are two professions that will benefit from this Bill—HR practitioners and employment lawyers—but, in terms of productivity, this Bill is terribly timed and represents another giant vampire squid sucking the life out of our economy.
The Lord Bishop of Newcastle
My Lords, I am glad to speak in this Second Reading. I look forward to the maiden speeches and welcome new Members to your Lordships’ House.
Some years ago, I undertook research on the apostle Paul and work. Paul was never one to shy away from hard work and spoke of the personal cost of his tent making business, describing it as wearisome and fraught with the challenges of local politics. Two thousand years later, we continue to live amid diverse uncertainties.
The desire to make work pay and improve workers’ rights, as proposed by this Bill, must pay attention to the obvious: people who work are human beings. A strong economy needs resilient workers. As we scrutinise this legislation, we do so affirming that workers matter. If we get this right, we can move closer to a society in which people are viewed with inherent value and dignity. When people are valued and supported in what they do, they contribute to greater economic flourishing.
Noble Lords will know that in-work poverty has risen significantly in recent years, particularly in the north-east region, with those in less secure work much more likely to be experiencing poverty than those whose contracts offer basic protections and guaranteed hours. The disproportionately negative impact on the lives of children is well documented, with the North East Child Poverty Commission reporting heightened concern following yesterday’s Spring Statement. With the Bill before us today, legislating against exploitative contracts is a step forward in ensuring that every person can access good work, plan ahead and provide for themselves and their families. But there may be unforeseen consequences.
I welcome reforms to parental leave and strengthened flexible working. I would like to see a statutory right to paid kinship care leave on a par with adoption leave—a point made just now by my noble friend Lord Palmer. A right to paid leave would enable kinship carers to take time to make necessary adjustments and continue in paid employment. This is a matter I have already raised with the Minister, and I was very grateful for her time in listening. I raise this matter again here and look forward to further conversations.
At a time when SMEs face additional pressures, a challenging economic environment and additional costs through rising national insurance contributions for employers, I urge the Government to continue listening to the SME sector, much of which is part of the social enterprise economy, adding to community and individual resilience. There is deep concern among SMEs about the potential impact of union access to the cohesive nature of employer relations, points made noble Lords already.
In conclusion, while I welcome this Bill in extending basic rights, protections and entitlements to workers, concerns remain as to how these individual protections will truly enable collective flourishing and a stronger and resilient society for the confident future desired by everyone.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, this is a very bad Bill for many reasons, and I will have to ration myself to just two areas.
First, the Bill is unequivocally bad for businesses and therefore bad for growth. It is not pro-growth to impose £5 billion-worth of costs on businesses. It would be pretty bad if this Bill existed in isolation, but it is not in isolation; it is part of a triple whammy which involves the jobs tax, which will add over £20 billion to private sector wage bills, and the national minimum wage increases, which will add many more billions.
The Government seem to have forgotten that they need private sector businesses to grow if they are to achieve their overall growth objective. The economic impact analysis which accompanied the Bill claims the possibility of a small positive impact on growth, but the probability is a big negative impact, as suggested by the OBR in its spring forecast yesterday. For that reason alone, the Government should have killed this Bill at birth. The country cannot afford it.
In response to the triple whammy, most businesses are expecting to raise prices and reduce pay increases and employee headcount. That will lead to inflation, lower employment, reduced profits and reduced taxes. It will create an environment in which businesses will not invest, thus hobbling another leg of the growth ambition. A key plank of the UK’s ability to attract inward investment has been the flexibility of our labour markets. This Bill destroys that competitive advantage. It is an economic disaster zone.
SMEs are particularly hard hit by this Bill. The economic impact assessment is clear about this. Of course, anything which is bad for SMEs is also bad for growth, but policies which bear down excessively on SMEs are particularly destructive to the foundations of the way we do business in this country. At the last count, there were more than 5.2 million micro-businesses with fewer than 10 employees and a further 220,000 small businesses with 10 to 49 employees. Between them, they have nearly 13 million employees. Why would the Government want to put this huge group of employees at risk? I will be looking at amendments to this Bill to protect SMEs from its excessive burdens, and I look forward to working with the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, on that.
My second area of concern is that the Bill is bad for some significant employee groups. For example, people with a history of health-related absence and young people with no track record will be less attractive as employees because of day-one rights and higher sick pay. There are many people who value zero-hours contracts, but they may be deprived of that opportunity because employers will be trying to avoid the risks of getting involved in conferring rights to guaranteed hours. This Bill will make life worse for many who want to work.
There are many aspects of the Bill which will need to be explored in detail. Your Lordships’ House has a responsibility to ensure that the Bill, as a minimum, does no harm. That will be a difficult task because it has deep flaws, but we must try.
Lord de Clifford (CB)
My Lords, I wish luck to the new Peers with their maiden speeches, and I look forward to listening.
Employment legislation constantly needs to be updated to reflect the changing needs of our society. Therefore, a review is necessary from time to time, but does this Bill reflect a balanced review for both employees and employers? I ask the House to note my registered interest as a part-owner of a small to medium-sized company employing 130 people.
As a relatively small employer, I want to focus on Part 1 of the Bill. The changes to the right not to be unfairly dismissed and the removal of the qualifying period will generate uncertainty among employers, especially SME employers, who do not have significant HR resources. The change is not a bad one and it will focus employers on getting systems in place to ensure that the individuals they employ can fulfil the roles with the skills and knowledge required and have the right attitude for the business and the job. Therefore, I ask the Minister to clarify the probation period, as already requested by the noble Lord, Lord Palmer. This is essential to allow employers the flexibility at the beginning of a contract to see if the employee meets the needs of the job, and to terminate the contract in a responsible way if they do not. Meeting this requirement to dismiss someone in a way that is not unfair is time-consuming, costly and stressful for both employees and employers. To support this change, will the Government review the provision of occupational health services to the SME sector, which is so commonly needed when relations between employees and employers break down?
The second area I wish to address, and will look to research further before Committee, is dismissal for failing to agree to a variation of contract, more commonly known as “fire and rehire”. Will the Minister say why the change to the current legislation is needed, as it appears to be working? Having recently been through the process in our business of requesting variations to individual employees’ contracts to improve efficiency and services to our clients, I know that the current rules ensured that we treated them fairly and with respect and allowed us the flexibility to change things. These proposed changes will make it extremely difficult for employers to make small, reasonable changes to contracts, as the new arrangement is so unclear and demanding on businesses.
My third concern relates to sexual harassment and the question of “reasonable steps”. The change to “all reasonable steps” just creates fear and uncertainty for employers, who want to protect their employees but currently have no clear guidance. I therefore ask the Minister to provide a clearer explanation of what is meant by “all reasonable steps”.
Baroness Berger (Lab) (Maiden Speech)
My Lords, it is an honour to rise to contribute to this debate and to join this House. I begin by extending my sincere thanks to all the people in this place who have been extraordinarily generous in their welcome. Black Rod, the doorkeepers, the special advisers, the catering staff, the mailroom team, the clerks, the reception attendants, and the tech and security specialists: everyone has been so accommodating and helpful as I walk around in circles trying to navigate this side of the estate, or using my phone instead of my pass to “Apple Pay” my vote. I give special thanks to Mrs Mimi Tsehay Gebretsadek, who has been a warm, smiling face every time I have gone for a cup of tea in Milbank House.
I am particularly grateful to those who introduced me. I am in awe of my noble friend Lady Smith of Basildon and her leadership in this House; I look forward to learning much from my noble friend over the coming months and years. I also thank my noble friend Lord Mitchell, who has been a dear friend and mentor to me for two decades. I thank the Chief Whip, my noble friend Lord Kennedy of Southwark, for his extensive counsel and guidance; and to Members from all sides of this House, thank you for your kindness. I look forward to working with you on mutual areas of interest and expertise.
I am speaking in this debate because this vital new legislation speaks so much to what is important in our great land, my motivations for getting into politics, and the experience I have amassed. I grew up in Wembley Park and spent my weekends studying at Brent Town Hall Library. I loved the diversity of my neighbourhood. My dad is from Northampton, where all his family worked on the market, across the county. I started my working life helping my grandfather on his market stall, selling ladies’ fashions, and in London in my parents’ interior furnishing shop. I am certain that I was never paid the minimum wage in the family businesses, but what I did gain was an opportunity to listen and connect to so many different people.
It was at Birmingham University where I engaged in vociferous debate with my Labour economics tutor, Professor Siebert, as I advocated for workers’ rights—much to the amusement of fellow students—and I immersed myself in student politics. I joined Labour because I passionately shared the party’s values and goals of striving for equality, social justice and a world free of discrimination. Labour also spoke to my core Jewish values of tikkun olam—how we adequately take action to improve and repair our communities. I went on to start my working life in roles for the Commission for Racial Equality, various central government departments and the NHS Federation.
I am inspired and proud of my family’s political heritage. My great-great-uncle, Lord Shinwell, known as Manny, was a national trade union official before he was first elected to the other place in 1922. He was later elevated to your Lordships’ House in 1970. Lord Shinwell would have warmly welcomed the Bill that we are scrutinising today, which will bring the UK’s outdated employment laws into the 21st century, turning the page for our economy, which for far too long has been blighted by insecurity, poor productivity and low pay.
As a solo parent to Amélie, aged 8, and Zion, aged 6, and in my role as chair of the Maternal Mental Health Alliance, I applaud this Government’s commitment to bringing forward practical measures to value and support working parents. I am delighted that this Bill will establish day-one rights for parental and paternity leave.
I also strongly support the measures to ban exploitative zero-hours contracts. It was an honour and privilege to represent the people of Liverpool Wavertree and, in my nine and a half years as their Member of Parliament, I had many constituents come to my advice surgery who were adversely affected by these awful contracts. They could not plan their lives, their childcare or their finances. These damaging practices impacted on people young and old alike, and any mental health challenges were exacerbated by this precarious work. I can still hear my former constituent’s words ringing in my head: “I can’t lay out to buy a belt because I don’t know if I will be earning money next week, or the week after, to cover my bills and basic food”. The provisions in this Bill are foundational to the dignity and well-being of our workforce, and I know that this legislation will make a difference to thousands of people across the UK.
I hope to make a difference in this place, but will endeavour to do it slightly differently from my great-great-uncle. Lord Shinwell resigned the Labour Whip in 1982 in protest at left-wing militancy and sat as an independent until he passed away just before my fifth birthday. Although I never wanted to leave Labour during the dark years when antisemitism was rife in the party, I am so glad to have been able to return to my political home under the leadership of Sir Keir Starmer. Lord Shinwell famously had a piece of the ceiling of this place fall on his head. During my time here, I very much hope to protect my skull. Of course, Lord Shinwell was also the last person to throw a punch in the other Chamber when a Member told him to “Go back to Poland”. Although I will never shy away from necessary challenge, I will always aim to use the power of my words, rather than my fists.
Manny Shinwell, born into a world of tumult and revolution, once said that he chose “Parliament over the barricades”. Today, in a world today of increasing violence and populism, where dark elements threaten, it is here, in our Parliament, that the painstaking work of democracy is done. As part of that work, I will dedicate myself to serving in this House, and the people beyond it, with humility, diligence and all the passion and insight that I can offer.
Baroness Hazarika (Lab)
My Lords, it is a great honour to be the first to congratulate my noble friend Lady Berger on that truly wonderful maiden speech. There is no doubt that her great-uncle would be beaming with pride. He sounds like he was quite a character—he would be good at our group meetings, I think. It does not feel like that much has changed when it comes to maintenance of the building either. I look forward to the many other maiden speeches here today.
I first came to know my noble friend Lady Berger back in 2010, when she was first elected for Wavertree. I greatly admired her professionalism and passion for raising the issue of mental health; back then, it was not a fashionable topic to discuss. We became very good, indeed dear, friends and have been through so much together, from musical festivals to hen dos, to riding the infamous pink bus back in 2015—listen, I stand by her. We have very much been through the good, the bad and the ugly together, but none more ugly than the shameful years when she suffered untold misery, abuse and threats simply for being a young, Jewish, female, Labour MP. It is a time that really shamed our party and, on behalf of us all, I am deeply sorry for what she had to endure. Her dignity, strength, courage and grace during that time was inspiring and incredible. She did not hide; she stood up to the bullies and the antisemites and made the Labour Party and the wider world take action.
We on these Benches are so lucky to have my noble friend, as are we all in this House. I know that she will make a brilliant, principled and fearless contribution. On a selfish note, I look forward to spending the next 30 years hanging out—probably 40 years, in her case. We are also living proof that Muslims and Jews can be very good friends, which I feel is quite timely.
I now turn to the topic of our debate. There are many speakers and experts, especially from the trade union movement, who will make more detailed points, but I want to make a few broad arguments. We have seen and heard some predictably negative discourse about this Bill and its aims. I do not understand people who say that it is all too much and that giving workers more rights will somehow mean that the pillars of the temple will fall down. I remind my colleagues that the same was said about the introduction of the national minimum wage and giving parents more rights.
At the same time, we are having a discussion about why it is that people are reluctant to go back to work and why that is a terrible thing for society—which, by the way, I agree with. Why can we not join up the dots? If you want to encourage as many people as possible back to work and into the workplace, you have to ensure that work pays and that they have decent conditions. We were all appalled when P&O Ferries sacked 800 workers in the most dehumanising and appalling way. We have all been shocked and disgusted at how those women at Harrods were treated and subjected to sexual abuse—and I know that my noble friend Lady Kennedy will raise the issue of NDAs that silence women. As we have heard, we all know the difficulties of zero-hours contracts when someone is trying to plan their life and their family life.
We all need to recognise that having a workforce that is happy and treated well means having a workforce that will be motivated and productive. We need to stop demonising the work that trade unions do and pitting them against business. We should regard decent employment rights as part of our growth and industrial strategy. I consider myself very lucky to have known the late great trade unionist and MP, Jack Dromey, who taught me so much about industrial relations. He always made the case that good bosses and good business leaders understood the need for smart partnerships with workers and trade unions, particularly in big, heavy-duty sectors, such as car manufacturing.
We are all very fortunate to have made it to this place. Many of us have lawyers or headhunters—or even agents, as in my case—who can help us ensure that we have good terms and conditions. Why should other people not have some of that? If we want growth, decent standards are not a luxury but an imperative, and we should support trade unions to achieve them. As Jack Dromey said, a good trade union is like having a strong friend at work. That is something we should all strive for in a civilised, modern society.
Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Berger, on her excellent maiden speech, and I wish her well. I very much look forward to the remaining maiden speeches to come.
Ever since this Government were elected in July last year, we have been told that growth is their key marker for success. The Bill that we are debating today seems completely counterintuitive to that stated desire. Employees, of course, need to have rights in the workplace, and these have developed in a sensible and proportionate manner over the years, whether that be in connection with pay or conditions of employment. However, this Bill completely unsettles the balance required for competitiveness, growth and productivity on the one side and the rights of employees on the other. That can lead only to discontent and a lack of investment, and, inevitably, to a fall in growth and productivity, not an increase.
This Bill comes after hits have already been made to businesses across the country. The recent increase in the minimum wage is, on the face of it, a good thing. However, when taken with an increase in national insurance contributions at the same time, it is not hard to understand why many small firms are struggling.
Take one sector—the retail sector. Retail NI conducted a survey, published in February of this year, which established that 86% of those surveyed expect to cancel expansion plans following the increase in employer NI contributions and the rise in the minimum wage. It found that 74% of those surveyed were planning to reduce the number of employees and other staff following those announcements. These are significant figures that cannot be ignored or brushed aside.
The Government are certainly listening to the voices of trade unions, but are they balancing that in a responsible way by listening to the voice of job creators, both big and small? Speaking of the unions, small business owners are very concerned about how the Bill allows access by unions to workplaces, almost regardless of their size. As one small business in England said to me: “Typically, small businesses are run in the spirit of good teamwork, care for staff, with a drive and vision for the business to succeed. In a difficult trading environment small businesses could easily be overwhelmed by the legislative burden imposed by this Bill including the need to proactively engage with unions to comply with the law”. I hope that His Majesty’s Government will clarify that they are not intending to burden businesses with fewer than 250 staff with these proposals.
In the time left, I want to concentrate on one aspect of the Bill which I think is highly detrimental to growth and will need to be revisited by the Government: namely, the ability to gain full employment rights on day one of employment. That is definitely going to slow down business expansion and growing the workforce. I argue that it will impact on investment in research and development and innovation, as there is little incentive to innovate when the costs of growing the workforce are prohibitive. In a survey carried out nationally by the FSB on this, the largest issue was the worry of unfairly dismissed employees from day one: 75% of small business employers listed it as the number one concern, followed quickly by the removal of the current three-day waiting period, so that statutory sick pay will be payable at 74% from the first day of absence.
I quickly say that, in Northern Ireland, we have the added problem of a poor economic inactivity rate, currently at 26.6% of the workforce. If we cut the opportunities for more jobs, how can we deal with that issue, never mind the issue of the unemployed? The Government alone do not grow the economy, but they should facilitate the private sector to grow. To be competitive at home and internationally, we must give businesses the tools and the environment to grow, and I do not see that presently in this Bill. I look forward to the detailed examination of the Bill, where I hope we can deal with some of the issues raised.
Baroness Gray of Tottenham (Lab) (Maiden Speech)
My Lords, it is a huge privilege to stand here today. I start by thanking noble Lords on all Benches for the warmth of their welcome. I thank my supporters, the noble Lord, Lord O’Donnell, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Harman, for their personal encouragement, and of course my noble friends the Leader of the House and the Chief Whip. I also thank all the House staff, including the doorkeepers, digital services, catering, post and cleaning staff, for their patience and for so ably showing me the ropes these past few weeks.
My job today is to introduce myself and my background, and, I hope, to make a small contribution to today’s debate. My mum and dad came to London from Ireland in the 1950s, moving into a rented flat in Tottenham, the place I came to know as home. I grew up surrounded by aunts, uncles and cousins, who all played an important part in my life. My parents were proud to be Irish, and this was not the easiest of times to be Irish. They also embraced life in Britain, working hard to provide for their family and creating a home. My dad always had a minimum of two jobs and my brother and I were instilled with a strong work ethic, built on values of fairness, community and respect for others. I left school before completing my A-levels, on the early and unexpected death of my dad. My brother and I had to support our mum, who struggled with her mental health, before taking her own life some years later. The death of our parents had the biggest impact on our lives.
I joined the Civil Service at the most junior grade, which is why I chose today’s debate, and I commend the work of my good friend the Deputy Prime Minister and her team for the work and consultation they put into this legislation. On joining the Civil Service, I was not on a mission to work my way to the top. This was probably best illustrated when I took a career break which has been much commented upon. Put it this way: although the Civil Service encourages its future leaders to get outside experience, running a pub in Newry, County Down, in the late 1980s, was not on their list for outside placements. But a pub is a great place to get to understand communities and their needs, worries and aspirations. Throughout my career, I have learned, to take the words of the late Jo Cox, that we have more in common than that which divides us.
On returning to the Civil Service, I did indeed start working my way up. Some of the issues I worked on included creating the propriety and ethics function, which included conducting one or two high-profile investigations; establishing public inquiries into Grenfell Tower and infected blood, on which I wish to pay huge credit to the former Prime Minister the noble Baroness, Lady May of Maidenhead, for her steadfast commitment to ensuring the truth was told; initiating the scheme to bring prison leavers into the Civil Service, where my path first crossed that of the trailblazing noble Lord, my noble friend Lord Timpson, who recognised the importance of giving people a second chance; the boardroom apprentice scheme to encourage people from all backgrounds to serve on the boards of public bodies, an important part of the reform agenda which goes to the heart of the opportunities mission. Here I wish to acknowledge the work of the noble Lord, Lord Maude of Horsham, and the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, who provided the positive backdrop that allowed these initiatives to be developed and flourish—thank you.
Between 2018 and 2021, I undertook the role of Permanent Secretary in the Northern Ireland Executive’s Department of Finance. This was a very different experience for me, and demonstrates again the range of opportunities that exist in the Civil Service. The return of the Executive brought its own challenges, including working in a mandatory five-party coalition, which made the 2010 coalition seem remarkably straightforward.
Returning to Whitehall in 2021 allowed me to put into practice the benefits of closer and collaborative working with devolved Governments and mayors. Devolved government is an important and integral part of the architecture of this country, and the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, was a big part of that in Northern Ireland. I will continue to be a strong advocate for it from my position in your Lordships’ House.
A number of the senior officials with whom I had the privilege of working are now Members here, and I wish to say a personal “thank you” for their support. I also want to remember three important people in my career, who are sadly no longer with us: Baroness Jowell, Lord Prescott and Lord Heywood, who were exemplars of the very best of public service. I would also like to thank those who guided me in the challenging last few years of my career in and around Downing Street—whether working in it or investigating it—including Dave Penman and the FDA team. I am not sure what it is about the mention of my time in Downing Street that brings me to the issue of job security and employment.
More seriously, I want to return to my first set of jobs in what was the Department for Social Security, working in employment support, as it is highly relevant to today’s debate and to the future of our Civil Service. Back then, I worked with truly heroic and committed people, striving every day, in very difficult circumstances, to help people in even more challenging situations. They were the Civil Service at its best: on the front line, as far away from Whitehall’s machinations as it is possible to be. Today, I see the same sort of brilliance. What these and other civil servants are doing is central to the Government’s—and the nation’s—mission to bring growth back into our economy and security to our society. That is why I would caution all of us to be careful, not only about our decisions but our language also. When we hear phrases with “blobs”, “pen-pushers”, “axes”, “chainsaws” and other implements, they hear it too.
Difficult decisions are needed, of course, and the Civil Service will be keen to be part of any reform journey, but we need them and other public servants to succeed. I will continue to support a progressive Civil Service. I hope others will do the same. Thank you.
Lord Burns (CB)
My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Gray, and to be able to congratulate her on her fascinating maiden speech. She has a long and successful background in the Civil Service, and she described today some of the things that have affected that experience. My message to Ministers is that they would be well advised to take her advice when it comes to how to get the best out of civil servants, because she has been remarkably good at it.
I first met the noble Baroness, Lady Gray, when she was running the propriety and ethics function within government. I was chairing a commission investigating whether the Freedom of Information Act was working as intended. I have to say that the group of journalists who spent their time looking at FoI stories regarded her as the most powerful obstacle in their career—and that was before she was in the public eye. Maybe she wishes she might have stayed there. Instead, she became known everywhere for her forensic talents, which were brought to bear on the “partygate” scandal. There was a period when it appeared that no politician could appear on television and face a question without answering, “That is an issue for Sue Gray”. She did not seek the job; it was thrust upon her. She carried out that task with great skill and courage. She is a person of immense integrity and a delightful colleague, and she will be a very valuable Member of this House.
I also enjoyed the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Berger. Somewhere, I have a photograph of myself with Manny Shinwell in County Durham, aged 16 or thereabouts. I have very fond memories of that occasion.
I also look forward to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Acton. He swells the ranks of Members of this House—a very small group—who have families who support Queens Park Rangers. He is very welcome. I enjoy his match reports; I doubt that the manager and the team always feel the same about them, but I suppose that is freedom of speech. I also look forward to hearing from the noble Baroness, Lady Cash, and hope that she also enjoys the experience.
I will limit my comments on the Bill to the provision concerning trade union finances. Clause 59 would change the way in which trade union members pay the political levy. Under the proposal in the Bill, all trade union members will automatically pay the political levy unless they personally take the decision to opt out.
I am concentrating on this because I have been there before. In 2016, the Trade Union Bill introduced by the newly elected Conservative Government proposed to do exactly the opposite. They proposed to move to an opt-in system for political funds, with union members being required to opt in, in writing, if they wished to pay the political levy. Following the Lords Second Reading, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, then the Leader of the Opposition, tabled a Motion to establish a Select Committee to consider the impact of the clauses dealing with trade union political funds. The Motion was agreed, and the committee was appointed, of which I was asked to be the chairman, and we were given a very short deadline for reporting.
The committee took evidence and came to the view that reintroducing an opt-in process for all members
“could have a sizeable negative effect on the number of union members participating in political funds”,
and that there would be a “significant reduction” in union payments to the Labour Party. The committee concluded unanimously that the opt-in system should apply to all new members—new members would be required to actively opt in to paying the political levy. However, there was disagreement within the committee on whether the opt-in should also apply to existing union members as well and whether they would remain on an opt-out basis. The majority of the committee thought that the opt-in should not be extended to existing members unless it was part of a wider reform of party funding. On Report, I tabled amendments that new members should opt in and that existing union members should remain on an opt-out basis. This was carried almost on a two to one basis in this House. Several days later, the Government accepted these amendments, despite some significant unhappiness on their own side.
Given this history, I am surprised that the new Government wish to move back to the pre-2016 position whereby all members automatically pay the political levy unless they opt out. I had hoped this issue had been laid to rest for the time being, but it appears not. I have some questions for the Minister. There is a long tradition of Labour Governments legislating for opt-out while Conservative Governments in turn legislate for opt-in. Do we really want this opt-in, opt-out ping-pong to go on with every change of Government? Do the Government really want to take the risk with the future funding of the Labour Party the next time there is a change of Government? Would it not be better to let this issue rest where it is and to maintain the compromise we reached in 2016?
Baroness Cash (Con) (Maiden Speech)
My Lords, it truly is an honour to take a place on these venerable Benches and make my maiden speech today. I start by congratulating the noble Baronesses, Lady Berger and Lady Gray, on their excellent maiden speeches—and no easy acts to follow. I do not really need to worry too much, I believe, because truly I am just the warm-up act for the noble Lord, Lord Young, today. He is someone who has already starred in many of his own features in life, and he is a fine colleague. So I look forward also to hearing his maiden speech.
I thank noble Lords on all sides of the House for the warmest welcome. It is true what everyone says about the courtesy and embrace when one arrives here. I am very grateful also to all the officials and staff, particularly our dedicated doorkeepers. I am grateful to my sponsors, some of the finest academic minds and most principled people I know: the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner of Margravine, who is also my chair at the EHRC, and the noble Lord, Lord Godson, who has been a dear friend for nearly 30 years. I am also grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Finn and Lady Morris of Bolton. I have two mentors. I have not dared to ask why they thought I might need double supervision, but I thank them for their courage in stepping up to do it.
Since learning that I would be joining your Lordships, I have received many kind messages and kind words—including, rather delightfully, from my primary 7 teacher Ken Cardwell. That reminded me that, when I was 10 years old in his class, he had also once trusted me to make a speech on a subject of my choice, on the day of a school inspection. Unaccustomed as I am, and have always been, to public speaking, I relished this prospect, and he was confident that this particular child would not let him down. When I ran into him 20 years later, the horror was still palpable on his face when he described how I had stood up in front of the class and announced, rather cheekily, “I’m not giving a speech today”. His heart sank and there was the most terrible pause, until I whisked from behind my back a hand puppet and announced, “He is” and proceeded to lecture them all on ventriloquism.
I will not be quite as random today. I have chosen this debate because I have a life that some of you do not know much about. I have been very lucky to know some noble Lords in parts of my career as a barrister, parliamentary candidate or, indeed, a policy wonk—something I still love. But what is less well known is that I have for 10 years, prior to now, chaired the UK’s leading behavioural science business, which we took on to the stock market. During that time, I have seen first-hand the challenges of running an SME. We confronted the pandemic, we then had costs ratcheting and salary insecurity as a result of the war in Ukraine. Now, we are looking forward to really strangulating increases in national insurance. I also know from running that business, because we work with 62% of the FTSE 100, that most employers want the best for their employees. It is not a them and us; talent is what makes businesses work and grow, and they are highly valued by the majority of people. It saddens me enormously to know so many people in business spoken about in some of the ways we have heard in the other place.
This was not my first experience of business. I grew up in Northern Ireland in the 1970s. That was the height of the Troubles, but it was also a low ebb for our economy. I spent my early years in the anteroom of a tiny newsagents run by parents. They worked incredibly long hours, while my father also held down a full-time job. It was not easy and costs were high.
Those micro-businesses—I owe my parents a world of thanks for the way they worked in theirs—employ 33% of the workforce. That is an enormous number of businesses with between nought and nine employees. The consequence of some of the changes introduced by this Bill in subjecting those tiny businesses to some of these new ideas will be to strangle them, mostly at birth. Costs are rising, taxes are rising and profits—that dirty old word—for them are falling. Profits for those businesses can mean a pair of trainers for their children, or the hope of a family holiday. Are we really going to do that to 33% of the providers of our workforce?
From the CBI to the Federation of Small Businesses, every representative group is warning—pleading—that the implications of this Bill mean a disaster for growth in this country. It is not all bad—of course we want to see more fathers take parental leave, and there are other good things—but the overall direction of travel is to create unintended consequences. If I have learned anything from leading a behavioural science business for 10 years, it is that, often, the things we do to achieve a certain outcome have exactly the opposite effect. This Bill is destined to destroy our growth.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, it is truly a great honour to follow on from my noble friend Lady Cash’s maiden speech. When I asked those who had worked with my noble friend over the past few years how they would describe her, there was absolute unanimity in their responses. The first thing they all talked about was her courage: brave as a lion—or, possibly, a lioness—which was perhaps learned, as we heard, from growing up in Northern Ireland at the height of the Troubles. They all said that there is no issue that is too hard for my noble friend to tackle, and that anything she tackles, she tackles with single-mindedness and rigour. She was described by the Observer as a modern “freedom fighter” and, without question, she has been a tireless and hugely effective advocate for free speech and western values.
The second word used when talking about my noble friend is “forensic”. Colleagues have described her to me as one of the most intellectually rigorous and honest people they have worked with, as well as a consummate professional in her approach. That of course is borne out by her track record. My noble friend has excelled in so many different areas: from her work as one of London’s most distinguished human rights lawyers, to upholding equality on the board of the EHRC, and to her leadership of Parent Gym with its practical approach, supporting parents and promoting social mobility.
Finally, colleagues and friends talk to me about my noble friend’s compassion and modesty—we heard her modesty in her opening words in your Lordships’ House today—and, crucially, her ability to build alliances, which we all know is so important in our work here. I know that all noble Lords across the House will, like me, be looking forward to working with my noble friend and agree that we are fortunate to have someone with such exceptional experience and skills.
Turning to the legislation, I will confine my remarks to two specific areas of the Bill. The first relates to the proposed reintroduction of the school support staff negotiating body and the second is that the Bill presents an opportunity to clarify the employment status of foster carers.
On these Benches, we support measures to improve pay and conditions for school support staff, who are so vital to the effective running of our academies and our schools, but we have concerns about the impact of the Government’s proposals in practice. Our worry is that their proposals will lead to a significant increase in workload and costs for academies, taking funding away from the front line. For example, the proposal to review and align working hours based on a 12-week reference period will create administrative complexity—particularly for staff on variable hours or term time-only contracts, such as midday supervisors, exam invigilators and music tutors. Without an exemption for term-time or education-specific roles, this will lead to higher costs and cumbersome recording and averaging systems. The vast majority of academies comply with the National Joint Council for Local Government Services’ terms and conditions while retaining a degree of flexibility—where needed—over local terms and conditions. Can the Minister reassure the House that this local flexibility will be retained and that the SSSNB will not be a one-size-fits-all approach?
In my experience, academy trusts use their flexibility to improve conditions for their staff—for example, by using the apprenticeship levy to allow all support staff to achieve level 3 qualifications and offering them 18 weeks of full maternity pay and eight weeks at half pay. Can the Minister confirm that nothing in the Bill will prevent academies improving on the terms and conditions agreed by the SSSNB if they feel it is in the best interests of staff and pupils? Rather than rigid uniformity, we need a system that encourages innovation and benefits pupils and staff. This is particularly true if we are to deliver reform of the special educational needs and disabilities system, where we must retain the ability to innovate and be flexible with our workforce.
Finally, the reduction in thresholds for strike ballots and the removal of minimum service levels legislation increases the risk of strike action, which puts the education of our children at risk and will require greater investment in contingency planning. Trusts typically have very good relations with their unions at a local level, but national negotiations are outside their control and risk straining staff relations unnecessarily.
On the employment status of foster carers, the Minister in the other place, himself a foster carer, stated
“it would not need a new clause but a new Bill”—[Official Report, Commons, 3/12/24; col. 193.]
to address this. As the Minister will be aware, there are serious concerns among foster carers and local authorities about the need for clarity on their status, to prevent piecemeal definition by the courts. Without that, there is a real risk of a decision at an employment tribunal in effect ending foster provision as we know it. I urge the Government not to take this risk and the Minister, first, to clarify that the Government have no intention that foster carers should be defined as employees and, secondly, to agree to introduce amendments to this legislation which address this important matter.
In closing, I congratulate all noble Baronesses who have already spoken. I offer an apology to the noble Baroness, Lady Gray, whom I pestered remorselessly in the many months when I was waiting to know whether I was coming to your Lordships’ House or whether someone had changed their mind. Hers was the only email address I had to contact. I think that she had more important things to worry about, but I am very grateful for her patience.
Lord Barber of Ainsdale (Lab)
My Lords and Ladies, I begin by expressing my congratulations to the noble Baronesses, Lady Berger, Lady Gray and Lady Cash, on their maiden speeches. I look forward with interest to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Young.
I express my wholehearted support for this landmark legislation, which aims—for the first time in a generation—to rebalance the labour market in the direction of fairness. This will not only eradicate some of the grossest injustices suffered by far too many people in recent years but drive higher standards across the world of work in place of the race to the bottom. Decent employers have nothing to fear from this. Instead, they will be protected from being undercut by rogue competitors. As Churchill said, where there is
“no organisation, no parity of bargaining, the good employer is undercut by the bad and the bad employer is undercut by the worst ... where those conditions prevail you have not a condition of progress, but a condition of progressive degeneration”.—[Official Report, Commons, 28/4/1909; col. 388.]
The objective of this Bill is nothing less than to establish a condition of progress.
Many groups of workers stand to gain if this Bill is enacted: those workers who have been fired, only to be offered rehiring if they accept a savage cut in their terms and conditions of employment; those workers unable to get a mortgage or even plan their week-to-week household budget because their income under a zero-hours contract is completely unpredictable and can disappear altogether at the whim of their employer, and victims of sexual harassment let down by their employer unprepared to accept their responsibility to take the necessary actions to prevent this kind of totally unacceptable behaviour towards their employees. Many of the provisions in the Bill strengthen the legal rights of countless workers currently feeling powerless and vulnerable.
However, the Bill is more ambitious than that, because it rightly recognises that the most powerful force to hold bad employers to account—and to uphold workplace legal rights—is effective trade unionism. This reality is recognised around the world and upheld in the conventions of the International Labour Organization on freedom of association and collective bargaining. It is a matter of shame that Governments led by the party opposite have been found too often to be in breach of those international obligations as a result of crude and unworthy attacks on free trade unionism.
Therefore, it is wholly proper that the rights for unions to secure employer recognition for bargaining purposes should be strengthened to allow workers to make that free choice. It is right too that trade unions should have proper access to workers without rogue employers being able to bully them out of exercising their right to effective representation at work. Of course, there are countless good and responsible employers who recognise that respecting and valuing their workforce is the right way to achieve success. They should not be undermined by the irresponsible or malevolent. Surveys have shown how popular this package of progressive change is with the community at large. Millions of people are crying out for change. Let us get this Bill on the statute book and begin to change the world for the better.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friends. I will start with the noble Baroness, Lady Cash, who I have known for 35 years from when we were students together. She was elegant and eloquent then, and that will continue. I am also looking forward to my noble friend Lord Young of Acton, as I am sure he will spice things up if we are to judge by some of his past publications. I extend my congratulations to the noble Baronesses, Lady Berger and Lady Gray of Tottenham. Without destroying their reputations in this House, I consider them to be friends, having come into the House together with them and worked with the noble Baroness, Lady Gray, in government too. I am sure that they will continue to staunchly uphold their principles as well as contributing to national debate.
In terms of national debate, this Employment Rights Bill entered the other House 100 days into this Government with 149 pages. After Committee in the other place, there were 191 pages, and now there are 299 pages, which it will be generous to get through in seven days of Committee consideration. Today, I want to focus on just a handful.
On Clause 59 relating to union finances, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Burns. I do not understand the trend, with all the consumer and legislation protection that we put in place, for encouraging people to have to opt in to contractual arrangements. The default now by and large is that you are automatically opted out. I believe that should be continued, especially when there is a section in the legislation which suggests that union members who have not opted out should be reminded only every 10 years that they have the opportunity to do so.
On small businesses, I know the FSB is particularly concerned about two matters: the day-one risk of taking people on with there being no statutory probation period yet in law, and statutory sick pay. It used to be the case that SSP was rebated to all employers. I know that because when I worked at Mars, I used to fill out the forms every year to get the refund. However, that got taken away, recognising some of the improvements to be made in occupational health. It is important that the Government reconsider that with this shift to day-one rights, or at least produce an impact assessment.
On getting automatic rights on day one of employment and unfair dismissal, this already applies through the Equality Act. There is consideration of people with disabilities and other protected characteristics. I support the Government’s measures for a right to try in getting people a job, but perhaps the same should apply to employers. They have a right to try out employees and the statutory notice period should be put in the Bill and not left to regulations.
It is important that we continue the work of the occupational health task force to make sure that we have positive arrangements in place so that people can start, stay and succeed in work, but we need to remove the uncertainty, because I fear that companies will simply choose not to grow. I know that from my experience in Suffolk and some of the flexible working practices there. I understand why the Labour Government have chosen to put even more controls on them, but without the support of small businesses we will not get growth in productivity and, indeed, economic growth more generally.
On the fair work agency, I welcome the construction of this combination of regulators—it is a sensible approach—but I consider Clause 113 to be novel. When I asked the Minister in the other House, Justin Madders, he seemed to suggest that the EHRC had similar powers. The Equality Act actually gives the same powers as Clause 114, under which legal assistance can be provided, including advice, representation and other forms of assistance, but not the situation where the fair work agency could take a case on behalf of a worker, or somebody who has applied for a job and is not even a worker. Subsection (6) removes any liability from the Secretary of State towards that same worker. Of course there will be a need to recover legal costs from the worker. I understand that, if there is a big payout, the Government may want to recover the funds that they have given out, but the regulations need to change to the affirmative rather than the negative procedure. In Clause 114, who will get the money to take people’s cases to court? Will it be the unions or a bunch of law firms? That does not feel like the approach we should be taking with taxpayers’ money, although it admittedly strengthens rights.
I should say to the Government that I have nothing against trade unions; I actively encourage people to join them. They can play a valuable role. I have never felt the need to join one myself, although it is in my blood: I looked at the 1921 census and my grandfather was an apprentice shipbuilder. It was also noted in the census that he was on strike, so it certainly runs through the Coffey veins. Indeed, other people were trade union organisers. But we need to be careful that we do not end up destroying growth rather than promoting it.
Baroness Whitaker (Lab)
My Lords, I must first apologise: I need to honour a long-standing commitment, which might oblige me to miss the winding-up speeches. I declare that I am a lifetime member of the First Division Association. I warmly congratulate noble Lords on the three maiden speeches so far, and I anticipate with interest the next.
It is a pleasure to return to the intricacies of employment law, which I spent much time on a while ago, and to welcome this Bill, which puts right so many injustices. I will not rehearse the range of provisions, which will give back much of the security, the deterioration of which has so adversely affected the well-being of so many working people. They are widely welcomed.
I would like, drawing also on my experience as a former member of employment tribunals, to ask my noble friend the Minister questions in two areas. First, can she set out in a bit more detail how the new arrangements for the protection of seafarers—their charter—will be devised? Quite a few seafarers on British ships do not speak English, so how will they and their representatives be consulted? Ships are very dangerous places. In container ships, for instance—so important to our trading economy—seafarers have a higher rate of mortality, and of injuries and ill health, than workers on land, significantly so among the lower ranks but, until now, they have had much less legal protection against exploitation, dangerously long hours, and less access to medical care. It is a matter of pride that we can right these wrongs after so long, so clarification would be welcome.
My other point is about what is not in the Bill. On employment tribunals, many cases of sexual harassment or sackings while pregnant were settled after the first hearing and never proceeded to a full hearing and a decision. I heard of court cases with similar outcomes. There was a non-disclosure agreement instead. In some instances, an immediate settlement sum was so important to the victim that she preferred this, even though the sums might have been paltry. In some, the outlay for carrying on was, in any case, prohibitive, and quite severe allegations of behaviour that was very damaging to the woman concerned—and I only ever saw women in these cases—went unacknowledged and the perpetrators were never brought to book. That is injustice. I was heartened to see that the Minister in the other place, my honourable friend Justin Madders, said that
“we will continue to look at the issues”.—[Official Report, Commons, 11/3/25; col. 950.]
Can my noble friend the Minister tell us when we can expect this injustice to be addressed, with a provision to override or nullify a non-disclosure agreement if the victim chooses?
Lord Young of Acton (Con) (Maiden Speech)
My Lords, I would like to say how difficult my task is, because I have to follow three such excellent maiden speeches. I congratulate the noble Baronesses, Lady Berger and Lady Gray of Tottenham, and my noble friend Lady Cash. I thank my noble friend and all the noble Lords who have welcomed me with such warm words, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Burns—my fellow QPR supporter.
I asked various people for advice before thinking about what to say in my maiden speech, and I was given three quite strong pieces of advice: thank the doorkeepers, praise the people who introduced you, and keep it short. For inspiration, I looked up the maiden speech of my father, Lord Young of Dartington, who was made a life Peer by the late noble Lord, Lord Callaghan of Cardiff, in 1978, but his maiden proved not to be terribly helpful: he forgot to thank the doorkeepers, he did not praise either of the people who had introduced him, and he spoke for 18 minutes. Noble Lords will be reassured to know that, in that respect at least, I do not intend to follow in his footsteps. I thank the doorkeepers, Black Rod and her staff, the Clerk of the Parliaments and all the clerks, and all the wonderful people who work here and have gone out of their way to help me when they found me wandering lost along one of the corridors.
When I heard the expression “corridors of power”, I did not realise that there were quite so many of them. I have no sense of direction and have made various errors—schoolboy errors—trying to navigate this place. For instance, I entered the Chamber the other day, remembered to bow to the Throne, took my place with what I thought was the minimum of fuss and congratulated myself on having done it—with some élan, I thought. A moment later, I got a text message from my noble friend Lord Effingham, which read as follows: “Lord Young, on the basis that you have taken the Conservative Whip, may I please suggest that you sit on the Conservative Benches?” I then noticed I was surrounded by Labour Peers.
When my elevation was announced, I wrote an article in the Spectator in which I said that I thought I was only the second child of a life Peer to be made a life Peer—the other being the late Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville. In fact, it turns out I am not the only child of a life Peer in this House, and I take this opportunity to apologise to the following people: the noble Lords, Lord Maude of Horsham, Lord Palumbo of Southwark, Lord Prior of Brampton, Lord Soames of Fletching and Lord Wolfson of Aspley Guise, the noble Baronesses, Lady Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury, Lady Chisolm of Owlpen and Lady Jay of Paddington, the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Smith of Cluny, the noble Lord, Lord Pitkeathley of Camden Town, whose mother, the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, also sits in this House, and the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey of Didcot.
I really should have remembered that last one because the noble Lord’s father, the late Lord Vaizey of Greenwich, was one of the two people who introduced my father in 1978—and whom he forgot to thank. I do not want to make that mistake, so I thank my noble friend Lord Moynihan of Chelsea and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, whom I am also proud to call my close friends. I also thank my excellent mentors—like the noble Baroness, Lady Cash, I needed two—my noble friend Lady Evans of Bowes Park and, of course, the noble Lord, Lord Borwick.
As was disclosed, I am a keen QPR fan and season ticket holder. I am the editor-in-chief of the Daily Sceptic, a news publishing site I set up in 2020, and an associate editor of the Spectator, where I have written a weekly column for about 25 years. I am interested in education, having co-founded one of England’s first free schools, as well as three other free schools and the multi-academy trusts they now sit within, alongside five other schools. I am the founder and general secretary of the Free Speech Union, a mass membership public interest body that stands up for the speech rights of its members and campaigns for free speech more widely. In the past five years, with the help of our extremely able chairman, my noble friend Lord Biggar, the FSU has come to the defence of over 3,500 people, not all of whom share my political views.
The FSU really is a non-partisan organisation, and I often find myself defending people whose views I do not share. For instance, I have been a lifelong supporter of Israel, ever since my father sent me to a kibbutz when I was 17. My late father-in-law, Ivo Bondy, escaped from Prague in 1939 by the skin of his teeth. He was Jewish, and I was one of the co-founders of the British Friends of Israel shortly after 7 October. Yet, the FSU has come to the defence of several people who found themselves in trouble for their outspoken support of the Palestinian cause.
Before I sit down, I will say a few words about the Bill. One misunderstanding has arisen about the extension of liability for third-party harassment. The Bill does not extend employer liability for the sexual harassment by third parties of their employees. Employees are already protected from third-party sexual harassment by the Employment Rights Act 1996. Clause 20 extends employers’ liability for the non-sexual harassment of their employees by third parties, and I fear that that will have a chilling effect on free speech. How will the owners of hospitality businesses—publicans, for instance—protect their employees from being harassed by third parties, given that the employment tribunal has defined harassment as including indirect harassment, which includes overheard conversations that are not necessarily directed at them? How will publicans be expected to protect their employees from overhearing customers’ conversations that they may find offensive or upsetting by virtue of their protected characteristics?
When it was suggested in the other place that pubs might have to employ “banter bouncers” to police the conversations of customers, as one of the “reasonable steps” publicans are expected to take to protect their employees from indirect harassment, it was met with derisive, dismissive laughter from the Government Benches—as being a ludicrous strawman. But I do not think it is a strawman. Before we dismiss that concern as unduly alarmist, I draw attention to a briefing published earlier this week by the Equality and Human Rights Commission, ably chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner. The EHRC pointed out that employers will have to balance the rights of third parties to express their legally protected beliefs with the rights of their employees not to be harassed. That is an extremely complicated area of law, and I do not envy publicans trying to get their heads around that.
The EHRC briefing states:
“The interaction of the third-party’s protection from discrimination and the employee’s protection from harassment is complex and is likely to be challenging for employers to navigate”.
For challenging, read “expensive”, since publicans will have to take legal advice on how to limit their liability. I wonder how many publicans will decide, in the face of all their other difficulties, that this new duty, the cost of complying with it and the additional risks entailed mean that the game is no longer worth the candle.
According to the Campaign for Real Ale, pubs are closing at the rate of 37 a week. I hope your Lordships will think carefully before approving the clause in this Bill which I fear will accelerate the erasure of such a vital part of our history and heritage: the good old British pub.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
My Lords, what a privilege to follow the fourth of those four outstanding maiden speeches. I reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Hazarika, that I echo her sense that the humanity and dignity of the noble Baroness, Lady Berger, in the face of extraordinary provocation, was an inspiration not only to the many people who uphold the best and most decent tendencies in the Labour Party, but to everyone in this country who values tolerance, religious pluralism, civility in public discourse and the supremacy of parliamentary life. I hope I will not destroy her credibility when I say that of all the people in the independent group, she was the only one I was secretly rooting for during that bizarre moment in our political life.
What a pleasure, also, to follow my noble friend Lady Cash—my friend of three and a half decades. I remember seeing a picture of my noble friend in the Observer, in about 2009, with the most extraordinary array of lefty lawyers, including, if memory serves, the noble Baronesses, Lady Chakrabarti and Lady Kennedy of the Shaws. They were making this great defence of liberty, and that has been her core belief throughout her political career. It was very apt that, when she stood for another place, she fought in Westminster, the constituency of both JS Mill and of John Wilkes. If there is one precept that this country has developed and exported, and contributed thereby to the happiness of humanity, it is personal autonomy.
My real privilege, however, is in following and welcoming my noble friend Lord Young. He is a one-man advertisement for the hereditary principle. It is an unfashionable cause to be making at a time like this. He did not mention that his father was a Labour peer. You would have got it, if you were listening between the lines. His father was best known for writing a book on meritocracy, which he was against. My noble friend has had a career that tests the outer limits of what we understand by meritocracy. Right from the start, he got into Oxford on the basis of having received an acceptance letter in error. They posted it by mistake, even though he failed to make the grade. He then successfully argued that they had a moral obligation to take him anyway. He went on to have this extraordinary career, which I can only describe as cinematic—in the literal sense, in that a film was made in 2008 of my noble friend’s life; he was played by Simon Pegg. The only other person I can think of who has had a biopic before he was elected to anything is the current Vice-President of the United States. But I will not push that resemblance.
My noble friend then went on again and again to show that quirkiness, that independence of character and that courage that is, I think, one of our greatest virtues as a people. I mean no disrespect to our political system when I say that you can get to this Chamber by being careful and correct and conformist in your views. I know one or two people who have made it to the top in politics by waiting until everyone else has spoken before they express a view, by knowing how to nod sagely and talk slowly. No one would describe my noble friend in such terms.
The two particular causes with which he has been most recently associated—the Free Speech Union and the Critic, which began as an anti-lockdown campaign—showed extraordinary moral courage: not the simple courage which some people have and some do not but that readiness, that intellectual readiness, to be incredibly unpopular but to stand by a position that you know to be right. Personally, I have to say that, on the lockdown, I remember the days when people were accusing him of being a eugenicist and a mass murderer and all the rest of it, but with every day that has passed he has come to be more and more vindicated.
Turning to the Bill itself, I can be very brief. I am afraid I find that it contains absolutely no redeeming qualities whatever. I could go on at length about what is wrong with it, but I would be repeating many of the arguments that we have already heard, not least from my noble friends Lady Barran, Lady Coffey and Lady Noakes. I will focus on just one solitary provision, which is the rights from day one. I think we are in real danger in this nation of having more and more workers’ rights and fewer and fewer workers. Here is an unpopular truth that people very rarely like to admit and never really like to verbalise: the way of encouraging people to hire is to make it easier for them to fire. The way in which you encourage employers to take on more staff is to give them the reassurance that they are not going to be stuck with duds or embroiled in weeks and weeks of acrimony for the price of a second-class stamp or an email by somebody who they had then to remove from employment.
That has been the secret of our country’s success for some three decades. Whatever the world has thrown at us, including the global financial crisis and the pandemic, structural employment has always been higher here than in Europe because we have this relative flexibility in our labour market that means that we bounce back very quickly from downturns because companies are prepared to take people on. I think that is ceasing to be the case now. I speak as the father of two children who are just entering the workplace and I listen to what their friends are saying. If you speak to anyone of that age, there is a palpable freeze now, an uncertainty among employers, in anticipation of both this Bill and the related rise in national insurance. I have a fear that those 30 years of structurally low unemployment are about to come to an end.
Noble Lords will be able to look back at my words and laugh at me if I have got this wrong, but I suspect that we are at the beginning of what is going to be a sustained and secular rise in unemployment. As I say, I hope to heaven that I am mistaken about that, but, as Scotland’s national poet once said:
“An’ forward tho’ I cannot see,
I guess an’ fear!”
Lord Pitkeathley of Camden Town (Lab)
My Lords, like buses, you wait for one nepo Peer to come along—
I rise to speak in support of this Bill and refer the House to my registered interests. First, I congratulate all those who have made their first contributions today. The House is blessed with four eloquent and distinguished new Members and it is a particular joy to be joined by my noble friends Lady Berger and Lady Gray, who acquitted themselves so well, and I look forward to getting to know the noble Baroness, Lady Cash, and the noble Lord, Lord Young.
As an employer and entrepreneur, and through my work with business improvement districts and workspace provision, I have seen first-hand both the challenges and responsibilities of employing people. Good businesses do more than create jobs. They foster opportunity, stability and prosperity in our communities. For most responsible employers, the principles behind this Bill are nothing new. Anyone who has run a business knows that keeping and supporting a great team is a daily concern. Whether it is offering flexibility, ensuring fair treatment or helping staff through difficult times, most employers already do much of what is set out in this Bill—not because they have to but because a happy, motivated team is the foundation of success. Businesses thrive when their people thrive.
That said, rising employment costs are a reality. Businesses have adapted to higher minimum wages, pension auto-enrolment and other well-intentioned interventions, all of which add to the cost of employing people. While these measures bring benefits, they also create pressures, particularly for small businesses, as we have heard. The Government’s impact assessment acknowledges this, but we must be mindful that, if costs rise too far, businesses may turn to automation rather than hiring staff. This is not an argument against the Bill, but a reminder that we should support both employers and employees.
In that spirit, could we do more to improve access to insurance products to help businesses manage employment risks, such as covering statutory sick pay? Such products seem rare to me and it may be worth engaging with those such as the Association of British Insurers to explore better provision in this area. We should also consider practical support for businesses adapting to new employment obligations. Could advisory services or incentives help them implement best practices? A culture of shared responsibility between government, businesses and employees will be the key to ensuring that these measures work in practice as well as in principle.
Ultimately, this Bill strengthens workplace rights in a way that is fair and balanced. It reflects what responsible employers already do, while ensuring that bad practice is tackled, creating a level playing field for all. Businesses that uphold high standards should not be disadvantaged by those who do not and legislation such as this helps to make good employment practices the norm. It is a step forward and I support it.
Lord Monks (Lab)
My Lords, I add my congratulations to the quartet of maiden speakers. I think they have all laid down a mark and people will look forward to their future contributions in this House.
I want to pitch my remarks at some of the messages coming from across the Chamber, almost asking “Why have we got this Bill in the first place when our wonderful flexible labour market is doing so well?” For me, a key justification of the Bill is deep concern about the UK’s relative position in the world. I will give a couple of OECD figures. Of 40 major economies, we are the most affected by rising inequality. In Europe, only Bulgaria and Lithuania fare worse. The gap between top and bottom earners in this country continues to soar to some eye-watering amounts, which are not always linked to corporate success. When it comes to worker participation in management decision-making, the OECD ranks us 26 out of 28 European countries. We are propped up only by Latvia and Estonia doing worse. We are not in the Premier League on these particular measures: more like the Vanarama.
If we had been outstanding economically, as the advocates of deregulated labour markets in the 1980s hoped, and if our productivity and investment record had been better, maybe you could justify high unemployment, high inequality and poor participation in management; perhaps it would have been a price worth paying. But the result has been that we are currently 20% poorer on average than workers in France or Germany, which have very different labour markets and a much greater degree of regulation.
I could go on making these depressing and unfavourable comparisons. If some people thought trade unions were overmighty subjects in the 1970s and 1980s—many people did and still do—and that unions could do with a good regular dollop of restrictive legislation loaded on them, I hope that today they will honestly acknowledge that British workers have payday very heavy price for what has happened since: the flexible labour market and its dark sides. I acknowledge that there are some upsides for some people in certain circumstances, but there are many dark sides for others who have very little choice: lower pay, lower protection, lower skills and poor productivity. This is not a happy picture for our nation and it is one the Government are determined to do something about. Mrs Thatcher did not expect the flexible labour market to produce some of these awkward facts, but they have to be faced by her successors.
The Bill strengthens the workers’ voice in the workplace, and I hope that that will echo, too, in boardrooms across the country. It needs to, if firms are to prosper as effective communities and teams. The Bill should boost job security, and it should reduce bad behaviour in a number of areas and tackle a number of abuses in the workplace at the present time. I encourage the noble Lord, Lord Hunt—who we are happy to renew dialogue with after many years—to have another look at the biography of Stanley Baldwin to see what he did after the general strike to promote collective bargaining.
The Bill will put unions in a stronger position. I do not apologise for that: the balance tilts with this Bill if it goes through in its present form. It can help tackle inequality and improve, through that, productivity. We need the Bill, and we need it soon.
Lord Freyberg (CB)
My Lords, I would like to add my thanks and congratulate the four maiden speakers on their excellent speeches.
This Bill marks a significant milestone in the campaign to strengthen employment rights in the UK. For many workers, the measures it contains—day-one rights, enhanced sick pay, protections from unfair dismissal—represent long-overdue reforms. However, we must also ask how these reforms serve the backbone of our cultural economy: our freelancers.
In the creative industries, over a third of the workforce is freelance. I declare my interest as a freelancer in the visual arts. In sectors such as theatre, film, publishing and design, it is more than 50%. Freelancers contribute billions to our economy and underpin the UK’s global cultural reputation, yet this legislation, while welcome, still leaves too many of them in the margins.
The Bill includes small measures—such as blacklisting protections, enhanced health and safety requirements and the right to a written contract—but otherwise offers little in the way of concrete protections for freelancers. There is no guarantee of fair pay, no enforcement on late payments and no formal route to challenge exploitative contracts or to clarify issues around single-worker status. While further consultation is welcome, it must safeguard the creative autonomy and IP rights that freelancers depend on. A blanket reclassification could cause real harm.
I support calls from across the sector—by organisations such as DACS, ALCS, BECTU, Creative UK and the Cultural Policy Unit—for the creation of a freelance commissioner. A dedicated advocate is needed to ensure freelancers are included in future reforms. Too often, they are out of scope, out of protections and out of pocket.
However, we must also maintain the balance between protecting individuals and supporting the viability of the organisations that employ and commission them. That balance is increasingly fragile. Consider the Royal Society of Arts, where a polarised dispute over pay between unionised staff and leadership has spiralled into reputational damage and a breakdown in trust; or the Tate, a DCMS-sponsored body, which cut nearly 7% of its workforce to manage deficits. The Royal Academy of Arts has warned of cuts of 18% of its staff. Many cultural organisations are operating on the brink, with commercial income still in recovery and reserves depleted.
Faced with new obligations, some employers may delay hiring, turn to long-term contractors or shift work offshore. For agencies and studios, hiring freelancers may appear less risky, potentially increasing short-term opportunities, but without protection this shift may only deepen insecurity across the sector.
This underscores the need for phased, consultative implementation and enhanced public funding mechanisms. Rights must be matched by resources. Without support, organisations may reduce opportunities—or close altogether. We must act strategically. That means sector-sensitive collective bargaining, better enforcement mechanisms and targeted support for smaller and mid-sized arts bodies.
This Bill opens a long-overdue chapter in employment rights. However, for the UK’s world-leading creative industries—and the freelance workforce on which they depend—it must not be the final word. Let us ensure that these reforms support all workers, however they work, and provide the resources needed to sustain the culture that we value.
Baroness Carberry of Muswell Hill (Lab)
My Lords, we have heard four excellent maiden speeches this afternoon; I add my congratulations to my noble friends Lady Gray and Lady Berger, the noble Baroness, Lady Cash, and the noble Lord, Lord Young.
I begin by reminding the House that this big package of improvements to employment rights has been a long time coming. Governments since 2010 have made promises to upgrade employment rights. There have been some improvements but, for the most part, the promises made were watered down, delayed or abandoned. But this Labour Government are delivering on their promises. As my noble friend the Minister said in her introduction, there have already been extensive consultations on this Bill with all interested parties, including, of course, businesses of all sizes. Much of the Bill in its present form represents a balance between different points of view and different interests.
In the short time that I have, I will focus on the early sections of the Bill, which aim to end one-sided flexibility. These are the clauses that give workers a right to guaranteed hours and reasonable notice of shifts. They introduce payments where shifts are cancelled or curtailed at short notice, which frequently happens. These provisions mirror recommendations made by the Low Pay Commission in 2018 in a report that was commissioned by the then Government which, at that point, recognised the problems in the precarious parts of the labour market. These recommendations were not taken forward.
Around 2.4 million workers in the UK are on zero-hours or low-hours contracts or in agency jobs. Over the past 10 years, there has been a 65% increase in zero-hours contracts. These contracts suit some workers, as several noble Lords have said this afternoon, and of course people value flexibility in their employment. However, if you are not in control of that flexibility, a zero-hours contract can put impossible pressures on you. The reforms in this Bill aim to remove some of these pressures. They will help to solve the very real problems that I came across with increasing frequency over 10 years serving on the Low Pay Commission. Over that period, I and other commissioners spoke to very many low-paid workers and their representatives. Over the years, more and more of these workers told us about the problems that they were experiencing with their erratic hours and erratic earnings and how they made it impossible for them to plan their lives, manage finances and get credit.
These sorts of hours and volatility can happen right across the labour market, but they are more common for the low-paid, who do not speak up for themselves because they are afraid of reprisals. Of course, the majority of employers do things the right way, but many do not. The Bill’s provisions will encourage employers to provide work schedules in advance and not to cancel shifts at the last minute or part-way through.
I recognise that there is a lot of concern among employers and workers about how all this will work in practice. A lot will be sorted out in regulations, on which there will be a lot more consultation. I find that reassuring, and I hope that others with concerns will also find it reassuring that they will have a chance to express their views as this Bill progresses through its stages.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to take part in this important Second Reading debate. It is great to see so many noble Lords taking part, and I particularly welcome and congratulate the maiden speakers. I hope they will work with all of us, particularly those on the Government Benches, to constructively improve the Bill.
This is a Bill that the Green Party welcomes, and my noble friend Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb will shortly provide a listing of the many points on which we agree. I am going to focus on the big-picture context in which this Bill comes before us. In doing so, I respectfully but strongly disagree with the pleasantly colourful opening speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral. This Bill modestly—we Greens would still say inadequately—seeks to rebalance the power of workers and employers.
That relationship was thrown profoundly awry under Margaret Thatcher, particularly by strangling the ability of workers to get together in unions to support each other against the power of the bosses, particularly the bosses of large companies. The imbalance was then enhanced by allowing zero-hours contracts and other insecure forms of employment to explode, and for working hours to extend, across many sectors of our economy. That is something that was not permitted to happen in many of our European neighbours, which now benefit from healthier, happier workers, who have the capacity to contribute to their communities and societies generally, as the noble Lord, Lord Monks, highlighted. We saw the wage share of workers collapse, a rise in inequality, and the inefficient and destructive financialisation of our economy, all of which can be at least in part attributed to failures to make work safe, fair and adequately remunerated.
There was a failure to recognise changing social structures, whereby the previously unpaid and unacknowledged labour of women has been brought into the paid workforce. That work has to fit around the continuing demands they still face. We are, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Newcastle and the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, both highlighted, people with responsibilities and needs outside work that our working structures do not adequately acknowledge. The economy is paying the price of this too, with skills, energy and talents excluded by inadequate labour protections.
The Blair and Brown Governments failed to redress the imbalance between workers and employers created under the Thatcher Government, and so we are where we are today. They too allowed the minimum wage to drift downward in real terms, subsidising the profits of giant multinational companies in particular, at a cost to us all. As the noble Lord, Lord Barber, said, we have seen a race to the bottom in employment, and that has to stop.
I often hear those on the Government Benches say that they want to get workers into good jobs. We in the Green Party take a different view: we want every job to be a good job, and those that are unavoidably difficult and unpleasant to have conditions that reflect the conditions of work. We clapped essential workers during the pandemic, but we did not lift their pay or the respect in which they are held. This Bill has the potential to do much more than it currently does. I invite noble Lords to consider the relative position of sewer cleaners and bankers, and what would happen if we did not have the former working for us all.
A fair society and a fair working environment are particularly important in what have often been described as the green areas of the economy. On Monday, the All-Party Group on Climate Change held an interesting meeting about the just transition, and that is something I want to look at in this Bill.
I am greatly concerned about the impacts of new technology on workers—for example, on the employees and agency staff at that great parasite, Amazon, who are forced, at a cost to their health, to act like robots, working themselves into the ground. That kind of surveillance is spreading to many other areas of work. Workers need the right to breathe at work. Hospitality workers need to be able to travel home safely at night, and work is being done on that through the Get ME Home Safely campaign. Generally, health and safety at work needs much more attention, and I want to see how we can build this more strongly into the Bill.
Baroness O’Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)
My Lords, during my time as TUC general secretary, I met many employers who value good industrial relations and agree terms far above legal minimums. I also met dedicated care workers who did not earn enough to give their own children a decent start in life; loyal P&O crew who were fired and replaced with labour paid below the minimum wage; Amazon workers whose boss is running roughshod over the basic British liberty to organise collectively and bargain for better conditions; and teenage workers at McDonald’s who faced sexual harassment, and even demands for sex for shifts. On that issue, will the Minister please update us on the Government’s approach to tackling non-disclosure agreements regarding discrimination and harassment? Frankly, it is obscene that NDAs are used to silence victims and that that silence puts workers, especially young women, at risk.
The Bill has strong public support across the political spectrum, and no wonder. The UK is now an outlier among OECD countries for labour standards. On rights for temporary workers, the Work Foundation reports that the UK is bottom of the league of 22 OECD nations, only just above the United States. Statutory sick pay is the lowest in Europe, and the lowest paid have been excluded, which means that many cannot afford to stay home when sick. As we saw during Covid, that endangers public health. Other countries—New Zealand, Italy, France, Germany and many more—banned exploitative zero-hours contracts long ago, but the UK did not.
Under the Conservative Government, rights failed to keep pace with the rise of the gig economy. In fact, the Conservatives worsened protection against unfair dismissal, some sex discrimination rights and the human right to withdraw your labour. The party opposite claims that tilting the balance back towards workers would be bad for business. Nonsense. On the contrary, there is strong evidence that fairness at work boosts both productivity and innovation. In the UK, too many people are stuck in a revolving door of low-skilled, insecure jobs and unemployment. This Bill will promote better quality jobs and positive flexibility, so that more carers and people with disabilities or poor mental health get the chance to get work and stay in work. Of course, individual rights need effective collective enforcement. That is why it is so important that the Bill strengthens rights to organise and be represented by a trade union.
Finally, I will say a word on the UK-EU trade deal—the mother of all costs to business. According to the London School of Economics, trade barriers have hit small businesses hardest, with 14% having stopped exporting to the EU altogether. One reason we ended up with a second-class trade deal is that the EU feared unfair competition and that the UK would undercut it with worse workers’ rights. The Conservative Government’s broken promise to bring forward an employment Bill and its attacks on trade unions only confirmed that suspicion. This Bill can help ease EU fears and support negotiations for a better deal. That is just one more reason why the Bill is good for jobs, good for workers and good for business too.
Baroness Browning (Con)
My Lords, I add my congratulations on the four excellent maiden speeches we have been privileged to listen to in the course of this debate.
I will focus on a small section of this very wide-ranging Bill, concerned with the establishment of an adult social care negotiating body in England and social care negotiating bodies in Scotland and Wales. A well-trained adult social care workforce, especially for those living with dementia, is both important and long overdue. I declare my interests as co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Dementia and as an Alzheimer’s Society ambassador.
According to the Explanatory Notes accompanying the Bill, the Government hope that sectoral agreements to be negotiated by the social care negotiating bodies will help to address the ongoing recruitment and retention crisis in the social care sector, and that this will in turn support the delivery of high-quality care.
However, despite the beneficial impact on the recruitment and retention of adult social care workers, education and training are not currently specified as matters for the negotiating bodies to consider. Last year’s report by Skills for Care, The state of the adult social care sector and workforce in England, stated that access to training was among the top five factors influencing retention; turnover rates were 7.4% lower for those who received training than for those who did not. There is evidence that lack of learning and development is given as a reason to leave.
Ensuring that the adult social care workforce is able to access high-quality training is not only crucial for recruitment and retention; it is also essential in ensuring the delivery of high-quality care for those who need it. This is particularly true for the almost 1 million people living with dementia in the UK today, a high proportion of whom need social care. For example, 70% of people in residential care have dementia, and we know this figure is going to rise.
It is therefore shocking that only 29% of adult social care staff in England are recorded as having undertaken dementia training, and that no legal requirement exists for them to do so. The Alzheimer’s Society is calling for dementia training to be made mandatory for all adult social care staff. I agree.
I intend to table an amendment in Committee that would include education and training within the remit of the social care negotiating bodies. This would send a positive signal to the sector and those who draw on care about the importance the Government and this House accord to the training and education of the social care workforce. It would also bring social care negotiating bodies in line with the school support staff negotiating body, which does have training within its remit. I look forward to a more detailed discussion in Committee.
Lord Prentis of Leeds (Lab)
My Lords, like others, I congratulate all those making their maiden speeches today; they were absolutely brilliant.
I too speak in favour of this Bill. How often have we heard myths extolling the virtues of a society with a light touch, a society where markets prevail and benefits trickle down? For many, the reality is far different. Profits, yes, but made at the expense of vulnerable workers; loopholes exploited; a compliant workforce with few protections; trade union rights, stripped back. The result? Almost 7 million citizens in severely insecure work. Of those, almost 4 million workers are on universal credit.
The UK was shamed earlier this year for being the eighth most unequal economy of the 40 studied, and that is why this Bill is so important. It creates stepping stones towards building a modern workforce: new measures to tackle insecure work; scrutiny of procurement, with a two-tier workforce agreement restored; enhanced rights against unfair dismissal; contracts reflecting the hours worked. Most of all, the Bill lays the foundations of a modern system of industrial relations, with social partnership, not conflict, at its core, tackling some of the most intractable issues facing our economy. The school support staff negotiating body, restored—the key to professional recognition for a group for workers overlooked for so long.
But nothing could be more significant than the proposals to transform social care. Social care is close to breaking point, weighed down by a toxic combination of chronic underfunding and dysfunctional markets. Over 130,000 social care jobs are unfilled, and the annual turnover rate is 25%. Some 400,000 social care workers are living on the verge of poverty. Their travelling time is not paid, and they work 14-hour shifts on zero-hours contracts, with little if any career progression. Meanwhile, on average 4,000 people every day are not able to leave hospital because of the lack of care. This Bill heralds the action so desperately needed, creating the fair work agency and the first pay agreement in adult social care in England.
Today, as we speak, an employer in Knowsley, Livv Housing, is a stark reminder of why the Bill is so important. Faced with legitimate action for fair pay, Livv Housing does not engage; it does not look into the underlying causes of the dispute. Instead, it offers a pay increase only to non-union workers and to those willing to give up their union. It threatens outsourcing and brings in strike-breaking companies—Dickensian, bully-boy tactics which cannot be fair by any standard. I ask my noble friend the Minister urgently to look into what is happening with Livv Housing.
This Bill is our chance to instil fairness back into the workplace; to restore balance; to ensure that workers are treated with dignity and that their contribution is valued, especially those at Livv Housing. It is a Bill that makes a profound and positive difference to people’s lives. It is our chance to make a difference—our chance to secure a better life at work.
Lord Balfe (Con)
My Lords, I place on record my thanks to the four maiden speakers and to the three former TUC general secretaries who have joined us for this debate, not to mention the last speaker, the noble Lord, Lord Prentis, whose union was always very helpful to me when I was David Cameron’s envoy to the TU movement.
I declare an interest: I am the president of BALPA, the pilots’ union, which is a TUC-affiliated union. I do not think I would be giving many secrets away if I said that the majority of our members probably vote Conservative at most elections.
Most people do not join trade unions for political reasons; they join because they want to be looked after and to have someone to consult if times get rough. The other thing is that most of them join because you get a good discount on your car insurance and a free legal advice service. My subs to AUEW-TASS, which is now part of Unite, were covered completely by the amount of money I got off my car insurance.
Just to rub it home a little bit, the legal service was excellent. My children went to a private school. We once got into a bit of trouble with the bursar, who was trying to pull a fast one. I rang the union legal service, and a very helpful solicitor drafted me a letter. I said, “I dare say you’re not used to helping your members challenge private schools”. I always remember his reply. He said, “Sir, we are not here to judge the members; we’re here to help them”. Those two facts about unions are a great comfort to many ordinary people who have to work for their living.
I have known quite a lot of Prime Ministers. The only Conservative one that I thought was on the right track was Ted Heath. If things had turned out differently, this party might well have a somewhat different relationship. I got to know Ted quite well after he retired because he used to enjoy coming to Brussels. They are so obsessive there about political balance and I was about the only Labour Party member willing to sit next to him at dinner, so we had lots of very interesting conversations.
I welcome this Bill—I am probably the only one on this side who does—because I think it clears up a lot of anomalies that need clearing up. I served 25 years in the European Parliament and I saw European trade unionism, based on the papal encyclical Rerum Novarum, where you respect the rights of workers. It is as simple as that. But I do think that, if we are going to move forward, those in the TU movement will have to change. They have to get Conservatives into the annual congress; they have to make them come and explain what they are up to, not have them as the hate figure on the wall. The TU movement itself has to look at how it deals with the one-third of its members who vote for the Conservative Party. That is as much of a challenge as our challenge to pass this law and make things better for the workers.
Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a freelance TV producer. I welcome aspects of this Bill. It does much to improve the rights and status of millions of employees and workers in this country, at a time when holding down a job is increasingly precarious. In particular, I welcome the changes to zero-hours contract arrangements. I understand that this will create some extra burdens for SMEs that need flexibility, but it will give important security to many low-paid workers. However, I, like many other noble Lords, am worried that much of this Bill is reliant on Henry VIII powers. I hope the Minister will listen to these concerns.
In firming up employees’ rights, I would like the Government to look at umbrella companies, which are being used increasingly in supply chains to pay workers. They are seen by clients and recruitment agencies as useful, because the umbrella company, not the actual company for which the individual is working, is the employer and responsible for PAYE. My concern is that these umbrella companies are not regulated. Their lack of transparency means it is unclear whether they are treating workers fairly, not applying hidden charges or withholding benefits that workers are entitled to. In far too many cases, clients that use umbrella companies do not always carry out due diligence on them. I would be grateful if the Minister could tell the House whether the Fair Work Agency that is being set up will have a role in overseeing umbrella companies to ensure that they are compliant and transparent, and to ensure that non-compliant umbrella companies do not enter the work supply chain.
This is the Employment Rights Bill, so it deals with employees, but I echo my noble friend Lord Freyberg when I ask the Government to take seriously the rights of the self-employed as well. They are a growing part of the workforce. There are over 4.1 million self-employed workers in this country, over half a million of whom are self-employed mothers. They contributed £366 billion to the UK economy last year. The Labour Party policy paper Make Work Pay says:
“Labour is the party of the self-employed and recognises their significant contribution to the UK economy”.
It promises to strengthen rights for the self-employed and deal with many issues that have long dogged the freelance world, such as the right to a written contract, action on late payments and health and safety protections for the self-employed.
As they bring this Bill to Parliament, I ask the Government to be aware of the danger of widening the gap between the employed and the self-employed, and the gap between the rights enjoyed by employees and those of the self-employed who lack protection for sick leave, parental leave and protections against unfair dismissal. This needs to be a major consideration for the Government.
I understand the current definition of employment under common-law employment tax rules is vague and open to interpretation, which can lead to conflict, often ending-up in the tax tribunal. So I welcome the Deputy Prime Minister saying, in her Second Reading speech on this Bill in the other place, that there are plans to set up a single category of worker to amalgamate the employee and the worker status. However, I ask the Minister to be aware of the concerns of the self-employed in creating a single status of worker. This could disadvantage freelancers, who make up much of the workforce, especially in the creative industries. The nature of their work means that they bob in and out of all these current employment statuses. The single category must incorporate this flexibility in employment, and I too add my support for setting up a freelance commissioner who could sort through these concerns and report to government.
The final issue I will draw to noble Lords’ attention is that of unpaid internships. I made my maiden speech, some time ago, against this scourge on our employment landscape. It is particularly prevalent in the creative industries and creates a serious barrier to social mobility. Can the Minister tell the House whether there are plans to ban all unpaid internships longer than four weeks? Our economy can thrive only if it is accessible to people from all backgrounds. I hope that the Government will follow this Bill with many of the pledges in the Make Work Pay paper to ensure that the UK maximises the opportunities for our workforce and safeguards the position of workers, whatever their employment status.
Baroness Prosser (Lab)
My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to participate in this debate.
I thank my noble friend the Minister for her introductory comments. She mentioned the clauses in the Bill that relate to equal pay. I am very pleased to hear that, but I must use words of caution to remind the House that this year marks 50 years since the Equal Pay Act was put on the statute book and, as she said in her opening comments, we still have a 13% pay gap between men and women workers. It has been my true belief for many years that, while the legislation is of course hugely important and we cannot do without it, legislation on its own does not do the trick.
My experience of the introduction of positive action programmes—which I will very briefly explain to the House—is that they have made a very important difference in a number of areas. Under the previous Labour Government, we introduced a programme, following the work of the Women and Work Commission, that worked with employers in various employment sectors where we identified women who had the ability and desire to improve their situation in the workplace. Many women take up jobs that are not necessarily at the top end of their ability: jobs that fit in with their family commitments. Those commitments may decrease over the years, as the children get older, but the women are stuck with those positions. Giving those women the opportunity to upskill, to train and to retrain—and, therefore, to move further up the salary ladder—has proved extremely fruitful.
Interestingly, in that exercise, more money was put into the delivery of the programme by employers than by government. Employers loved it. In the very short time that the programme was allowed to exist, over 25,000 women benefited from it. I would like to hear from my noble friend the Minister whether the current Government would consider looking at a positive action programme to ensure that the legislation we have on the books can benefit women and make a difference.
The other side of positive action involves looking at the situation of girls and boys in school and identifying the ways that girls learn differently from boys. A programme that ran called “Computer Classes for Girls” taught girls about computers, in big detail, in ways that allowed them to feel more comfortable about assimilating that information, thereby giving them the skills to move into work that would be more highly paid. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will be able to tell the House that she is open to ideas on this front and that we can therefore see some true movement on equal pay.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
I welcome our four new colleagues after their excellent speeches, and I look forward to their future contributions.
Obviously, I agree with everything my noble friend Lady Bennett of Manor Castle said earlier. Surprisingly enough, we support this Bill in its general purpose, because we like that it is making fairness at work a priority. Well done to the trade unions for making sure this never slipped off the public agenda.
At the moment, we have a divided and very unequal society, and the Bill will help to restore a bit of balance in the workspace. Without that balance in power, we will forever have working-class people going to food banks and claiming universal credit because their paid work does not give them a living wage or job security.
We have a two-tier economy. The rich have been getting richer much faster, while the rest of us are stuck or going backwards. These two facts are obviously linked. Last year, the collective wealth of the UK’s small band of billionaires increased by about £35 million a day. Meanwhile, according to the IFS, the past 15 years have been the worst for income growth in generations.
Like many, I was appalled by the Spring Statement. It means that the situation I just described will get much worse. We will support the changes that Labour are putting forward, but it is nowhere near enough to really change things and make the majority of people better off.
In your Lordships’ House, we all have the duty to fill the gaps in the Bill to make it work for everyone in society, but especially the poorest. To do that, we have to end the rip-off by privatised services, such as the water industry and energy suppliers. We need rent controls and more social housing. We need a wealth tax and a more equal society.
One of our amendments, for example, will be to introduce a maximum 10:1 pay ratio, so that no worker will see their CEO getting paid more in a day than they do in an entire year—the point being, you can pay your CEO whatever you like, as long as the cleaner gets 10% of that. Plus, if we want more productivity in this country then staff must be valued. If we want to lower the tax burden, we must end the corruption that comes with privatised procurement contracts and services. Of course, we have to protect whistleblowers and SMEs.
A surprising amount of this Bill could have been taken straight from the Green Party election manifesto—loads of very common-sense ideas. I congratulate the Labour Party on casting an eye over what we said—for example, a fair deal for those working in adult social care, enhanced rights from day one, quality auditing, and sick pay.
The Employment Rights Bill could turn the tide on the undermining of employment rights that has taken place since the 1980s. It is time to recognise that stronger collective bargaining rights and better working conditions can be good for workers and businesses. But the Bill is not complete. The Government clearly need some help in further drafting, and this House is the perfect place to do that.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to speak in support of this much-needed legislation. It is also a pleasure to have an opportunity, following the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, to remind her that much of this Bill was in our manifesto. I remind the Conservative Benches that we have a strong mandate for it.
It has been a pleasure to follow so many powerful contributions, based on expertise and deep engagement on these issues. I am mindful of time and the likely duration of proceedings in Committee and on Report, so I shall focus my remarks on just a couple of headline measures in this Bill and the backdrop against which they are being introduced.
Before I do that, I congratulate my noble friend Lady Jones of Whitchurch on her introductory speech. This is a very complicated and large piece of legislation, and she did a great job of delivering an explanation of the most important parts of it in her introductory speech. I also associate myself with the congratulations to our bevy of maiden speakers, including the noble Lord, Lord Young. I apologise that I have insufficient time to go into detail on the remarks that I would like to make about all those speakers, but their speeches were excellent. I will have another opportunity to compliment them in the future.
We know that the productivity gap between the UK and France, Germany and the United States has doubled over the past 16 years. Anyone who has walked past a newspaper stand or turned on the news over the past couple of months will be aware that we have a record number of economically inactive people through ill health, and that business has reported significant labour shortages in recent years. That is quite the inheritance. However, I am confident that this legislation is a substantive step towards engaging these challenges.
Taking the productivity gap first, when we ask what has caused our anaemic rate of productivity growth compared with that of our neighbours, we are often told that the Government need to get out of the way and that a thicket of workers’ protections is dampening the spirit of capitalism. Over the past 14 years of Conservative-led Government, I long ago lost count of the ministerial promises to kindle bonfires of red tape, take an axe to red tape, or some similarly strenuous deregulatory measure. It is clear that successive Conservative-led Governments over the past 14 years have failed by their own metric or simply were acting on an entirely false premise.
To build on the words of my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Burns, according to research by Cambridge Judge Business School, there has been a consistent and growing negative gap between labour law protections in the UK and those enjoyed by workers in other OECD countries, including France and Germany, at whose productivity rates we have cast such envious eyes in recent years. According to this research, the gap in protections began significantly to widen in 2010—the year that a Conservative-led coalition took office. Key divergences appeared, including working time, wider labour protections and laws impeding legitimate industrial action. This Bill makes a substantive contribution to closing that gap.
There are more celebratory remarks that I should like to make in that context, but time debars me. I will focus on one: the provisions relating to fire and rehire. Your Lordships’ House will recall the most egregious example of this, when the P&O Ferries instituted mass redundancies in March 2022. In response, the then BEIS Minister described the practice of fire and rehire as “deceitful” and “disgraceful”, and vowed that the Government would “stand up for workers” against these “appalling” actions. What slingshot of redress did the Conservative Government choose to employ against this Goliath of inequity? It was a voluntary code of practice that impinged on employers only at the point that a case reached tribunal. The measures in this Bill are far stronger, forcing employers who engage in fire and rehire to demonstrate that they have made exhaustive efforts to find an alternative and to demonstrate that an alternative course would cause severe financial harm to the company. That sounds like a much better way of dealing with this than was offered to those people.
I shall now engage the second element of this Government’s challenging inheritance: the number of people who are currently economically inactive owing to illness. Again, there are competing theories around the causes of this. Some believe that this country has some inherent aversion to hard work. Among them is the shadow Home Secretary, who recently suggested that British people need a better “work ethic”. A deeper look at the ONS figures belies this interpretation. Alongside mental ill-health, musculoskeletal disorders are the biggest cause of long-term unemployment.
Which professions are most likely to be impacted by musculoskeletal disorders? It is manufacturing, construction, transport and storage. There is a huge and structural disparity, in some cases over three times greater, between the number of people who are long-term sick who previously occupied those professions compared with people with jobs in IT, science or public administration, or with professional jobs. These structural inequalities will need wider treatment than falls within the scope of this legislation, but measures which improve protections around sick pay, end exploitative zero-hours contracts and strengthen workers’ rights are a step in the right direction. The question of workplace culture may be a wider discussion, but one which speaks to the spirit underlying this Bill.
Lord Ashcombe (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as an employee of a very large American insurance broker.
This Bill is deeply concerning, especially considering the recent legislative changes, such as the £25 billion raised through national insurance contributions and the 6.7% increase in the national living wage coming into effect next week. These developments are already creating significant challenges for businesses. Together with the regulations in this Bill, they highlight a troubling anti-business and anti-growth stance that risks undermining the foundations of the business community.
While the Bill aims to support workers and create a fairer society, it comes with substantial costs for many businesses, particularly small and medium-sized enterprises. These businesses will struggle to absorb these additional expenses without negative consequences. The key question is: how can businesses continue to grow and create jobs when burdened by such regulatory costs?
One of the many provisions in this enormous Bill is the introduction of a separate legal status for probation periods, alongside the removal of the qualifying period for unfair dismissal. This means businesses could face tribunal claims even during an employee’s probationary period. Although the Government have proposed a lighter-touch approach for probation, the details are yet to be fully determined and will depend on future consultations and secondary legislation. With tribunal waiting times already long—18 to 24 months—it is crucial to ensure that weak claims are dismissed promptly to avoid further strain on businesses. Whatever happens, it is more cost.
Moreover, the Bill introduces reforms to zero-hours contracts, including the right for workers on low-hours contracts to receive a contract reflecting the hours worked in the previous 12 weeks. However, the definition of low hours remains unclear and this uncertainty adds complexity for businesses in managing their workforce. Additionally, the Bill suggests allowing businesses to offer fixed-term contracts during high-demand periods instead of permanent contracts. If regulated effectively, this could help businesses better manage fluctuating demand. However, shifting the responsibility on to businesses to track when such rights are triggered and to offer contracts adds another layer of administrative burden. The Bill’s provisions on dismissal and re-engagement could also complicate restructuring efforts, potentially limiting a business’s ability to adapt to changing market conditions, such as office relocations or adjustments to working conditions.
I will only briefly mention the “Harassment by third parties” clause, which my new noble friend Lord Young of Acton has addressed so well. I believe it puts businesses in a near impossible position in trying to protect their colleagues and staff. It is essential that we find a balance between protecting workers’ rights and ensuring that businesses remain competitive, innovative, agile and responsive to the challenges of a rapidly changing domestic economy.
These changes, combined with the risks associated with permanent contracts, reduced flexibility in workforce restructuring and higher compliance costs, create a challenging environment for businesses. The Government must ensure these policies do not stifle the growth and job creation that the country needs. The anti-business and anti- growth narrative emerging from these legislative changes requires careful scrutiny. We must ensure that businesses are not overwhelmed by unnecessary bureaucracy and red tape. A thriving business environment is not only beneficial for businesses but also essential for the broader economy and the growth that this country desperately needs.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Moraes) (Lab)
My Lords, I remind all noble Lords to stick to the time of four minutes. Thank you.
Baroness Bousted (Lab)
My Lords, I want to congratulate the four noble Lords who made their maiden speeches today. They were excellent.
In passing this Bill, the House will restore the UK’s reputation as a nation which supports fair treatment of ordinary people in the workplace and the right of unions to take democratically determined action where necessary to oppose bad employment practice and to repeal the most egregious aspects of the previous Government’s anti-trade union legislation, which my noble friend Lady Jones rightly called punitive in her introduction to the Bill in this House today.
In 1919, the UK was a founding member of the International Labour Organization. Despite this proud history, the previous Government severely damaged the UK’s record on employment rights, passing legislation which attempted to curb the ability of unions and union members to secure better working lives for ordinary people. The ILO’s Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations repeatedly commented on the previous Government’s flouting of commitments as an ILO member.
In 2022, the committee noted with regret the then Government’s belief that the measures they had put in place to protect striking workers from employer retribution were sufficient. It urged the Government to review the legislation, in full consultation with workers’ and employers’ organisations, to strengthen the protection available to workers who staged official and lawfully organised industrial action, and to provide the committee with information on the steps they had taken in this regard. No action was taken by the then Government on this recommendation.
In 2023, the committee noted with serious concern the development and implementation of minimum service level guarantees. It made clear its expectation that, in preparing their regulations and other guidance including codes of practice, the Government would ensure that any minimum level guarantees imposed on industrial action in the transport and education sectors were indeed minimum and ensure the participation of the social partners in the determination and, where no agreement was reached, ensure that it was determined by an independent body that had the confidence of all the parties. No action was taken by the previous Government on these recommendations.
In May 2023, the Joint Committee on Human Rights found that the minimum service level legislation, which made it easier to sack striking workers and left unions at risk of million-pound fines, did not appear to be justified and needed to be reconsidered. The committee found that it would be possible to introduce minimum service levels in some sectors in a way that was more likely to be compliant with human rights law. The then Government took no action to respond to the committee’s concerns.
In May 2024, in a landmark case taken by UNISON, the Supreme Court ruled that UK trade union legislation was incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights in failing to prohibit detriment short of dismissal for taking part in lawful industrial action.
This sorry history of blatantly anti-trade union legislation, whose clear and unlawful purpose was to take away individual and collective rights at work, shows why the Bill being debated in this House today is so necessary. That is why I support this Bill and commend it to this House.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, in principle I welcome this Bill’s aspiration to enhance protection of workers’ rights, but I had one nagging doubt ploughing through this huge, red-tape-laden, unwieldy legislation: how does it fulfil its boast to modernise employment rights and make them fit for the modern world? To me, it seems bizarrely out of sync with shifts in modern workplace culture.
For example, we are told by government that more sick leave entitlement aims to reduce the number of
“infections in the workplace—boosting productivity and benefiting businesses”.
Really? Has the Minister not noticed the crisis created by large swathes of workers too readily not going into work, pleading sickness, stress et cetera? Also, surely, making flexible working a default position will exacerbate the modern fashion for working from home as a regressive retreat from collective workplace solidarity. It is hard to cultivate a one-for-all, all-for-one culture from the individualised isolation of your bedroom office—a privilege, by the way, accessible only to white-collar workers.
On trade unions, I am delighted to see the back of the ludicrous Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act, which I argued against in this Chamber. But I am also worried that modern trade unions are not fit for purpose: their ideological priorities seem often to put them at odds with their members. I thought of this listening to today’s maiden speeches. By the way, I offer a warm welcome to the noble Baronesses, Lady Cash, Lady Berger and Lady Gray—this Chamber always benefits from more feisty women. But let me focus on the noble Lord, Lord Young of Acton, the founder of the Free Speech Union, which invaluably defends workers’ rights when facing a specifically modern form of employer mistreatment: being punished or sacked merely for expressing legal, if dissident, viewpoints.
The FSU is necessary because, tragically, too many, particularly public sector, union bureaucrats seem to have been radicalised by the toxic ideology of identity politics. Trade union officials often act as the censorious enforcers of HR departments’ equality, diversity and inclusion policies—policing their members’ speech rather than protecting their rights, which is the very opposite of the role that the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, described earlier. To give one example, the UNISON conference passed a motion pledging to combat so-called “gender-critical narratives” and distributed materials that conflated sex-realist perspectives with far-right extremism.
It is no surprise that a group of nurses from County Durham—more feisty women I like—have been forced to set up their own Darlington Nurses’ Union. They are taking the NHS trust to an employment tribunal, alleging that the hospital’s HR department intimidated and harassed them when they objected to sharing their female changing room with a biological male who identifies as a trans woman. The official nursing unions were useless, simply repeating their NHS boss’s inclusion mantras.
Yesterday, Sussex University was rightly fined over £500,000 for failing to protect Professor Kathleen Stock’s free speech. Do not forget, as Professor Stock noted at the time, it was her own Sussex University union, backed by the UCU and its general secretary Jo Grady, who threw her under the bus. Things are so bad, members are taking unions to court. Two academics, Deirdre O’Neill and Michael Wayne, makers of the film “Adult Human Female”, have launched a tribunal action against the UCU for viewpoint discrimination after campus branches blocked screenings.
Meanwhile, Rick Prior, chair of the Metropolitan Police Federation, is taking legal action against his union. He was locked out of his union email and suspended after a TV interview in which he suggested that many of his 30,000 rank and file officers were increasingly nervous about challenging people from ethnic minorities. I note that the Met’s professional standards department concluded that his remarks did not amount to misconduct.
These trends reflect the modern world of trade unionism. If they remain unacknowledged and the Bill uncritically extends the bureaucrats’ powers, it might not help but hinder workers’ rights.
Lord Hendy (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend the Minister on her elegant exposition of the Bill in opening today’s debate. I also congratulate our four maiden speakers on their excellent contributions. Like the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, I enjoyed the contributions of no less than three former general secretaries and one former AGS of the TUC.
In this debate I appear as Oliver Twist. Although, like others, I express gratitude for the Bill in place of the starvation rations given to workers by the previous Government, I ask for more.
The Bill will confer many benefits on our 34 million-strong workforce, but it is a long way short of the full—but hardly gastronomic—menu in Labour’s Green Paper, A New Deal for Working People, drafted by a committee to which I had the honour to be legal adviser and which was chaired by Andy McDonald MP. A New Deal for Working People was adopted by the Labour Conference in 2021, reaffirmed in 2022, reiterated in Labour’s Plan to Make Work Pay: Delivering A New Deal for Working People, and referenced in both the election manifesto and the King’s Speech.
Time permits me to raise only two of the many items left off the bill of fare. Both are essential to increase pay, and hence demand, in the economy. Both are vital to substitute negotiation for litigation. The first is sectoral collective bargaining: in other words, collective bargaining between unions and multiple employers to reach a collective agreement setting minimum terms across a particular sector called a “fair pay agreement”. A New Deal for Working People committed to introduce them across the economy. Labour’s Plan to Make Work Pay promised to
“start by establishing a new Fair Pay Agreement in the adult social care sector”.
The election manifesto referred to this fair pay agreement as a “sector collective agreement”. In contrast, the Bill makes no provision for sector-wide collective bargaining in any part of the economy. Instead, it expressly provides that the School Support Staff Negotiating Body does not constitute collective bargaining, and that its outputs are not collective agreements. For the Adult Social Care Negotiating Body, the Minister has regulatory power to so rule.
In any event, ministerial control over these bodies’ membership, terms of reference and manner of working, with unfettered power to override any agreement or disagreement, completely negates the definition of free collective bargaining, both in statutory and international law.
My second issue is the right to strike. The Bill sweeps away the minimum service level Act, and most of the Trade Union Act 2016; it simplifies notice and extends ballot mandate. The Government are to be congratulated. But the Bill does not remove the anti-union legislation of the 1980s, which hamstrings unions and has led to a near collapse in collective agreement coverage. That legislation is incompatible in a number of respects with our ratified obligations under ILO Convention 87 and Article 6(4) of the European Social Charter. This is not a matter of opinion. The supervisory bodies have so held consistently since 1989, as my noble friends Lord Barber and Lady Bousted have mentioned. A new deal committed this party to bringing our law on industrial action into line with our international legal obligations. It is a rule-of-law issue. The Bill will need to be amended accordingly.
Nevertheless, the grace and eloquence of the Minister make her singularly ill-fitted to play Mr Bumble.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, I add my congratulations to the quad of maiden speakers we have had in our debate today. In four minutes, you need to cut to the chase, so that is what I will do.
I am not someone who believes that that any improvement to employment rights negatively impacts employers or the economy. But, as the Government themselves have said, it is all about balance. Too many of the provisions in this Bill have got the balance wrong—including the day one right on unfair dismissal. The Government themselves recognise this. That is why they have committed to introducing a probationary period, but we have no detail on how this would work. That is just one of many examples in this Bill where the detail is not developed and employers have serious concerns.
Not only have the Government got the balance wrong in the Bill, at the same time they have failed to address one of the biggest imbalances in employment rights: paternity leave. In the UK, we give mothers 52 weeks of maternity leave and fathers just two. This is the lowest level of paternity leave across Europe. Take-up of that two weeks is lowest among dads on low pay, as the rate of pay for that leave is so poor.
The Minister said that new action plans would help close the gender pay gap. We can be confident that they will lead to plans, but less confident that they will lead to action. Instead, more generous paternity leave has demonstrated that it can close the gender pay gap. It is also good for fathers, good for children and, importantly, good for the economy. ILO research shows that it can contribute 2% to 3% of GDP. I know that the Government intend to do a review on this, but there has already been an evaluation and a consultation—so now is not the time for another review. It is time for action.
The other imbalance I want to address is the increase in compliance costs for businesses doing the right thing, while leaving significant loopholes allowing labour market abuse. Substitution clauses have traditionally been used to give small businesses flexibility. But there is increasing evidence that they are being abused by contractors to gig economy businesses.
With its substitution clauses, Amazon tells couriers that it is their responsibility to pay their substitute at any rate agreed with them and that they must ensure that any substitute has the right to work in the UK. This is clearly not happening. During random checks two years ago, the Home Office found that two in five delivery riders who were stopped were working illegally. And, from late 2018 to early 2019, there were 14,000 fraudulent Uber journeys, according to TfL.
It is not right to pass responsibility for compliance with criminal and right-to-work checks on to workers. The introduction of a comprehensive register of all dependent contractors would help to ensure that employment rights are upheld, pay is not suppressed through illegitimate competition, and support for the enforcement of right-to-work checks. If the Minister will not listen to me, perhaps she will listen to the App Drivers and Couriers Union, which says:
“Unfortunately there is this loophole that allows some bad people to come through. They are not vetted so they could do anything”.
I hope the Minister will take action to address the balance of this Bill. At the moment, it risks damaging jobs and growth, while at the same time it fails to address some of the most significant flaws we have in our labour market today.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, this Bill is very welcome, especially the provisions aimed at tackling poor job security. Recent research underlines the importance of job security to workers and the effects insecurity can have on the well-being of low-paid workers.
One way in which this Bill enhances security is through the welcome improvement to statutory sick pay. However, there is an unintended consequence: a loss for some of the lowest paid employees, especially women and disabled people, who are sick too long to be compensated by payment of SSP from day one of sickness. Although it is true, as the Minister told the Commons, that most employees will not be worse off, surely the aim of such a change should be to leave no low-paid employee worse off. I cannot believe that the Government intended this.
It is also disappointing that there is no indication of any future increase in the SSP rate. The continued payment of such a low rate, which came into sharp relief during the pandemic, will blunt the impact that the positive changes will have.
In her letter to Peers, my noble friend the Minister emphasised that the Bill places the family at its heart, by increasing the baseline set of rights for employees with parental or other caring responsibilities. As it is still largely women who bear the main burden of balancing paid work and caring responsibilities, it is women who will benefit most. However, there are some holes here that I hope it may be possible to fill—and perhaps here I stand as Olivia Twist.
The first concerns carer’s leave. Carers are now entitled to five days’ leave a year, but, as we have heard, it is unpaid, so many carers simply cannot afford to take it. The case for paid leave rests not simply on the huge difference it would make to the lives, health and well-being of carers—the social and moral case—but on the strong economic and business case made by employers, such as TSB.
The Government’s estimate of the economic cost of caring through lost production puts it at a massive £37 billion a year. Just a couple of years ago, a Front-Bench spokesman told the Commons that the next Labour Government would be committed to introducing a right to paid carer’s leave, but recently on Report the Minister could say only that, because the right to unpaid leave was enacted recently,
“we are reviewing this measure and considering whether further support is required”.—[Official Report, Commons, 11/3/25; col. 952.]
I accept that the Government have to consider how paid leave should be designed, not least because we can learn from other countries, but what is there to consider with regard to the need for further support, given that we already have ample evidence? Surely we can show our commitment to unpaid carers by writing into the Bill an in-principle provision to introduce paid leave. This would be in line with its spirit and with the Government’s missions, not least the pursuit of economic growth, while demonstrating support for a group at considerable risk of poverty.
The other main hole concerns parental and paternity leave, which was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Penn. The Women’s Budget Group, of which I am a member, in welcoming the Bill as potentially an important contribution to a more gender-equal economy, warns that it needs to tackle the unequal distribution of unpaid care work and structural inequalities, because unpaid care is the root cause of women’s economic inequality.
I have long argued that parental leave with a period restricted to fathers on a use-it-or-lose-it basis is a key social policy lever here—good for mothers, fathers and children. Instead, the current shared parental leave scheme is a joke, with only about 4% of fathers having used it at the last count. In the Commons, the Minister confirmed the promised review of parental leave, but said that it would be separate from the Bill. Why is it separate? A firm declaration of intent in the Bill to reform parental leave, with the aim of strengthening the rights for fathers, would send a message to men and boys in the face of concern that they feel undervalued.
A final hole concerns stronger workplace rights for domestic abuse survivors. The APPG on Domestic Violence and Abuse, of which I am an officer, called for an obligation to be placed on employers to take reasonable steps to support employees affected by domestic abuse in place of the much weaker existing advisory statutory provision, which it would seem many employers ignore.
In conclusion, I strongly support this Bill, but I hope we can fill the holes I have identified, in line with the Government’s missions, without affecting its basic architecture.
Lord Whitty (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lady Lister. I hope the Government, in this Bill or elsewhere, follow up some of those points as a matter of urgency.
I am prone to write my speeches at the last minute. When I noticed I was number 41 of the speakers, I wondered what the hell I could actually say that was original. I turned to a paper I had received but not read before: a submission to the TUC about worker conditions and trade union rights. The paper compared rights here with the average situation in the rest of the OECD. It showed systematically that the average position in other OECD countries, for both individual rights and collective trade union rights, is substantially better than it is here. This covered a whole range of areas, such as hours of work, holiday, conditions of employment, dismissals and overtime, and collective aspects such as union recognition, collective bargaining and rules covering strike action. There were differences between different countries but, on average, on every single item, bar one or two, it is better in the rest of the OECD than it is here. One exception was redundancy provision, which means that you walk away with more money in the UK, but that also makes redundancy more likely. This was systematic across a whole range of conditions.
There is one other macro feature of the difference between our workforce and those in other OECD countries. Can you guess what it is? It is that, on average, productivity has risen far faster in the other countries than it has here. There is at least some degree of causal relationship between the terms and conditions in which workers and unions operate with employers and the fact that other countries’ productivity has risen substantially faster. The Government, and all those who purport to speak for British employers and industry in a hysterical way regarding the provisions of this Bill, should address that. Improved productivity would be a serious contribution towards our growth targets and the betterment of our economy as a whole. That is a macro point which speakers opposite have failed to recognise, and need to.
I want to mention another few points. I am a little unclear—perhaps my noble friend the Minister can clarify this—on what the fair work agency will do and how far it will replace other agencies. When I was the Minister responsible for agriculture, I seized on a Private Member’s Bill to introduce the Gangmasters Licensing Authority, which, to some extent, brought some order to a feature of modern slavery. We will have a debate on modern slavery tomorrow, so I will not go too far into that. One of the difficulties of not having direct regulators and enforcement agencies having too large a responsibility for one new quango is that some of the injustices that arise, which were identified by my noble friend Lady O’Grady’s committee on modern slavery, will not be tackled. I would like more detail about what the fair work agency will do and how it relates to existing bodies.
For some reason, I was never general-secretary of the TUC, but I was general-secretary of the Labour Party, and therefore I warm to the point of the noble Lord, Lord Burns, about the political levy. I sat on his committee for part of its time, and I largely agreed that we needed to tackle the question of political funding more broadly—not only the political levy but the way in which our political parties are financed in total. That goes beyond this Bill considerably, but it needs addressing. Continuously switching from opting in and opting out of the political levy is not the way to deal with it.
Lord Udny-Lister (Con)
My Lords, I offer many congratulations on the four great maiden speeches we have heard today, which, on a long afternoon, were both impressive and, more importantly, very enjoyable.
On a more serious note, we heard yesterday in the Chancellor’s Spring Statement that the immediate economic outlook for the country is grim. For a Government who claim to champion growth, it is alarming that, in just eight months, business confidence has all but evaporated. Regulation has begun to strangle and stifle free enterprise. Before us today we have yet another example of poorly thought-out legislation which, if passed in its current form, will completely undermine the agility and responsiveness of the private sector to deliver jobs and create growth.
Turning to the Bill itself, I want to pick up just a couple of points. I share all the cross-sector concern about guaranteed hours. If this area of the Bill is left unamended, the Government will be threatening the very viability of the jobs that the Bill aims to protect. I fear that the provisions covering guaranteed hours will ultimately lead to fewer people being able to get on the employment ladder in the first place, and that this section of the Bill will ultimately disadvantage young people at the start of their working lives. Employers will respond, inevitably, by limiting many of the opportunities needed by young people to gain experience and test their interests in different roles and industries. For them to do that, employers need to have a lot of flexibility. Of course, if that is too risky, they will just not do it. Government should urgently clarify and define what is meant by low hours and bring forward mechanisms by which employees should be able to opt out of guaranteed hours, much like the individual ability to opt out of the working time directive, when they feel content with their individual working arrangements.
The Bill will have a damming effect on the British manufacturing industry. Against a backdrop of rising costs, global competition, supply chain pressure and tariffs, rigid staffing models will tie the hands of our manufacturers and ultimately undermine the UK’s global competitiveness. I therefore urge the Government to hear the concerns being raised by manufacturing industries at this time, particularly in relation to zero-hour contracts and the notice period for industrial action. As it stands, the Bill is an attack on flexibility and misses the opportunity to modernise working practices. The harsh reality of the current economic conditions means that businesses will have to adapt rapidly to meet the new burdens presented by the Bill.
With the already crippling effects of national insurance increases and the plethora of excessive regulation imposed by this Government, I can only foresee the legislation forcing the hand of employers to make redundancies, reduce employment opportunities and increase the use of automation. The application of artificial intelligence will, of course, replace people. As government makes it more and more problematic and costly to employ people, businesses will be forced to respond by limiting new job creation.
No matter how much the Government attempt to dress up the Bill as progress, the reality is that this legislation is a reckless intervention that threatens the very sectors that are vital to our economic recovery. The Bill is shutting the door on employment prospects for students, carers and parents who want and need flexibility with their employment. The Government are hell-bent on waging war against private enterprise, and I, for one, will certainly vote against it at every opportunity. But I am afraid that this Bill will come to epitomise Labour’s road to our economic ruin.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, I congratulate all four maiden speakers. Like my noble friends Lord Freyberg and Lord Colville, I will concentrate my remarks on workers who are largely not covered by this Bill but are a significant part of the workforce: the freelancers, including the self-employed. I will make particular reference to the arts and creative industries, and I thank DACS, BECTU and Equity for their briefings. I also declare an interest as a self-employed artist.
There are 4.39 million self-employed workers in this country, representing just under 14% of the workforce. There was a dip during Covid, when many freelancers fell through the gaps of government support, but the reality is that this is a long-term expanding workforce for whom the Government need to ensure employment rights.
Freelancers underpin the creative industries, our second most important sector economically and one the Government have pledged to support—80% of musicians are freelancers, for example. They have an especial importance, in that what affects freelancers will affect the sector as a whole because the creative industries are an ecosystem. Consequently, freelancers have a significance within the workforce that far exceeds their numbers. Therefore, a truly modern Employment Rights Bill would have properly included the rights of freelancers and the self-employed, for many of whom that status fits the nature of their work.
I acknowledge the argument about the complexities of freelance work and tax issues, including concerns about IR35. However, there is also a concern about the comprehensiveness of rights and the “single worker status”. How will that status accommodate freelancer workers with that mix of self-employed, PAYE employees and limb (b) workers?
I nevertheless welcome this necessary Bill for employees. Most European countries have banned zero-hours contracts, and we certainly need measures in place that will help employees without restricting their opportunities to work, which is a key consideration. Guaranteed hours will benefit many in the creative industries. However, there are various groups in the creative industries—including employees on short-term contracts and casually contracted workers such as cinema workers, front-of-house and other workers in theatres—who may be pushed against their will into self-employment without the same employment rights they currently have, at least. Will the Government monitor this potential effect? How will rights be properly enforced from within the new body?
BECTU points out that, on parental rights, sick pay, pensions, equalities and other areas covered in this Bill, the rights of self-employed workers “lag far behind” those of employees. Will the Government introduce these rights for self-employed workers? What will be the timescale for doing so? Equally, what are the Government’s plans for their manifesto commitments on blacklisting protections, health and safety protection and the right to a written contract for the self-employed?
Much of the creative industries supports the appointment of a freelance commissioner. It is also a recommendation of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee. Such a commissioner ought, of course, to be responsible not just for the creative industries but the whole landscape of freelance work. That should also extend beyond the particular concerns of employment rights to include the equally urgent concerns around pay and opportunities. As many organisations have pointed out, there is very little data on the freelance workforce, the collection of which should be a major aspect of this remit. In the same way that DBT and DWP have an involvement in this Bill, DCMS should certainly have an input into the role of a freelance commissioner, if one is appointed—after all, it has a working party on this issue, as the Minister knows—and any future legislation on the self-employed, as indeed should the creative industries themselves.
Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (PC)
I congratulate all four new Members on their maiden speeches today. I also thank the many Members who have raised the importance of introducing paid leave for carers; having experienced being an unpaid carer myself, I have lived the very realities of working while caring.
I welcome the Bill as a significant step forward for workers. I will, however, be focusing my remarks on where it falls short: in addressing sexual harassment and violence in the workplace. A 2023 TUC poll revealed that three in five women have experienced sexual harassment, bullying or verbal abuse at work, with the figure rising to almost two-thirds among women aged 25 to 34. Four out of five women do not report the sexual harassment they have experienced, and many workers leave their jobs rather than report it. The End Not Defend sexual harassment campaign highlights that young women, disabled workers and those from BME backgrounds are disproportionately affected due to their overrepresentation in precarious employment. This underscores the urgent need for the measures outlined in Clauses 19 to 22.
Although amending the Employment Rights Act 1996 to protect whistleblowers and requiring employers to take reasonable steps to prevent harassment are positive moves, these measures may not go far enough. Limiting interventions to sexual harassment may leave victims and potential victims of other gender-based violence in the workplace outside the Bill’s protection. Questions also remain about how non-compliance will be enforced. By amending the Equality Act, the Equality and Human Rights Commission is understood to be the regulator here. However, as it stands, it has limited enforcement powers, and its mandate to regulate only sexual harassment limits its ability to address the health and safety implications of violence against women in the workplace.
A more effective solution would be to treat gender-based violence and harassment in the workplace as a health and safety issue. Under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, employers already have a duty to protect employees’ health and safety. By amending that Act, we could ensure that gender-based violence is explicitly covered as an enforceable health and safety measure overseen by the Health and Safety Executive, which already has the authority to inspect, fine and prosecute employers for non-compliance. That would offer a structured and enforceable approach to safeguarding employees, particularly women, from violence in the workplace. The noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, earlier noted concerns in relation to the clauses on harassment. However, the Health and Safety Executive has a track record of providing training and guidance, so this could be an alternative way forward.
Despite years of Government promises, according to a critical report published by the National Audit Office in January the epidemic of violence against women and girls continues to worsen. To end this behaviour in the workplace, we must confront misogynist culture directly. His Majesty’s Government’s goal to halve violence against women and girls by the end of the decade demands nothing less.
I look forward to the Minister’s response. I would appreciate further clarification on the enforceability of non-compliance under Clauses 19 to 22, as well as measures to address gender-based violence at work. I also look forward to engaging with all Members on this topic in Committee, as well as on paid leave for carers, improving paternity leave and addressing the gaps in sick pay.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure, as always, to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Llanfaes. I also add my congratulations to my noble friend the Minister and today’s four maidens. May they thrive in their new place of work—if not technically employment.
As my noble friend Lady Prosser so ably reminded us, this December will mark 50 years since the implementation of the Equal Pay Act 1970. However, the gender pay gap for all employees was still 13% last year and highest in our much-celebrated and lucrative financial sector. I suggest—at grave risk of being hit by a thunderbolt—that that Act contained a fatal design flaw that has been replicated in its successor statute, the Equality Act. It is left to an individual woman worker, with or without the aid of her union—though in recent years some unions have done valiant work on this—to, first, find out what her male colleagues are being paid for the same work or work of equivalent value and, secondly, in the event of disparity, to sue her employer.
With respect, for most women that scenario is cloud-cuckoo-land. I hope that noble Lords who have heard me raise this during previous Women’s History Months will forgive the repetition but, as legislators, would we dream of providing such a paltry enforcement mechanism in any other vital area of regulation? Would we leave children to investigate and litigate school standards, consumers to individually police food standards, and citizens to do the same for environmental protection, or building or nuclear safety, with no relevant state enforcement agency, even as a backstop? Surely the time has come to right this historic and continuing wrong. Even the most zealous free marketeers cannot seriously advocate impunity for employers who routinely and exploitatively discriminate against women or other groups in the context of remuneration for work.
HMRC already has access to payroll information for tax purposes, so it cannot be beyond the wit of policymakers to extend that remit and purpose to random spot-checking for equal pay as well. Indeed, this is one area where AI tools could come to the aid of employees rather than being a threat to them. Discrepancies could then trigger closer investigation, warning notices and eventual penalties in the event of persistent non-compliance and illegality.
I know that many have focused their equal pay efforts on pay transparency duties for larger employers, but this seems to simultaneously lack both realism and ambition. Again, would we allow food or drugs manufacturers, whatever their size, to market products unfit for consumption as long as they were labelled?
I ask my noble friend the Minister what plans His Majesty’s Government have in this area. For example, might Schedule 7 to the Bill be amended, or regulations under the new Section 78A of the Equality Act be made, to add equal pay provisions for state enforcement, or are there plans for a separate statute in this Parliament? Will she meet me and some of the unions and lawyers who have been working on the problem? Is it finally time for a dream made in Dagenham in 1968 to be fulfilled in Westminster?
Baroness Morrissey (Con)
My Lords, it is an honour to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, whose work I greatly admire. I add my hearty congratulations and warm welcome to the four who gave such brilliant maiden speeches earlier.
I will make two contributions to the debate, one general and one specific. There is much that I, as a business leader, welcome in the Bill. My current roles are detailed in the register. Previously, I was CEO of an investment firm for 15 years, during which time pre-tax profits grew almost eightfold, or 15% a year, including over the financial crisis. That success and resilience was thanks to a talented team who were loyal and committed to the business—largely, I believe, because they were treated well. It was not a large business but, for example, we offered enhanced maternity leave from day one and staff could request flexible working fully 12 years before that was required by law.
Of course, as a business leader, I am very conscious of the need to limit burdens on firms, but high employee commitment and engagement is also key to the bottom line. UK annual employee turnover is currently 34%, according to the CIPD. One-third of workers are so disengaged that they leave within 12 months, and the cost of replacing them is huge—up to twice the outgoing employee’s annual salary. So I do not agree with the objections, including from various business lobby groups, that the Bill will layer on costs without benefits. It requires a raising of standards in how employees are treated, especially the low-paid and vulnerable, such as pregnant women. Treating people decently is something that should be the norm on day one but, sadly, not all firms currently do that or show any inclination to do so voluntarily. If employees feel treated fairly then, in my first-hand experience, they will more than repay this in loyalty and increased productivity—things that this country badly needs.
Just one example of where a long-term vision, not a short-term spreadsheet, paid dividends is that of Aviva, which introduced six months of equal paid parental leave in 2017 for both men and women. I asked Aviva how it budgeted for this ground-breaking policy, and it said that it did not actually know what the cost would be, but knew that employees with happy family lives would be more likely to stay and develop their careers there, so it decided to do it. The policy has been a resounding success. Men take an average of five months of paternity leave and there is great talent attraction and retention. The costs to the firm have been more than off-set by benefits, including lower recruitment expenses.
My second point is specific and concerns the protection from harassment clauses, Clauses 19 to 22. Your Lordships will be familiar with the high-profile sexual harassment cases that we read about in the press. Those are the tip of the iceberg. I chair the Diversity Project, and we have a confidential safe space for people to report poor behaviours. It has been going on for about two years and more than 30 reports have been submitted, 90% from women. Their accounts show that sexual harassment remains a problem. All too often, non-disclosure agreements—or NDAs—are used to buy silence, rather than address behaviours.
At the Diversity Project’s International Women’s Day event, I asked the audience, who were women in the City, whether NDAs for sexual harassment cases should be banned. The response was split 50/50. There are situations where a victim may decide she has to leave a company after what has happened, and an NDA can provide confidentiality and finance while she looks for a new role. I then asked whether people would prefer a more nuanced approach, one that allowed NDAs for sexual harassment cases only in certain circumstances. In Irish law, NDAs are banned for sexual harassment cases, except where the victim requests one and has taken legal advice. In addition, I suggested independent investigation into serious instances and a standard template for board oversight. At present, boards do not even receive this information; they surely should. This proposal met with a vote of 85% in favour. The consensus was strong around requiring regulators to ensure that bad apples are not put back in the system, which we know happens. At our event, 100% of the audience said that the FCA and PRA should give clear examples of unacceptable behaviours.
I will propose amendments to restrict the use of NDAs for sexual harassment. There has been debate on this and support for it in the other place. Your Lordships now have the opportunity to create stronger protections from sexual harassment in the workplace. That is something that I hope all Members of the House—men and women, whatever their political affiliations—can agree on.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Morrisey, on raising an extremely important issue which I hope we will pursue in detail during the progress of the Bill. I welcome the Bill, and I congratulate my noble friend the Minister on her introduction of this important, excellent and timely legislation. I could spend my whole four minutes pointing out the Bill’s excellent content; I hope she will forgive me for raising three issues which the Committee will need to look at closely.
First, I will go through the Bill line by line, as they say, to check that pensions are given their due place within the legislation. Secondly, on statutory sick pay, I urge all noble Members to read the excellent briefing from Mind pointing out the importance of statutory sick pay in tackling the scourge of mental ill-health, particularly the way it should be structured to facilitate return to work, removing cliff edges.
The third issue which we will need to look at carefully in Committee is Part 3, the section on collective bargaining. Although the word “negotiating” appears in the introduction to each clause, I still need to be convinced that the provisions within each one deliver the grounds for proper negotiating. It is quite clear that it does not fulfil the definition of “free collective bargaining”, and we are going to need to look at that in some detail.
I heard the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, at the beginning of the debate. I want to contest the idea that it is only those who have been successful in business who know anything about how the economy works. I stand on this side of the Chamber surrounded by giants of the trade union movement. As a former lowly assistant at the TUC, I am staggered by the quantity of expertise and knowledge that is available to speak in support of this Bill.
Of course, it is not just the general secretaries or the senior officials but the whole layers of paid and lay officials who work on behalf of their members. That does not get the publicity that it should, but they work tirelessly on behalf of their members. It is that experience in companies, in undertaking day-to-day industrial relations, which has informed this Bill. That is why it will be a success. People suggest that it is going to be against economic growth, but economic growth depends on workers. It depends on them having good conditions of work and security—that is why the Bill is in favour of economic growth.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, I will confine my engagement with the Bill and my remarks to whistleblowing protection and NDAs. I intend to bring forward amendments in these areas as well as to join on amendments tabled by others, especially those from the noble Lord, Lord Wills, and, I hope, from the noble Baroness, Lady Morrissey—my colleague Layla Moran brought forward the NDA sexual harassment amendment in the other place.
I have long argued that existing protection for whistleblowers under the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998, PIDA, is wholly inadequate. The inadequacy is in part because PIDA is drafted as employment law, limiting the remedies to workers and seeking redress through an employment tribunal. It is a great injustice to the many whistleblowers that in law the term whistleblower is restricted only to those categorised as workers.
In contrast and somewhat confusing matters, this House will know that HMRC has recently relaunched a significantly improved whistleblower rewards scheme, which invites any citizen with evidence of fraud to come forward as a whistleblower. HMRC is not alone; the CMA has a long-standing incentivisation scheme for citizen whistleblowers and now the Serious Fraud Office is also looking to incentivise citizen whistleblowers. In a sense, the enforcement agencies are freelancing to try to deal with the problems in PIDA, but it gives us an opportunity to redesign the whistleblowing framework and remove the barriers that PIDA—I am sure, unintentionally—originally created.
But the problems go well beyond just who is covered by PIDA, a law that few, even lawyers, really understand, as demonstrated by the alarmingly low rate of whistleblower cases that succeed in employment tribunals —about 4%. They are brought by people who are recognised and acknowledged by everyone in the room to be whistleblowers, but they cannot carry their cases through.
The employment tribunal process is tortuous. It pits a whistleblower with limited resources, limited knowledge and little, if any, legal assistance, even when there is trade union support, against an organisation with often unlimited resources and expert legal counsel. It exhausts and impoverishes whistleblowers by allowing cases to be dragged out for years; it requires the whistleblower to provide conclusive evidence to prove that they were dismissed because of whistleblowing; and the tribunal is not concerned in any way to see that the wrongdoing identified by a whistleblower is investigated.
The entire system is set up to encourage whistleblowers to settle their case, and, more often than not, they have no choice but to sign settlements containing non-disclosure agreements, known in the UK as confidentiality clauses. The NDA acts as a tool to enforce silence and suppress evidence of harm to the public; we have heard how it plays that key role in sexual harassment cases.
Among amendments I will bring, I intend to include an office of the whistleblower, structured as a hub to work with regulators and enforcement. It will be a place where whistleblowers can confidentially and anonymously deposit information and evidence of wrongdoing without fear of retaliation. It will be in a position to identify significant patterns of wrongdoing, such as in the Post Office Horizon scandal, and it would help so much in sexual harassment cases by making sure they were pulled together and visible in one place. It will also have the power to impose remedies and compensation where whistleblowers suffer detriment. I would prefer it to sit under the Cabinet Office, but I probably have no choice but to put it under trade and industry.
I know that I am going slightly over time, so let me just say that I am also supporting the duty of candour, and the folks behind that move—which is crucial—are also supporting the office of the whistleblower.
Baroness Goudie (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate my colleagues on their maiden speeches: my noble friends Lady Berger and Lady Gray, the noble Baroness, Lady Cash, and the noble Lord, Lord Young. It was a pleasure to hear them, and I look forward to working with them on this Bill and other issues. I also thank all those outside bodies who were kind enough to send me briefings for today’s debate and for the continuation of the Bill.
I am pleased to support the Employment Rights Bill, a long-overdue step toward modernising our labour laws, ensuring fairness in the workplace and building an economy that works for everyone—businesses, workers and communities alike. For too long, our employment laws have failed to keep pace with the realities of modern work. Between 2010 and 2024, we saw relatively little new employment legislation, despite profound economic and workforce changes. The key framework governing employment rights, the Employment Rights Act 1996, dates back nearly 30 years. While the world clock has evolved, our laws have not. This Bill is about ensuring that the UK labour market is fit for the future: a labour market that delivers security, flexibility and, of course, dignity in work.
A central pillar to the Bill is ensuring that workers can balance employment with their family responsibilities. Today, too many parents—particularly mothers—are forced to choose between their jobs and their children. A survey by the law firm Slater and Gordon found that six in 10 mothers felt sidelined from the moment they revealed they were pregnant. Additionally, a third of managers surveyed preferred—listen to this—hiring men in their 20s or 30s over women of the same age, fearing potential maternity leave. This is a disgrace. The Bill will strengthen protections for pregnant women and new mothers, ensuring the future of this country can be fairly looked after.
Additionally, making paternity leave and parental leave available from day one of employment will have a significant impact. A study examining Sweden’s 2012 parental leave reform, which allowed fathers up to 30 days of flexible leave during the child’s first year, found significant benefits for maternal health. Specifically, there was a reduction in anti-anxiety prescriptions, a decrease in hospitalisations or specialist visits, and a drop in antibiotic prescriptions among new mothers in the first six months. These improvements are attributed to the father’s increased presence, providing support and allowing mothers to rest and seek preventive care.
Bereavement leave is another crucial reform. Losing a loved one is one of the most difficult experiences anyone can endure, yet too many workers are forced to return to work before they are ready because they do not qualify for leave. This Bill ensures that bereavement leave is a universal right from day one, offering workers the time and dignity to grieve.
This Bill will also strengthen protection against workplace harassment and discrimination—issues that disproportionately affect women. A survey by the Trades Union Congress found that 52% of women had experienced sexual harassment at work—a number that rises to 63% for women aged 18 and 24. The Bill introduces new duties on employers to prevent harassment rather than simply reacting when it happens, creating a culture of accountability and safety. We need a complete ban on non-disclosure agreements in cases of sexual harassment, bullying and general discrimination against people at work. It is really important that victims are no longer silenced; we really must be fervent about this issue.
In addition, the introduction of gender and menopause action plans is a necessary step forward—right now, one in 10 women in the UK have had to stop working.
I am sorry I cannot go on longer.
Lord Moynihan of Chelsea (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interests as a businessman and investor. I welcome the excellent maiden speeches of my hereditarily noble friend Lord Young of Acton; by the poised and articulate Baroness, my noble friend Lady Cash, and by the two other noble Baroness. I also apologise that, with the Minister’s kind agreement, I may have to leave before the winding up.
Good economic policy brings prosperity, security and jobs. The Government say economic growth is their number one priority. Does this Bill promote growth, which needs a low-regulation, low-tax, small government, free market environment? No, it does not. When this Government came to power, they succumbed to the time-honoured temptation to focus on demand, not least by giving selected supporters above-inflation pay raises. Demand is an attractive policy, because it pursues the covetable votes of the UK’s over-50 million adult consumers. Supply—which a Government seeking growth should have more properly focused on—attracts just the 5 million votes or so from employers and sole proprietors.
However, demand stimulation quickly runs up against the problem of funding new spend with available tax receipts. Tax hikes are made with the hope that tax will go up above its current 36% of GDP—but it obstinately has not. Government expenditures and regulation are going up, but so too are departures from this country, including entrepreneurs, high earners and achievers, and young strivers—all those current and future wealth creators who would have stayed and grown the economy, had a supply-side approach been taken.
Even though the Chancellor U-turned yesterday, the OBR cut its 2% GDP growth projection to 1%. That is still too optimistic, yet even 1% GDP growth means about zero growth per capita. There was an unmentioned elephant yesterday: this very Bill. Here is what the OBR said about it:
“In this forecast, we have not incorporated any impact of the Government’s Plan to Make Work Pay”.
It then goes on to say that the Bill’s impact on GDP should be negative, which drops its growth projection to below 1%.
After last year’s Budget, the economy slowed to a halt, just as we had warned it would. Now every piece of this vast new Bill seems designed directly to further ruin the economy: banning zero-hours contracts; letting the union fox into the SME henhouse; giving the right to request flexible working; and introducing no waiting periods for statutory sick pay, parental and bereavement leave and unfair dismissal. Each claims virtue but, in reality, damages economic growth and jobs.
What will be the economic consequences of Labour’s decisions? They will include: higher unemployment, especially among the youth; lower general prosperity; and many individual recessions as GDP per capita declines—an alarming prospect for the country’s future fiscal stability. Yes, it may feel good to have a heart, but it is more important to have a head.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)
My Lords, I, too, welcome the new colleagues into this House and wish them well in their work as Members. I also congratulate the Minister on her introduction of this important piece of legislation. The world of work has changed and the expectations of workers, especially women, have also changed.
I very strongly endorse the speech made by the noble Baroness who bears the same first name as me, Helena—the noble Baroness, Lady Morrissey. She discussed non-disclosure agreements, and I will endorse all she said about their misuse to silence complainants who have been sexually harassed or bullied, or who faced discrimination, in the workplace. It is a problem that has been expressed and exposed time after time in our press. As the chair of a number of inquiries, I have directly seen how it affects lives in the workplace.
Non-disclosure agreements undoubtedly have an important place in employment. It is a way of protecting the intellectual property of an employer; nobody should be making off with a client list or stripping a business of its suppliers or the magic ingredient in a product. There are good purposes for which an NDA can be used, but, too often, they are frequently used to preserve the reputations of the powerful inside an organisation against the interests of those at the receiving end of abusive behaviours.
This was opened up back in 2018, when a woman called Zelda Perkins publicly breached her non-disclosure agreement with Miramax over the behaviour of Harvey Weinstein many years before. She had been paid off because she had raised a complaint on behalf of another woman with whom she worked. She ran the London office of Miramax and a woman had gone, as part of her work, to the Venice film festival with Harvey Weinstein and he sexually violated her. Zelda Perkins reported this to the headquarters of Miramax in the United States and had hardly put the phone down before there was a great posse of lawyers on her doorstep wanting to see her. Immediately, she and the young woman who had been sexually abused were presented with non-disclosure agreements. Lawyers were brought in to advise them that this was a sensible thing for them to do. They signed away their rights and were given compensation and they rushed off into the world of work and were told to get on with life. The non-disclosure agreement stipulated that the two women could not discuss the allegations—not only with the general public or tabloid newspapers but with lawyers, doctors, therapists, counsellors or anybody else. This was particularly devastating for the woman who had been violated.
Zelda Perkins bravely breached that non-disclosure agreement. It was in the public interest. It was very important that she was able to tell the story of how she and her colleague were silenced. She wanted to provide corroboration and indeed did in the litigation that followed.
In the public interest, it is important that we visit this, and I would like to see it included in this legislation. Yes, there can be an exemption, as the noble Baroness, Lady Morrissey, said, because some victims do not want the exposure, and that has to be respected—but only where they have had the opportunity of good legal advice. I hope that this House, persuaded by the many feisty women and their male colleagues, will agree that the Government should include this in the Bill in the way that the noble Baroness, Lady Morrissey, described.
Baroness Bray of Coln (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy. I congratulate our four new colleagues who made such excellent maiden speeches today: the noble Lord, Lord Young, the noble Baronesses, Lady Cash and Lady Gray, and my friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Berger.
I am delighted to participate in this important debate on the Employment Rights Bill, which proposes radical and potentially rather damaging changes to our employment laws. It was only a couple of months ago that some of us here today were engaged in a debate on the Budget proposal to raise the cost of national insurance contributions paid by employers and its likely lethal effect on employment prospects.
Today’s debate on the Employment Rights Bill allows us to consider the potential damage the Bill will also do to job availability. Essentially, when more legal duties are piled on to employers, the additional cost of carrying them out leads inevitably to fewer jobs being created. That old saying about the road being paved with good intentions springs to mind—if we can call them “good”.
I start with one of the Bill’s most controversial aspects: the increased powers for trade unions, which will make it easier for them to organise within businesses and exert more pressure on employers, and will loosen current rules for calling strikes. But, if businesses can be brought to a standstill more easily by trade union activity, productivity and investment will suffer and jobs will again be at risk.
Furthermore, the Bill opens the floodgates to more legal challenges in the workplace. While legal recourse is clearly important in cases of genuine mistreatment, this Bill encourages excessive litigation. Companies will be required to overhaul employment contracts, provide new benefits and meet new, rigid compliance standards. For some, this may be an inconvenience. For others, it could mean the difference between survival and closure.
A new fair work agency is to be set up to help enforce the new statutory rights. It will have the right to enter homes as well as offices to examine documents which it can demand to see—and, if necessary, to seize electronic devices used to store information. It will also be empowered to bring employment tribunal proceedings against an employer even if the employee is unable or unwilling to do so themselves. I would say that the big state has just got bigger.
The Bill’s proposals for flexible working contracts and zero-hour arrangements are equally unworkable. While flexible hours are essential for some workers and, where possible, should be agreed, the Bill’s proposals go too far in restricting how businesses can structure and restructure their workforce where necessary. They must have the flexibility to respond to demand, which, as we all know, can go up and down. This Bill introduces rigid rules on flexible contracts, making them an entitlement from day 1 in employment, if wanted. If an employer needs to change the contracted hours for any business reason, the onus is on them to make the case.
Finally, I am deeply concerned about Clause 20 and its potentially chilling effect on free speech. Pubs, shops and other customer-facing businesses may be forced to limit what can be said by customers on their premises to avoid offending staff working there. This includes overheard, not just direct, conversations. Issues such as religion, age, race or perhaps a woman defending women’s sex-based rights, plus myriad other subjects, could all be banned because employers will need to prove that they have taken all reasonable steps to prevent what would be seen as harassment by third parties or would otherwise be held liable. The Equality and Human Rights Commission has already expressed its misgivings. So should we all, loudly.
The final question has to be: instead of making it harder to run a business, with the consequence of fewer jobs on offer, why are the Government not working with businesses and employees to find practical solutions to balance workers’ rights with economic progress and growth?
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
My Lords, I am very pleased to welcome the maiden speeches of four new colleagues, each of whom will clearly make powerful contributions in the years to come in your Lordships’ House.
I start off by chiding the Whips somewhat. Many speakers today have gone beyond the four-minute limit, which is perfectly understandable. This is a Bill of 300 pages, 157 clauses and 12 schedules. There is much to say. I wonder why we are finishing at 7 pm this evening when we are sitting tomorrow and those noble Lords who normally leave on a Thursday to go home do not have to do so today. It would have been better if we had a bit longer for this debate.
The noble Lord, Lord Hannan, talked perhaps a little pejoratively of those speakers who wait until the end, listening and nodding sagely. Well, I have nodded sagely to some of the contributions that I have heard—mainly of course from this side. I see that the noble Lord is now nodding—sagely, I hope. For what it is worth, I do regard him as the finest orator in the House currently. But, having said that, I agree with hardly a word that he says. To paraphrase perhaps Ella Fitzgerald or, more recently, Bananarama, “It’s not what you say, it’s the way that you say it”.
When I looked at the list, I saw the number of Tories down to speak and thought, “That’s interesting, they’ve come round to our view on unemployment rights”. Unfortunately, having heard the contributions, that is not the case for far too many. I would definitely accept the noble Baroness, Lady Morrissey, from the Benches opposite. Employment rights actually means employer rights. That is the big divide that we have heard in the debate today.
Some of the doom and gloom almost defies description. Some noble Lords who were here, as I was, 25 years ago, at the time of the national minimum wage, thought that the economy would crash, that there would be mass unemployment, that employers would never be able to pay that. Well, here we are, 25 years later, and the national minimum wage, and indeed a figure beyond it, is now widely accepted. So those sorts of comments are not justified.
Because of the spread within the Bill, we have had many briefings, as my noble friend Lady Goudie said. We have all had them: in my case from the National Education Union, through the Law Society and even UKHospitality. We cannot possibly do them justice in this debate.
One of the briefings that I found most moving was a briefing in person this week from the TUC. We heard from workers who came to tell us what they thought the Bill would do for them in their situation. I remember particularly an USDAW shop worker, Fionulla Rhodes, who told us how some of her colleagues go to work in fear. That is an intolerable situation. We heard from Ceferina Floresca and Garfield Hylton, GMB members at Amazon, about the appalling tactics of that company when the union was trying to organise a ballot to legitimise the union. They reached the threshold and just as they got beyond it, what did Amazon do? It employed 1,000 new workers to move the threshold further away. This Bill will stop these sorts of abuses and will give to people like Fionulla, Ceferina and Garfield not just protection at work but dignity at work. That is a huge step forward.
There is not much time to say anything else. I enjoyed the contributions from many colleagues. The noble Baronesses, Lady Prosser and Lady Chakrabarti, mentioned the Equal Pay Act. My university dissertation, in 1974, was on the Equal Pay Act and now, half a century later, although progress has been made, so much more still needs to be made. This Bill will undoubtedly help to redress the balance, addressing a lot of the imbalance in employment legislation over the past four decades. Next, we will be going into Committee, and I remind noble Lords that in Committee they will have up to 10 minutes to speak on amendments.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
My Lords, I accept that the intentions behind this Bill are well meant, but I am concerned about the unintended consequences. There are some positives—the rules on fire and rehire, and bereavement leave, are just two examples—but overall I am afraid I have to conclude that the Bill will damage growth and, most importantly, the employment opportunities of the most vulnerable people. Others have mentioned omissions from the Bill. I am supportive of the comments that have been made on NDAs and on whistleblowing, and I look forward to seeing what comes up on those.
The impact assessment says that the Bill will impose costs of around £5 billion on business. Worse, it confirms that those costs
“will be proportionately higher for small and micro businesses”.
That goes directly against the Government’s drive for growth. Noble Lords need not take my word for it. The OBR said yesterday that changes would
“likely have material and probably net negative economic impacts on employment, prices and productivity”.
There is already evidence that small businesses are reducing hiring, so I hope the Government will be willing to consider constructive ways to reduce the burdens on SMEs.
Speaking of the impact assessment, the bar is not high, but this is one of the worst I have ever read. The Regulatory Policy Committee rated it not fit for purpose, stating:
“Given the number and reach of the measures, it would be proportionate to undertake labour market and broader macroeconomic analysis to understand the overall impact on employment, wages and output, and particularly the pass-through of employer costs to employees”.
It beggars belief that any Government would propose changes of this importance without carrying out such an analysis.
That problem is made worse because this is, in effect, yet another skeleton Bill, with much of the important detail to be added later by regulation. I counted 173 regulatory powers—I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, came up with the same number—including 11 Henry VIII powers. That restricts proper analysis and scrutiny. At the very least, can the Minister confirm that all material regulations will be provided in draft before we reach Report, to allow at least some scrutiny of those important rules? It is not acceptable to continue having these endless skeleton Bills. We are seeing more and more of them.
Given the time limit, I will raise just two detailed issues. First, I agree that zero-hours contracts can be exploitative and that some tightening is required, but they can work well for people such as students, as we have heard, and we should try to retain some level of flexibility for them. More importantly, the new rules are likely to drive perverse behaviour. Basing future guaranteed hours on the previous 12 weeks is burdensome on businesses, but it may also mean that people will not be given extra shifts during those busy times. The unintended impact of the Bill might be that people get less work, not more.
Secondly, there is the introduction of day-one unfair dismissal rights. This will directly reduce opportunities for vulnerable people. That is not just my opinion, it is the Government’s opinion too. The impact assessment says:
“There is evidence that the policy could negatively impact on hiring rates. For example, employers may be slower to take on workers due to the liability and increased protections”—
I stress this last part—
“particularly for those that are seen as riskier hires”.
I am sure we all support the Government’s intention to get people off sickness benefits and into work. But, to achieve that, we need employers willing to employ them. Is this really the moment to introduce rules that will, by the Government’s own admission, make that less likely? Is there any real evidence that the two-year qualifying period is being abused? In my experience, the opposite is true. The qualifying period allows employers to give people with little experience or poor employment records the benefit of the doubt when hiring them in the first place and at the end of any initial probation period. Can the Minister please provide evidence that the two-year qualifying period is in fact a real problem? The only winners here will be employment lawyers, and the losers will be the very people the Government say they want to help.
We have heard lots of comments about this being a Bill for the workers. What it definitely is not is a Bill for those who want to work.
Baroness Rafferty (Lab)
My Lords, I refer to my interests in the register. I, too, welcome the quartet of maiden speeches, especially those from our Benches.
I welcome this Bill, one of whose aims is to repeal the pernicious Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023. These laws imposed disproportionate constraints on the ability of working people to organise collectively and defend their interests, weakening the foundations of workplace democracy.
When I was president of the Royal College of Nursing, the college took the momentous decision to halt history and overturn a decision not to strike after more than 100 years of its history. The conditions that produced that decision were triggered by the previous Government’s record as a hostile and aggressive actor seeking to bully nurses to back down on their pay claim to remedy 14 years of pay stagflation.
When nurses go on strike, we know there is something seriously wrong with the moral order. Having been on the picket line with fellow nurses in Northern Ireland in 2019 and in London during 2022-23, I was struck by the resolve of nurses and their dogged determination to seek justice and protect patient safety, and the extraordinary support shown by the public. Throughout the strike action, the Government misjudged not only nurses’ own resolve but the public mood, banking on a cynical political calculation that public support for striking nurses would wither and wane. Evidence demonstrated that the opposite occurred: public support was not only sustained but strengthened over time.
It is also gratifying to see ways in which the Bill reflects some of the priorities of the nursing profession. The Bill’s proposed expansion of trade union access rights is particularly important for nurses in the independent sector, many of whom have little or no exposure to trade union representation at work. To be meaningful, this access must be available via both digital and physical means, and employers must be subject to a clear statutory duty to comply.
The Bill’s provisions to create an adult social care negotiating body represent, potentially, a transformative change for a sector long characterised by low pay, fragmented employment and workforce instability. Many nursing staff in this sector work under conditions that would be unacceptable in any other part of the health system. This body could help promote equality, particularly for internationally recruited nursing staff, upon whom we will increasingly rely, and workers from marginalised communities. Reports of repayment clauses, bonded labour arrangements and racialised pay disparities remain disturbingly common in adult social care and must be rooted out.
Modernising employment law for the nursing profession must address the systemic challenges faced by women in work—from pregnancy and parental leave protections to preventing workplace harassment and improving access to flexible working. This Bill presents an important opportunity to tackle long-standing inequalities and deliver on the potential for a more supportive and inclusive working environment for nursing staff. I commend it to your Lordships’ House.
Lord Katz (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lady Rafferty and to hear the outstanding maiden speeches of my noble and very good friend Lady Berger, and indeed my noble friend Lady Gray. I also congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Cash, and the noble Lord, Lord Young of Acton, on their maiden speeches.
It is an equal pleasure to speak in this Second Reading debate on the Government’s flagship Employment Rights Bill alongside colleagues with huge experience of the realities of day-to-day trade unionism, not the flights of fancy we have heard from some Members opposite. I am not sure what the collective noun for trade union general secretaries and assistant general secretaries should be. Perhaps we on our Benches need to invent one. I would say a “negotiation”, but we can quibble over that.
For my own part, I am someone with experience of both sides of the negotiating table. I worked as a lowly political officer at the Transport Salaried Staffs’ Association, more recently for a FTSE-listed transport operator, and for small businesses in between. When hearing some of the contributions from the Benches opposite, I recall an earlier job. I had the privilege of working for my noble friend Lady Harman when we were campaigning on the blight of low pay in 1990s Britain and the need for a national minimum wage. As my noble friends Lady Hazarika and Lord Watson of Invergowrie reminded us, shrouds were certainly waved back then by the Conservative Government and some of their business backers about the devastating impact it would have. Next week, the national minimum wage will rise again, benefiting 3 million workers. Our economy did not collapse—it will not now.
Making work fair—which the Bill does—is so important in delivering not just a better economy but a fairer, more just and cohesive society. I could dwell on many individual elements of the Bill. My niche favourite is the decision to scrap the pointless hoop-jumping of regular political fund ballots, having organised some myself, but instead I will consider the societal benefits of making work fairer for individuals and giving trade unions more rights to represent working people when they are being unfairly exploited.
Research conducted by Warwick University has found that job-related ill-health is costing UK businesses up to £41 billion a year, with 1.75 million workers suffering due to poor job quality. This study highlights how job insecurity, low pay and long hours contribute to poor health outcomes for employees and how, conversely, the academics say, job security, fair pay and a healthy work/life balance are linked to better well-being—hardly surprising.
The number of people in insecure work reached a record high of 4.1 million last year. Contrary to the assertion by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, those workers do not want to be in a state of insecurity. According to a TUC poll of zero-hours contract workers, some
“84% want regular hours of work—compared to just … 14% who don’t”,
and:
“Three-quarters … of those polled say they have experienced difficulty meeting living expenses due to not being offered enough hours”.
But extending workers’ rights is not just good for workers. Making work more equitable, secure and meaningful is good for communities, too. That is why, as my noble friend the Minister said, the wider population, not simply those workers impacted, support the measures in the Bill. Polling from Hope Not Hate has found that
“72% of UK voters support a ban on zero hours contracts, … 73% support … protection from unfair dismissal”
and 74% support ensuring that all workers have the right to sick pay.
Hope not Hate polling also found that over half the people felt pessimistic about the future. We know from history that, when an economy is on its knees and people feel insecure and hopeless about their own future as well as the future of the country, it weakens community cohesion, leaving space and divisions which the far right is only too willing and able to exploit.
Insecurity at work breeds insecurity in our communities and our country. These reforms will make people feel valued and restore a sense of hope to the most marginalised in our society—and that can only be a good thing. In short, we need change and the Bill is a vital part of that positive change for millions of workers, their families and their communities.
Lord Strathcarron (Con)
My Lords, I too welcome the four maiden speakers and congratulate them on their speeches. Meanwhile, like some of us here today, I was in the other place yesterday afternoon listening to the Chancellor’s Statement and her quest for growth. Yet here we are today in this Chamber, debating the Second Reading of a Bill of which certain parts are absolutely guaranteed to regulate the life out of any growth that she wants and the country needs.
Leaving aside the economic damage that those parts of the Bill will cause, we also need to consider the societal damage that will be done by Clause 20 in particular and its effect on free speech and life’s moments of enjoyment, which we currently take for granted and which are now under threat. To illustrate this, I will give an example from my own work experience.
I publish about 50 books a year and the marketing of each one requires my employees to come into contact with the general public—those whom the Bill calls “third parties”—at book launches and other sales events. To take a typical example of a book launch in a bookshop, the bookshop would host two categories of third parties: first, say, 50 of our own potential customers, and then a further 50 of its own from its mailing list. Apart from the bookshop staff, I would typically have three or four of my own employees there to help. In terms of the Bill, this detail is important: they are my employees, but even though they are working on someone else’s premises, they will still my liability.
Now, to avoid the consequences of the Bill, should I and the book shop request that our guests not talk to staff, or even to each other, in case a member of staff overhears them about any subjects relating to protected characteristics, even if what they say is perfectly legal? I ask your Lordships: after seeing such an invitation, one that discourages any form of legal sociability, would any of us go to such a cold-water event?
This might sound fantastical, but it is not fanciful. It is all right here in Clause 20. The result in this instance is that the risks are untenable and therefore the event will not happen. We will have given up another harmless pleasure to satisfy the whims of the ever-changing latest version of groupthink. Then again, in a wider context than this, would Waterstones, for example, risk arranging another in-store book signing by JK Rowling, Kathleen Stock or Helen Joyce, on the off-chance that one of the author’s fans will arrive wearing a T-shirt saying, “Woman=Adult Human Female”, knowing that their employees could sue for hurt feelings, real or vexatious.
Widening this out still further to cover all hospitality events—I am also a trustee of a national museum that stages events throughout the summer—the only practical way for any host to mitigate these dangers is to pass the potential liability on to organisers or promoters. Would either really want to take this on, bearing in mind that no one involved in staging an event has any idea who the third parties coming to the event will be? Are they up to date with the current thing—the latest protected characteristic they must not talk about? Are they courteous and even sober? Do they have English as their first language? Any encounters between so-called third parties and employees are totally beyond the employer’s control, yet, in this Alice in Wonderland world of Clause 20, the employer will be responsible for these interactions, no matter where they happen and even if they are totally legal in themselves.
I urge the Government to have a massive reality check about the foreseen and unforeseen consequences of Clause 20 as the Bill progresses.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, rather than being the third party, I think I am the 59th party in this debate.
Somewhat repetitiously, I congratulate the noble Baronesses, Lady Berger, Lady Gray and Lady Cash, and the noble Lord, Lord Young, on their maiden speeches. Without being seen to pick one from the other, I was struck by the comments that the noble Baroness, Lady Gray, made about the benefits of having spent time running a pub. Straight after graduating, I became the manager of a busy bar in north London. I learned about people, and more importantly learned about employing people, because it was the first time I had started to employ people. It was a great lesson. You can learn a lot in places like that.
This has been an interesting debate. We have heard very disparate views. On the one hand, maybe the noble Lords, Lord Davies and Lord Hendy, put the pole in one place and, on the other hand, almost certainly the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, placed the pole in another. Your Lordships’ task will be to work out where this Bill lands between those two poles. It is going to be a tough job in Committee.
This Bill undeniably sets out to meet a manifesto commitment that the Government very clearly articulated during the election. Unfortunately, one aspect of that commitment was to deliver it within 100 days. The nature of what we are discussing has suffered from the lack of rigour in preparation. That is clearly evidenced by the number of amendments that the Government themselves have had to bring—and also by the lack of detail and the number of consultations that are outstanding.
For that reason, those of us on these Benches will work closely on not just the intent but the detail of this Bill. An awful lot of detail is missing, and many of the real details are still out for consultation or are awaiting codes of conduct that will be set out in regulations that we have yet to see, so it is going to be quite a hard Committee.
However, before descending into that detail, we should reflect somewhat on the purpose of this legislation. We Liberal Democrats agree that there is absolutely a need to ensure that exploitative employment is dealt with. There is no doubt a need to do that, and we support that objective, but I hope that when this Bill leaves your Lordships’ House, it will be more widely equipped to help improve employer-employee relations and, yes, to deliver fair work, but also to create conditions for growth. If it is to do that then there is a long way to go to achieve it.
I have been a member of a trade union, and I have been part of executive management of businesses that have worked very constructively with trade unions, but that is not the only model for employer and employee. A central criticism I have of this Bill is that it seems to disregard the fact that many—I would suggest most—businesses maintain strong and beneficial relationships with their employees without the need for union involvement or intervention. As a starting point, this Bill seems to have an air of suspiciousness about the functioning relationships with which normal businesses go about their business. We have to go back and get away from the idea that one size fits all. There are a lot of different hybrids that work in business, and this legislation should facilitate them all equally. Further, there needs to be more recognition of employees as individuals rather than as members of unions. A fact of life is that, whatever the Government think, the vast majority of employees will not be in a union, at least in the private sector. We need to think about how that works.
The tone of this legislation is, perhaps unsurprisingly, very legalistic. An awful lot of lawyers have been involved in it. There will certainly be more employment tribunals if it passes as drafted. I emphasise that every time a case goes to a tribunal, both sides have already lost. We do not want to push things. In answer to the sedentary interjections from the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, the fact is that it will push things into a legal process; that is what I meant.
Given the uncharted nature of this legislation, we will rely on case law for years to come to define its boundaries. The noble Baroness, Lady Prosser, and others talked about equal rights legislation. Years and years of case law enshrined how that worked in the workplace. If the tribunals and the courts are so tied up, that case law will be very slow in coming. We have to be clear in our definitions so that we are not relying on those definitions for this Bill to function properly when it becomes an Act. We know that the tribunal system is already overloaded, with waits for rulings measured in years.
Also, ACAS will have an important role to play, not just on the policy side but with its mediation work. Will its funding be increased to reflect this extra burden? My guess is that the tribunals and ACAS will not be funded properly, which will cause administrative sclerosis, uncertainty and long waits for cases to be heard. How we are going to resource the Bill, if and when it becomes an Act, is something that needs to be taken into consideration.
I turn to some of the central points of the Bill. My first questions will be around the legal definitions of zero-hours contracts. A lot of work needs to be done to tighten definitions so that we know what we are talking about and what we seek to achieve. The addition of agency workers further complicates this point. There are fundamental decisions that we cannot wait for the legal process to deliver.
As this Bill passed through the Commons, the Liberal Democrats introduced a number of amendments that we will present to your Lordships’ House. For example, Daisy Cooper MP proposed a new clause to publish a review of the impact of Part 4 of the Bill on SMEs. Liberal Democrat MPs expressed concern about placing unreasonable burdens on SMEs. They duly called for clarity on aspects such as probation periods at an early stage due to the significant impact this will have on small businesses.
As the noble Lord, Lord Browne, noted, this is a complicated Bill. Should any small business person have had time while running his or her firm to listen to the Minister’s introduction—very able as it was—its complexity would certainly have alarmed them. It is daunting legislation for all businesses, but particularly smaller businesses. I fear that the retail, hospitality and leisure sectors stand to face some of the biggest challenges that the Bill could launch.
I caution against conflating the contents of this Bill with productivity and growth by citing international examples. There is a difference between correlation and causation, and we perhaps should not go too big on that. We should use a different measure—what is right to do, rather than the supposition that it may or may not deliver growth.
As we heard from the triumvirate opposite—the noble Lord, Lord Freyburg, the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, and the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty—there needs to be a proper understanding of the role of freelancers and the self-employed within the workplace. Where do they sit within this Bill, and what should or could their contractual rights be?
It is also clear that the Bill needs to focus more on the future of employment, and here we should look at closer alignment with EU positions—for example, on AI involvement and algorithm-directed employment. These have been discussed in the past but they are not included in the Bill. I hope that the House will debate this, and that the Minister will be forthcoming on these future issues.
Then there is the fair work agency and how it will operate. There have been alarming reports in the press, which may or may not be true, but it is clear that we need to flesh out how this agency will work. How will it supplant the work of the Treasury and, possibly, the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority? Will it have access to the same data the Treasury has, bearing in mind that this is confidential tax data? Before we reach Report, the Government should publish full proposals for this agency. We cannot approve it sight unseen. Furthermore, as we have heard from a number of noble Lords, the preponderance of delegated legislation will have to be addressed either by your Lordships or, I hope, by the Government in advance of that process.
The Spring Statement saw the biggest reduction of assistance to working carers for a decade. As my noble friend Lord Palmer set out, we will seek to strengthen provisions on carer’s leave. We will also address parental issues, such as the absence of provisions on miscarriage bereavement leave. We will propose increasing the length of paternity leave and making it more flexible, which I hope will please and be supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Penn.
As my noble friend Lady Kramer set out, we will table amendments that seek to act on whistleblowers and on the misuse of non-disclosure agreements. I share the analysis of the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, and others on the need to protect workers from harassment.
To conclude, I am anxious that the Minister does not dismiss the negative words that she has heard today as being purely political chipping. There are genuine practical problems that we need to address in your Lordships’ House, and I hope we can take forward that practical approach as we go into Committee. Liberal Democrats believe that the lack of detail in the Bill does not facilitate certainty and stability for businesses or workers. That is what we need for growth: certainty and stability. There are huge holes in the available data and detail supporting this important Bill. Much of that detail is floating in the many consultations or as yet unpublished codes. We need to have advanced sight of the important levels of detail that will flesh out the skeleton of this Bill.
Like many, I fear the overall effect that this Bill will, or could, have on small and medium-sized businesses, particularly through the introduction of much complexity and the threat of cases being taken to many more tribunals. It is friction, and these businesses do not need yet more friction in what is already a very difficult trading environment. In the main, this Bill takes a one-size-fits-all approach to addressing genuine problems in the workplace, and it does not look far enough forward on future employee issues. That said, we look forward to discussing this issue in Committee.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I join in thanking the Minister for her introduction, and, of course, in praising and commending the speeches of the four maiden speakers today: the noble Baronesses, Lady Berger and Lady Gray of Tottenham, and my noble friends Lady Cash and Lord Young of Acton. This has been a very interesting debate. Before I start, I should declare my interest as a minority shareholder in two businesses that employ people. It is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Fox. I found myself nodding in agreement with much of what he said, and I will do my best not to repeat all of it.
Others have commented on the fact that this, overall, is a troubling Bill, and for numerous reasons—not least, as my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral articulated so expertly, its excessive reliance on secondary powers. I will not expand on that now, as the case has been made—and, indeed, reinforced just now by the noble Lord, Lord Fox—but I will focus my remarks on two areas where, to use a phrase coined by my noble friend Lady Penn, the balance is seriously wrong. They are the inevitable and disproportionate impact on SMEs, acknowledged in the Government’s own impact assessment, and the day-one rights and their inevitable impact on hiring.
I begin by turning to the bigger picture and quoting from the Government’s own impact assessment. It states:
“Many of the policies within the Bill could help support the Government’s Growth Mission … we conclude the direct impact on growth could be positive, but small”.
The word “could” appears 132 times in the assessment. That is the language not of confidence but of uncertainty and hesitation, and it shows a fundamental lack of conviction in the very legislation before us.
While the Government dither, businesses are suffering. Indeed, as we saw only yesterday, the OBR downgraded growth forecasts from 2% to 1%. A particularly telling phrase in the explanatory note—as already referenced by my noble friend Lord Moynihan—said
“we have not incorporated any impact of the Government’s Plan to Make Work Pay as there is not yet sufficient detail or clarity about the final policy parameters.”
It goes on to say:
“Employment regulation policies that affect the flexibility of businesses and labour markets or the quantity and quality of work will likely have material, and probably net negative, economic impacts on employment, prices, and productivity”.
That is an explicit acknowledgement of the uncertainty generated by this Bill, and an admission that implies that more downgrades are to come. Let us look at the facts. The business confidence index for the United Kingdom stood at 97.4 in December 2024, a sharp decline from the previous month and the lowest reading since July 2020. That, of course, was a time of extraordinary crisis, global shutdowns and economic freefall. Yet today, with no pandemic to blame, we find ourselves again teetering on the brink.
The Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales’s Business Confidence Monitor, which is the most comprehensive measure of sentiment in our business community, plummeted from 14.4 to a mere 0.2 in Q4 2024. The Institute of Directors confirms this: its Economic Confidence Index dropped to minus 64 in February, close to the lows reached during Covid. Regarding this Bill specifically, the Institute of Directors’ survey suggests that 57% of business leaders will be less likely to hire.
ICAEW members across the UK have raised concerns about the Bill’s impact on costs, labour flexibility and business dynamism. According to a poll of its members, 73% expect the Bill to increase employment costs for new and existing employees. One said, “It is like rushing down a hill towards a lake and pressing the accelerator.” The OBR has told us how this ends: in unemployment, and it will be unemployment of the Government’s own making. On that subject, that is one statistic that noble Lords opposite failed to cite when making their international comparisons. For the record, it is currently 7.3% in France, 6.2% in Germany and only 4.4% here.
What is driving this collapse in confidence? It is the suffocating weight of excessive taxation and crippling uncertainty about the future, as many others have noted. Small and medium-sized enterprises, which concern those of us on these Benches considerably, are rightly hailed as the backbone of the British economy, and for very good reason. SMEs account for 60% of UK employment and 48% of business turnover. Their confidence has turned negative for the first time since Q4 2022, falling from 12.8 to minus 4.7. That figure is not just a dry statistic. It represents thousands of business owners lying awake at night, wondering whether they can afford to keep the lights on, let alone hire new staff or invest in their future.
We should be under no illusion: the cost of this uncertainty is devastating. The Federation of Small Businesses reported that a staggering 33% of small employers now expect to reduce staff. That number has doubled in just one quarter. Meanwhile, only 10% of small firms plan to take on new employees. The result will be a shrinking economy, a contracting workforce, reduced opportunities for young people and those seeking to move from welfare to employment, increased costs and bureaucracy, and a country that is clearly retreating from ambition rather than embracing it.
If more confirmation is needed of this picture, the Government’s own impact assessment for the recent SI, the National Minimum Wage (Amendment) Regulations 2025, confirms the difficulties facing small business. It states that
“there is some evidence of challenging business conditions for SMEs specifically. Around 42.7% and 36.8% of micro and small businesses, respectively reported having less than three months of cash reserves in September 2024 (compared to 19.2% for large businesses). Around 15.6% and 33.9% of micro and small businesses, respectively, reported the cost of labour as a challenge to business turnover in November 2024.”
It is not clear whether, by the “cost of labour”, it was talking about the workforce or the party opposite. SMEs will need many exemptions from the provisions of the Bill. Yet the picture I have just painted is about to be made worse, as the Bill chooses to add yet another burden: disastrous day one rights for unfair dismissals and statutory sick pay.
So I ask a simple question: who truly understands what a business needs to thrive and survive? Is it the entrepreneur who has built something from nothing, the employer who fights every day to keep their company afloat, or an employment tribunal that is removed from the realities of running a business yet is now empowered to make decisions that could determine its fate? As the data reported last year by His Majesty’s Courts & Tribunals Service makes clear, employment tribunals are currently not able to make any speedy judgments. The Law Society described the backlog as “spiralling” and a very well-known legal firm described the tribunals to us as
“a bit of a laughing stock”,
“creaking” and “hugely unreliable”. That firm might be expected to support the Bill out of self-interest, but it does not.
The Bill makes it harder for businesses to prove that redundancies are genuine. It creates a scenario where every decision could be second-guessed by tribunals that the legal profession thinks are a bit of a laughing stock. Every restructuring might have to be questioned and every difficult choice turned into an expensive legal battle. Why would a business fire for no reason? Businesses need motivated, skilled employees, and they need time to assess the likelihood of an employee acquiring those skills and demonstrating that motivation. The noble Lord, Lord Vaux, put this very well and comprehensively explained it. However, to quote one of his Cross-Bench colleagues—the noble Lord, Lord Moore of Etchingham—in a newspaper column the other day, this clause is,
“as if children, once admitted to a school, were immediately deemed to have passed all the ensuing exams”.
As my noble friend Lady Cash noted, this is not an us-and-them perspective. Even if there were no other reason, retention is cheaper than firing and rehiring. Yet the Bill assumes, without evidence, that businesses are acting in bad faith, that they need tribunals to intervene and that they do not already have a strong incentive to retain talent.
The cost of all this will be staggering. The impact assessment suggests £5 billion, which will inevitably prove to be optimistic and which will inevitably fall disproportionately, as the Government admit, on the very SMEs we need to power growth—SMEs that the facts say are already struggling as a result of this Government’s other misguided policies. Instead of managing their businesses and seeking new markets and customers, they will be bogged down in human resources. If they get it wrong, they will be bogged down in litigation, endless documentation and the endless hiring of legal experts to justify every strategic decision. This is not just bureaucratic overreach but an outright violation of business autonomy.
A business should be able to shape its own workforce in response to market demands, competition and innovation, yet under the Bill it seems that businesses can only make such decisions when faced with an existential crisis. What recourse would a company struggling with stagnation and trying to bring in fresh talent and stay ahead in a fiercely competitive world have? We must ask ourselves: do we want a thriving economy and businesses that grow, invest and create jobs, or do we want a system that strangles them in red tape, drags them into courtrooms and forces them into stagnation? The Bill, as it stands, will not boost our declining growth, restore business confidence or create jobs. Instead, it will leave many businesses trapped: unable to adapt, unable to compete and, ultimately, unable to survive.
So I ask the Minister: have the Government considered the likely impact of the measures in the Bill on their recently stated aim to move people off long-term welfare? Can they speculate as to the likely effect of day 1 unfair dismissal rights and statutory sick pay rights on that ambition? Can they answer why a prospective employer might take a risk on a potential employee who is recovering from a long-term medical condition? The obvious net effect of these measures will be to encourage employers to do more due diligence, be more risk averse and rely more on references and less on intuition. That will have a very damaging impact on social mobility and workforce diversity. How do society or the individuals and businesses affected benefit from that? How is that—to use the words of the noble Lord, Lord Livermore—either compassionate or fair?
Beyond the immediate damage to business confidence, we must consider the broader implications for the UK’s attractiveness as a destination for investment. Capital flow is where it is welcomed. Investment thrives where there is stability, flexibility and a regulatory framework that encourages and does not obstruct growth. The Bill sends precisely the wrong message to investors. It signals that the UK is becoming a more complex, risk-laden and bureaucratic place to do business. Why would international companies choose Britain when they can invest in economies with more business-friendly policies?
Ministers claim that employment protections will create a fairer economy, but they fail to acknowledge the reality: an economy that cannot attract investment is an economy that cannot create jobs at all, and surely that is the ultimate unfairness. Or, to put it another way, and to use the words of the noble Lord, Lord Watson, surely the greatest dignity of all is to have a job.
As we have heard, there is plenty more in the Bill that we will be addressing in Committee. My noble friend Lord Young of Acton made a brilliant maiden speech, drawing heavily on his experience with the Free Speech Union and talking to the invidious Clause 20. We will support him. As a reminder, my noble friend pointed out that employers are already liable for the sexual harassment of third parties under the worker protection Act. On flexible working, we struggle to understand the problem this is trying to fix. As my noble friend Lord Hunt said earlier, a majority of workers on these contracts seem to like them. The Recruitment and Employment Confederation states that 79% of respondents to their recent survey like flexible working because of the flexibility. The Chancellor says she wants to tear down regulation to boost growth, but this Bill introduces a new quango with perhaps alarming, to use the word of the noble Lord, Lord Fox, or even Kafkaesque powers.
We have spoken to all the major business organisations and many employers with real-world experience, and we can find none that supports the Bill. We found unanimity that it will cause considerable damage. Can the Minister give any examples, apart from those four that she has already mentioned and which have been trotted out fairly frequently over the past few months, of actual, real employers that support all the Bill? Please name just one, as we would love to talk to them to see what we have missed. We will of course also be turning to the subject of trades unions, to which a number of noble Lords have spoken. In particular, I commend the contributions of the noble Lord, Lord Burns, the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, and indeed the noble Lord, Lord Fox, from the Liberal Democrat Benches, for their thoughtful interventions on this.
We believe that the UK stands at a crossroads. We understand the intent behind the Bill, and of course there are some things in it that we can support. But we can either embrace policies that made us a global leader in investment and innovation, or we can burden ourselves and businesses with regulations that drive them elsewhere. I believe that the Government are serious about growth, but I have no choice but to conclude that the choice here is straightforward: they can have this Bill or they can have growth, but they cannot have both.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to be able to conclude this debate, which has been as insightful as it has been passionate and informed. The debate today has been very well attended and I hope that noble Lords will understand that time constraints mean that I will be unable to respond to every individual contribution, as I would normally do, but I shall do my best. Where I have not been able to respond, I am of course available to talk to noble Lords and to discuss: I am sure that we will have plenty of discussions between now and Committee, and after that. I hope that this will be an ongoing dialogue.
I know that many noble Lords have considerable expertise in running their own businesses. The noble Lords, Lord Londesborough and Lord Pitkeathley of Camden Town, and the noble Baroness, Lady Cash, spoke with these valuable insights. The Bill seeks to raise the floor for employment rights in our country and includes practices that many good employers—such, no doubt, as those operated by those noble Lords—already have, to the benefit of themselves and their workforce. I am sure that noble Lords will value the level playing field for employers that the Bill will ensure.
I dare say that the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, was preaching to the choir with his much-needed intervention from the Benches opposite on why people joint trade unions, and the range of benefits that collective bargaining brings: I hope that his Front Bench were listening to those points. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Barber of Ainsdale, Lord Pitkeathley of Camden Town, Lord Hendy, Lord Katz, Lord Watson, Lord Monks, Lord Prentis of Leeds, Lord Browne of Ladyton, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Carberry of Muswell Hill, Lady Hazarika, Lady Bousted and Lady Lister, all of whom expressed their strong support for this landmark legislation and powerfully articulated the need for it to reach the statute book.
I take this opportunity to pay tribute to those who made their excellent maiden speeches. I congratulate my noble friend Lady Berger on her marvellous maiden speech. My noble friend brings a valuable perspective to this debate, and it is great to hear how she is proudly advocating for, and championing, strong employment rights. It is warming to see her back in Parliament, and I am sure your Lordships’ House will value her wisdom and expertise, as well the courage and integrity she embodies so well. I thank my noble friend Lady Gray of Tottenham, whose extensive career in the Civil Service is greatly respected in your Lordships’ House. My noble friend brings a wealth of experience and insights to our discussions on advancing workplace rights. It was a pleasure to hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Cash, whose roles as commissioner of the Equality and Human Rights Commission and as an employer bring unique insight into many important issues regarding workplace equality. Finally, I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Young of Acton. Having another strong voice in your Lordships’ House is always welcome. The perspective the noble Lord brings through his work with the Free Speech Union is important, and I have no doubt his discussions on this legislation will continue to be of great interest.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Lister and Lady Smith of Llanfaes, for their passionate interest in those with caring responsibilities. An important part of our plans to modernise the world of work is ensuring carers can enjoy a good job and contribute their skills alongside their valuable role as carers. The Government will examine the feasibility of introducing paid carer’s leave in the upcoming carer’s leave review. On making caring a protected characteristic, many people with caring responsibilities are already likely to be afforded protections under the Equality Act 2010, by the provisions relating to age and disability discrimination which specifically protect people from direct discrimination by association. Individuals with caring responsibilities for someone who is, for example, elderly or disabled within the meaning of the Act are likely to be protected from unlawful discrimination from their association with someone with a protected characteristic. I am sure that noble Lords will understand that this means that this intervention would be unnecessary.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Newcastle for raising the issue of kinship care and foster caring. We are committed to ensuring that all employed parents and carers receive the support they need to strike the appropriate balance between their work and family lives. For the first time, the Government’s Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill will create a legal definition of kinship care, for the purposes of specific measures in that Bill. By defining kinship care in law, the legislation will ensure that all local authorities have a clear and consistent understanding of what constitutes kinship care. I hope this assures noble Lords of the Government’s intentions in this sensitive area.
A number of noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Hunt, Lord Ashcombe, Lord Vaux and Lord Sharpe, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Foster and Lady Cash, raised the issue of the financial implications of the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, suggested that we should listen only to business voices, but I have to say to him that our history and our economy is based on partnership. That is always what has made us thrive, and that will underlie our growth strategy going forward. This is not a case of hearing one voice over another. The noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, also raised the issue of business confidence. According to the latest Lloyds Business Barometer, which surveys 1,200 businesses every month, business confidence has increased 12 points, to 49% in February, the highest since August 2024. This shows that the Government are improving the business environment.
Of course, we recognise the concerns about the cost to business. The £5 billion figure from our impact assessment is a top-end estimate which will largely represent a direct transfer to the lowest paid in society, with the bottom end of the range close to £1 billion. The costs, therefore, are likely to be under 0.4% of our national wage bill and could even be as low as 0.1%.
A number of noble Lords also mentioned the OBR comments, but I stress that it has yet to make an assessment, so it is premature to read anything into its comments so far. Meanwhile, improving worker well-being, increasing productivity, reducing workplace conflict and creating a more level playing field for good employers will grant significant benefits worth billions of pounds per year, off-setting those costs.
The noble Lords, Lord Hunt of Wirral, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, Lord Vaux and Lord Fox, the noble Baronesses, Lady Noakes and Lady Coffey, and the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, raised the issue of parliamentary scrutiny. I reassure your Lordships’ House that the approach we are taking to many of the delegated powers in the Bill is in line with existing precedents for use of delegated powers in employment law, and the department believes that these are necessary and justified. They will enable the Government to remain responsive to the changing needs of the modern labour market and the economy, and to ensure that the employment rights framework remains relevant to these needs. Of course, we will give the Bill full scrutiny in its stages here, and I look forward to the many conversations we will have with noble Lords about this.
Noble Lords also raised the issue of amendments made by the Government in the other place. Throughout the development and passage of the Bill, the Government have made great efforts to listen to a range of views from businesses, trade unions, representative organisations, civil society and others. The insights gained, including from the formal consultations the Government have conducted since introducing the Bill, have informed the amendments made in the other place. These have been invaluable in ensuring that the Bill works in practice both for workers and for businesses of all sizes across the country.
The noble Baroness, Lady Barran, raised concerns about the school support staff negotiating body. While an important part of reinstating the body is to improve consistency, it does not commit us to a one-size-fits-all approach. Our intention is for support staff in all state-funded schools in England to benefit from a core pay and conditions offer, while allowing the flexibility for all schools to respond to local circumstances, above minimum agreed standards. We will be consulting on this over the summer.
My noble friend Lady Whitaker asked about seafarers. My noble friend is right to point out the important role that seafarers play in our economy and the necessity of improving protections. These clauses provide powers to require operators of frequent international services to the UK to meet certain standards on board their vessels in order to continue having access to UK ports without having to pay a surcharge or risking refusal of access. We will continue to engage at consultation stage with the trade unions representing seafarers and seafarer charities to ensure that the unique needs and voices of seafarers are represented in this process.
The noble Lords, Lord Whitty and Lord Fox, the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, and the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, raised issues concerning the fair work agency. Better enforcement against the non-compliant minority of businesses means that more workers will get their due and that businesses are on a level playing field. That is fair for business and fair for workers. We will discuss extensively with businesses and employers how to use this power most effectively, and take the view of the fair work agency’s tripartite advisory board. This will include discussing what to do when workers are unwilling to enforce their rights.
On inspecting umbrella companies, the Bill will bring umbrella companies’ activities that are not currently captured in existing frameworks within scope of state enforcement. This will allow the application to them of a bespoke regulatory framework, which will be set out in regulations and, in time, enforced by the fair work agency. We will consult on these regulations. I hope that this alleviates noble Lords’ concerns.
On the structure and actions of the fair work agency, it will subsume three existing agencies and additional functions from HMRC into one single body—so we are reducing the number of quangos, not adding to them, while increasing efficiency. The agency will take a balanced approach to enforcement. It will have strong powers that will enable it to take action against rogue employers that exploit their staff, and it will provide support to businesses to help them comply with the law.
The noble Lords, Lord Young of Acton and Lord Strathcarron, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bray, raised concerns about third-party harassment. Conduct that is merely upsetting or causes minor offence will not be sufficiently serious to meet the Equality Act 2010’s definition of harassment, which requires significantly more than that for it to be unlawful. It is not enough for the claimant to simply feel that someone’s conduct is offensive. There is an objective test in which the reasonableness and the facts of the individual situation will always be considered. The steps an employer can reasonably take in respect of third parties are clearly more limited than those for their employees. Employers will not be penalised for failing to anticipate the unforeseeable or to take other impractical steps. Likewise, any step that was disproportionate interference with a customer’s right to freedom of expression would not be reasonable. Therefore, we do not expect this Bill to have the chilling effect on free speech that the noble Lords envisage.
Several noble Lords, including my noble friends Lady Whittaker and Lady O’Grady, the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Morrissey and Lady Kramer, raised the issue of non-disclosure agreements. The Bill means that a provision in the NDA seeking to prevent a protected disclosure about sexual harassment will be unenforceable. An NDA entered into in respect of sexual harassment may still stand to protect confidentiality in other circumstances, such as requiring the employer to keep the identity of the worker and the details of the incident confidential. This is the case now and is not changed by this measure.
I respect noble Lords’ interest in this important topic, and we are progressing with some reforms through other legislative means. The Government are pressing ahead with plans to commence the provisions relevant to NDAs in the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 and in the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023. The provisions in the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023 that will, when commenced, ban NDAs for staff members, visiting speakers and students in cases of bullying, harassment—including sexual harassment—and intimidation were made by an amendment from this Government when in opposition, of which we remain proud. When commenced, Section 17 of the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 will ensure that confidentiality clauses, including those in non-disclosure agreements, cannot be legally enforced to the extent that they seek to prevent victims of crime reporting a crime, co-operating with regulators in relation to the crime, or accessing confidential advice and support.
I recognise the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, and my noble friend Lady Rafferty about the adult social care negotiating body, to be introduced by the Bill. The Government’s immediate work to support the social care sector will help to professionalise the workforce by expanding the national career structure, identifying and funding quality learning and development, and ensuring that there are progression and development opportunities so that people can build their careers in care.
To reassure noble Lords on the scope of the negotiating bodies, the bodies will be established through regulations, which will have the option to include more details on their remit and could include specifying that training and career progression are included. These regulations will follow further engagement and consultation with the sector.
I will address the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Burns, the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, and others on the political funds and the supposed contradiction between subscription traps and the reminder to opt out of a political fund. Subscription traps often occur when consumers are misled into signing a contract that they do not want through a free or reduced-price offer, or face unnecessary barriers to exit a contract. This is absolutely not akin to how trade union political funds work. The situations are not comparable.
A union is a collective of workers, and its political fund should be considered in that light. A union member should be aware of what their monthly fees will be, and that will include the political fund levy. The rate payable stays the same from day one; therefore, the member should know what they are paying and are free to opt out. There is no deadline after which their contribution rate will rise significantly. For opt-outs, the Bill will simply restore the position as it was before the passage of the Trade Union Act 2016. This has been the position for 70 years, and I am sure that noble Lords will understand that it is fair and definitely not the same as a subscription trap.
My noble friend Lord Prentis of Leeds raised the dispute involving Livv Housing in Knowsley. I hope that I can give him some reassurance on this issue. The Government are looking into how the pre-existing range of protections are currently operating and if and where the law may fall short. We are also conscious that this particular case has not been tested in the courts to see whether the existing law offers sufficient protection. The law on inducements and detriments is complex and needs to be carefully considered. I will continue to liaise with my noble friend on that issue.
This Bill is but the first part of the much wider make work pay agenda that this Government are endeavouring to implement. Many noble Lords have made vital contributions to this debate, suggesting reforms that go further than this Bill does now. The noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, and the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, proposed the creation of a commissioner for freelancers. My noble friend Lady Prosser proposed further action to tackle gender equality. The noble Baroness, Lady Penn, and my noble friend Lady Lister both raised the importance of reforms to parental leave. I respect these contributions and the desire to go further, but we must strike the right balance, while continuing to ensure that this remains a pro-worker, pro-business Bill. I stress that this is part of our bigger reforms under the ongoing make work pay agenda.
To conclude, this Bill is a crucial step towards the Government’s manifesto commitment to enhance workers’ rights and improve the lives of millions. Alongside our new industrial strategy, it will increase productivity and create the right conditions for long-term, sustainable and secure economic growth. This Bill is a testament to the Government’s resolve to improve workers’ rights, while levelling the playing field between good employers and less scrupulous ones. I urge all noble Lords to support the Bill.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole House, and that it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House that they consider the Bill in the following order: Clauses 1 to 4, Schedule 1, Clauses 5 and 6, Schedule 2, Clauses 7 to 23, Schedule 3, Clauses 24 to 35, Schedule 4, Clauses 36 to 53, Schedule 5, Clauses 54 to 57, Schedule 6, Clauses 58 to 87, Schedule 7, Clauses 88 to 128, Schedule 8, Clauses 129 to 132, Schedule 9, Clauses 133 to 146, Schedules 10 and 11, Clauses 147 to 149, Schedule 12, Clauses 150 to 157, Title.
Employment Rights Bill
Tuesday 29th April 2025
(10 months, 4 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Employment Rights Act 2025 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 81-I(a) Amendments for Committee (Supplementary to the Marshalled List) - (29 Apr 2025)
Lord Fox
“PurposeThe purpose of this Act is to—(a) improve the fairness and security of employment;(b) facilitate cooperative arrangements between employers and workers, including the protection of workers’ rights and wellbeing;(c) make provisions about pay and conditions in certain sectors; (d) facilitate constructive workplace relations between employers and workers representatives, including trade unions;(e) make provisions about the enforcement of labour market legislation.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment inserts a new Clause at the beginning of the Bill to set out its overarching purpose and provides a framework for understanding the aims of the legislation.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 1, I will also speak to Amendments 283 and 327.
In February 2023, Keir Starmer launched Labour’s five missions. The first is to get the UK’s economic growth to the highest sustained level in the G7 by the end of Labour’s first term. I need hardly remind your Lordships that it is with that mission, and the four others, that the Labour Party went on to win the general election with a majority. Since then, the Government have unwisely raised employers’ NICs and introduced this Bill. It is through those lenses that business views the Government’s attitude towards it.
Amendment 1 is an attempt to set this legislation in context, and I thank the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe of Epsom and Lord Hunt of Wirral, for also signing it. It was quite difficult to come up with wording that the PBO would let past its eagle eyes, but I am sure that the Minister will not find much of this objectionable. For example, proposed new paragraph (a) sets out the need for “fairness and security” as drivers for the Bill; I am sure the Minister will agree with that. Proposed new paragraph (c) is well represented in this Bill, as large parts of it set out new rules around trade unions.
However, I will spend some time discussing proposed new paragraphs (b) and (d). I cannot read this Bill without the feeling that it envisions just two states of employment—happy workers represented by unions and abject employees working in non-unionised concerns—but, of course, that is not true. Even in the very welcome conversations with the Minister, there seems to have been little recognition that the vast majority of people in this country are in employment where the facilitation of co-operation agreements between employers and workers is not automatically dependent on their union status. Let us remind ourselves that, for most people, those co-operative arrangements work pretty well, and that the proportion of UK employees who are trade union members is around 22% in this country. Constructive workplace relations can be forged in many ways other than via direct representation of employees by their unions.
When the Minister generously gave her time to meet with me on this Bill, she explained that discussions between government, employers’ organisations and the unions had been constructive and amicable. I am sure they were, but those selfsame employers’ organisations have also raised serious alarm over this Bill. The British Chambers of Commerce, the CBI, the IoD, the FSB and Make UK all sent a joint letter, which I am sure all noble Lords have received and read. The B5, as it is known, is not alone: all manner of industries—including hospitality, food and drink, and employment agencies—have raised serious concerns about the Bill. The telling phrase in the B5 letter is:
“For us the challenge has never been what the government wants to achieve, but the unintended consequences of how they implement it. Unfortunately, the Bill locks in several irreversible policy directions that will force business to make difficult choices between jobs, investment and growth”.
The Minister may well say that she is getting equally forceful lobbying from the unions. Indeed, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, will provide ample evidence of that with his later amendments. She may say that the Government are pitching this Bill in the middle of these respective positions—and she may claim, on that basis, that the Bill is in the right place. However, Governments are elected not to work out the average position of policy but to make the right decisions. I ask the Minister to take on board the concerns of business and, importantly, to recognise that there are issues in this Bill, which, if not addressed, will impede the Government’s chances of delivering their mission of economic growth.
Small and medium-sized enterprises are the backbone of the UK economy, accounting for a huge proportion of the business population and employing approximately 16.7 million people—around 61% of private sector employment, according to data from the Federation of Small Businesses. In that regard, the Minister should recognise that the impact of many of the measures in the Bill will disproportionately affect small and medium-sized businesses. These smaller businesses have neither the administrative horsepower nor the reservoir of human energy required to meet the collection of tasks that the Bill will introduce. Given their economic footprint and vital role in local communities, SMEs must be central to the purpose of the Employment Rights Bill. Placing SMEs at the heart of the Bill’s purpose offers an opportunity to foster better employment relations while supporting enterprise, resilience and long-term growth.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, briefly, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for bringing forward this important purpose clause amendment, which I must tell him—I know he is always surprised when I praise him—is a very cleverly worded amendment to which my noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom and I were very happy to add our support.
I do not know why this Bill has had to be rushed through within 100 days. Given the significance of this legislation, surely it would have been better if the Government had committed themselves to ensuring thorough and proper scrutiny. However, we have seen the introduction of 160 amendments on Report in the House of Commons—amendments which, in many cases, received no or little meaningful examination.
Even more concerning is the fact that the Government have tabled 27 amendments for Committee in this House. We have received a letter from the Minister warning us that there are more amendments in the pipeline on fire and rehire, the fair work agency, employment Bill time limits, trade union reform and maritime employment. What on earth is going on? Why was not this Bill properly prepared? This has meant that the letter to which the noble Lord, Lord Fox, referred is virtually saying to the House of Lords, “Please, on behalf of all the employers—and, indeed, all the businesses in the UK—we rely on you in the House of Lords to scrutinise this Bill properly”. I just do not think that this is the right way to treat Parliament. We owe it to the legislative process and to the public we serve to ensure that our scrutiny is neither rushed nor compromised.
No doubt the Minister will argue that a purpose clause is completely unnecessary. However, we respectfully disagree, and not only for the reasons raised by the noble Lord, Lord Fox. It is vital for the Bill clearly to articulate its overarching aims: not simply to modernise employment rights in name but to set out a clear ambition to create a fairer, more secure labour market; to encourage genuine co-operation between employers and workers; to protect rights and well-being in the workplace; to ensure proper standards for pay and conditions across sectors; and to guarantee robust enforcement of labour protections. I have to say that, without a purpose clause, this Bill risks being directionless and, worse, risks unintended consequences that neither workers nor businesses can possibly afford.
I think also—and I hope the noble Lord, Lord Fox, will agree—that a purpose clause is particularly important where there are a large number of delegated powers to make regulations within it. In effect, the Government are saying, “Please give us the power to do whatever we would like to do whenever we would like to do it”. The committees of this House have, time and again, urged Governments to turn their back on these Henry VIII clauses and present Parliament with clear cases to amend primary law, not do it through secondary legislation.
Well, there is growing concern about this Bill, which is why the British Chambers of Commerce, the Confederation of British Industry, Make UK, the Institute of Directors and, in particular, the Federation of Small Businesses, which between them represent thousands of businesses across the country, have published this open letter to the House of Lords, asking for urgent changes to the Bill. They did so because they are deeply concerned that, as drafted, the Bill will make it harder, not easier to create fair, secure and co-operative workplaces. They warn that the Bill will increase risk and uncertainty for businesses precisely at the moment when we need businesses to invest, to hire and support in particular those who are at the margins of the labour market.
I do not think that the substantive concerns of all the businesses quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, have been listened to. I just hope that the Minister can respond when she winds up this debate. I look forward to the speeches from all sides of the House. I will not quote in detail from the letter, but it does remind me of the words of Milton Friedman. If I am ever to find myself quoting Milton Friedman, I suppose that this is the moment. He said:
“One of the great mistakes is to judge policies and programmes by their intentions rather than their results”.
Well, fine phrases about modernising employment rights and updating legislation are no substitute for carefully considered, properly scrutinised measures that deliver real-world improvement. So that letter from all those businesses is not a warning but a plea to this House. It is a recognition that we as the revising Chamber have a unique and critical responsibility to ensure that this Bill works. They are not closing the door on the Government but offering, at the end of the letter, to work with us all and with Ministers to help improve legislation.
In conclusion, if we are to get all these amendments, can we hear from the Minister how many more amendments we are going to get and when? The Government Chief Whip is constantly referring us to the Companion. I have never quoted from the Companion before, but it has pretty severe words for a Government who choose to table amendments at the last moment, without proper notice. So could we hear from the Minister what further amendments are planned, when we will receive them, and which parts of the Bill will be fundamentally altered? Here we are, at the start of Committee, still not knowing what the Government are proposing.
In an unguarded moment, the Minister disclosed to me that she has an implementation plan, which I understood from her was in draft. This House ought to see the draft implementation plan. Why can we not see it? Perhaps we could help the Minister produce the final draft. We should not get an implementation plan half way through Committee. Could we hear from the Minister on when we will see the implementation plan? A lot of businesses up and down the length and breadth of this country are totally uncertain about what the detail of this Bill will be. It is about time that we heard from the Minister about what the Bill seeks to do, what its purpose is and whether we can see it in its full form before we go any further with Committee.
Lord Monks (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 1 and avoid the temptation to engage in a mini-debate across the whole width. So far, I feel I have been sitting in a Second Reading debate. I have given speeches in this House before, reflecting similar sentiments to those in this amendment about fairness and co-operation. These are the words used in the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Fox. I gave them in the context of the debates on Conservative anti-union laws, which we have addressed in this House in my time. Sadly, no one on the Conservative Benches, except for the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, who is in his place, paid any heed. The laws then proceeded to the statute book and the result was an imbalance in British employment law very much in favour of employers.
The Bill goes some way towards correcting that. Once it has been implemented, I hope we can look again at a system of mature collective bargaining of which we all can be proud. But first, we must replace the imbalance, and do so speedily, because it is glaring. Change is desperately needed; our labour market is characterised by high inequality—only two OECD countries have a bigger gap between rich and poor and between top earners and the very low-paid.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)
My Lords, I am generally somewhat nervous about purpose clauses, but I can see the argument in the case of this Bill, because there is a lot of confusion about what it is trying to achieve. Indeed, it serves to highlight the incoherence of this Government’s approach to generating economic growth, because it places far too much of a burden on businesses and will deter them from innovating, recruiting and investing in skills training, which we know is so very important right now.
That is particularly pronounced within the tech sector, which is one of the Government’s priority sectors because it has the potential to drive a vast amount of growth, but it is also one where we need to do far more to encourage investment so that our homegrown tech firms can scale and compete around the world. We must not forget that investors have a choice as to where they invest, and they will not go to countries where the costs are higher.
Although it is not properly an interest to declare, it is perhaps worth reminding your Lordships that until very recently, I chaired the Communications and Digital Select Committee of your Lordships’ House, and during my term in the chair we looked at the tech sector quite a bit, as noble Lords would expect. Our final inquiry was about scaling up in AI and creative tech.
I am sure the Minister, who is also a DSIT Minister, has seen that techUK, the industry’s trade body, has this morning raised some genuine concerns about the Bill. Its website says:
“With no economic modelling underpinning these proposals, businesses are being asked to shoulder new burdens without a clear understanding of the impact. There is a growing risk that entrenched positions will lead to a worst-case outcome, one that stifles innovation and investment in jobs. This is counter to the government’s pro-growth mission. We urgently call for further discussion and refinement to ensure the Bill supports businesses and protects workers”.
Alongside techUK, the Startup Coalition, which focuses specifically on start-ups, says in its briefing note on the Bill that it is concerned that without careful tailoring, the barriers the Bill currently introduces into hiring and scaling at the early stages of business development could undermine the start-up ecosystem and the economic growth it drives.
I do not know whether I would have succeeded had I tried to do this, given what my noble friend said about the punctiliousness of the Table Office—and I would be interested to hear more from my noble friend about this—but I suggest that any purpose clause also refers to growth and competitiveness. When the Minister winds up, I would welcome her explanation of how this Bill supports the Government’s growth agenda.
I know, from talking to a range of tech firms and businesses from all sectors and of all sizes, that while they all support good employment practices and condemn those firms that do not uphold high standards—as do I—there is frustration that the good employers are paying the price, literally, for the poor conduct of the bad. For them, the Bill represents a desire by the Government to do something to them that makes it even harder for them to create the economic growth that the Government have promised the electorate and, indeed, their workers. Let us be clear: it is business, not government, that generates economic growth.
As I say, a purpose clause has some merit in the context of this Bill, but I would like growth and competitiveness to feature within it. If we were to do that in the purpose clause and get some agreement from the Minister up front today, that would help to shape the Bill as we go through Committee, so that it actually delivers on what I think it is trying to do: to ensure that there are good employment practices that support economic growth and competitiveness.
Baroness O’Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)
My Lords, I admit that I am a little perplexed by Amendment 1, particularly in the light of the latest TUC-commissioned poll that was published last night. Not only is the Bill popular with the public, including a majority of Conservative and Reform voters, but, when they are faced with robust arguments against its key provisions, the Bill becomes even more popular with voters.
I am not sure that your Lordships or the public need this amendment to know that the Bill is about fairness, security and the right to an independent voice at work. The public are already well aware and, frankly, appalled that, under the previous Government, low pay and insecurity became mainstream in British working life. They want change.
Underlying this amendment—this might be my suspicious mind—is the worry that it is really about undermining the role of independent trade unions in representing workers’ interests. The ILO uses the term “workers’ organisations” for a reason. International law upholds the right to collective bargaining and freedom of association. Independent trade unions are workers’ best chance of getting their rights enforced and built on for better pay, safer workplaces, training opportunities and family-friendly hours, and they provide a democratic voice at work.
Without repeating the arguments from Second Reading, I encourage your Lordships to look at the evidence about just how far Britain has fallen behind other countries in employment protection, and how giving ordinary working people a stronger collective voice can help deliver more responsible businesses and a healthier and more equal society.
I encourage the noble Lord, Lord Fox, to cast his mind back to Labour’s introduction of a national minimum wage. He may remember that the Conservative Party and the business lobby said that a national minimum wage would cause mass unemployment and that businesses would collapse. In reality, the national minimum wage is now widely respected as one of Britain’s most successful policies. It has made a difference to millions of working lives in the teeth of opposition from the business lobby at the time. It is worth remembering that.
I end by saying that it is time to get on with and get behind the Bill, so that Britain takes the high road to improving business productivity by treating workers fairly, as human beings and not just commodities.
Lord Balfe (Con)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to address a quorate meeting of the TUC General Council. I should declare an interest at the beginning: I am the honorary president of BALPA, the British Airline Pilots Association, a union that covers all the people who fly you on holiday and back again. Its motto or strapline for many years was
“every flight a safe flight”.
It regarded its job as to deal not only with the members but with safety. In dealing with the companies that we dealt with and still deal with, aircraft safety and looking after passengers was as much at the front of our mission as anything to do with pay and conditions. Of course, we were interested in them—we were a trade union, after all—but we were a responsible trade union. I stand on this side of the House pretty convinced that probably a majority of the members of BALPA support this party. Let me remind the House why.
Most people do not join a trade union for any political purpose. They often join, as I did at the age of 16, because it is there. Nowadays, most trade unions, particularly the better ones, have a free legal advice service and will get you a discount on your car insurance. I have told this story once before, I think, but at a point when we had a silly dispute between my family and the bursar of our local private school, I rang up the union solicitor and he drafted me a letter to send to the bursar very quickly. I apologised and said, “I am sorry. I dare say this is not what you are normally here for”. I will always remember his reply. He said, “Mr Balfe”, for I was that in those days, “we are not here to judge our membership. We are here to help them”. At the basis of virtually every trade union official and action is the desire to help the membership. Nobody I know regards going on strike as anything other than a defeat, because it means the members do not get paid, you often lose pension entitlement, and you lose your wages. You know, people go to work to get their work done, to get a reasonable wage.
I always had a lot of time for a person who is almost unmentionable in modern politics, Edward Heath, because I thought that he came nearer to understanding the TU movement than probably any leader of the Conservative Party and maybe any leader overall. Indeed, I remember when I was a much younger trade union person in the 1960s asking a group of Conservatives who they thought was the best Secretary of State for Labour there had ever been. The result was unanimous: Sir Walter Monckton, Conservative Minister under Churchill, was reckoned to be the one who listened to them the most. You always have to have a runner-up in these things just in case one falls down, and that was Iain Macleod.
Baroness Carberry of Muswell Hill (Lab)
My Lords, I follow on from the excellent points that have been made by my noble friends on this side of the Committee by addressing, perhaps more specifically, the letter of Amendment 1. I preface my remarks by saying that I might be new to this, but I am a bit puzzled because I thought that the Benches opposite did not like purpose clauses. In the past, when Labour proposed such clauses, there was some push-back, and this side has been accused of poor practice and of risking provoking unintended consequences.
My main problem with the proposed new clause is that the list provided is not exhaustive and understates the Government’s ambition with this Bill. If we were to put our heads together to produce an exhaustive list of purposes, perhaps we might include the purpose that the Bill helps give effect to the Government’s manifesto promise to make work pay. We might also want to add that the ambition is to help stimulate economic growth, building on the extensive international evidence we have that shows that labour market protections lead to improved economic outcomes, including higher productivity. We might also want to mention that the Bill aims to end exploitative practices and redress the balance between employer and worker, and that it seeks to modernise trade union legislation.
My general point is that perhaps we do not need such an extensive list. I invite the noble Lord, Lord Fox, to clarify for us in his response in what way a non-exhaustive list, as provided in this amendment, is any better in advancing understanding of the intentions of the Bill than no list at all.
Lord Hendy (Lab)
My Lords, I too rise to address Amendment 1. It is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lady Carberry. I am not clear about the purpose of Amendment 1. It seems to me that the Government have laid out the purpose of the Bill in the Long Title. It has been given a very Long Title that sets out its ambit.
What I am clear about, however, is the need for this Bill. Last August, a report by Professor Deakin and Dr Barbakadze of Cambridge University, Falling Behind on Labour Rights, stated that
“on almost every measure of employment protection, the UK is significantly behind the average for other countries in the Organisation for Economic Development and Cooperation (OECD), 38 countries generally understood to be those with a high level of economic and social development globally … As they stand, labour laws in the UK are barely half as protective as those found in France and significantly below other notable European countries … This strongly suggests that there is significant scope for improvement before British labour law is even close to matching that of our nearest neighbours”.
My noble friend Lord Monks mentioned inequality in the United Kingdom in comparison with other countries. The OECD has also considered that. It currently ranks Britain as the eighth most unequal of 40 major economies in terms of income inequality. Among EU member states, only Bulgaria and Lithuania are more unequal than the United Kingdom. The European Participation Index ranks the degree of worker participation in business decision-making in different European countries. The UK is rated 26th out of 28, with lower participation than all countries except Latvia and Estonia.
There are many other metrics by which the current state of play can be judged, and the status quo is simply not acceptable. I will not mention them all, but I will mention just three. First, median pay in this country is currently just over £600 a week. Median does not mean average; it means the pay point of half the working population. In other words, half of workers earn less than just over £600 a week, although half earn more than that. Secondly, of those on universal credit, 37% are actually in work. Thirdly, we find that 6.8 million people are in insecure work; three-quarters of them—that is, some 5 million workers—are in what is described as “severely insecure” work.
The Bill does not do all that I think it should. I had the honour to serve as the legal adviser on the working party that drew up A New Deal for Working People. It is clear that there are major differences. In later debates in Committee, I will seek to move some amendments to redress some of what I consider to be the shortcomings. Overall, however, the need for the Bill is simply unarguable. We cannot go on in the way that we are at present, with workers denied a voice at work, working in insecure conditions and on extremely low pay. The Bill will go a long way to assist in putting that right.
Lord Empey (UUP)
My Lords, I hope this Bill does not turn into a Punch and Judy show between employers on one side and organisations and trade unions on the other, because it obviously has a number of meritorious proposals. However, the forensic introduction to the amendment by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, illustrates that this piece of legislation is a work in progress. I understand why the Government deem it so important, but they have to concede that a lot of it is being done on the hoof, which is undermining the Government’s position.
I had the privilege of being Employment Minister in Belfast for three and a half years, and I worked very closely with business and trade unions during that period. The last piece of legislation I did had the racy title—I am sure the Minister would be very happy to adopt it—of the Employment (No. 2) Bill. It is the sort of thing that lets the blood course through your veins. But the one area where we have failed as a country for years and years is skills. We talk about it, we have apprenticeship models, we have this, that and the other, yet we still have not solved the problem. We got rid of the old-style tecs, colleges and so on, and we have been stuck in a rut ever since.
It is obvious that there have been abuses and insecurity, and there is no point in trying to deny that; I listened carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Monks, had to say. However, there is something that I feel a bit concerned about. We live in a world where, by and large, the major trade unions operate with large employers, whether it is the public sector or big organisations, but the bulk of the industry—the bulk of the growth in employment and everything else—comes from small businesses and micro businesses, and they do not have the capacity or the risk-taking capability in how and when they employ people.
It strikes me that there is a risk of issues creeping into what we are trying to do in this country that could have the unintended consequence of making it less likely for people to employ individuals. We have to look at the international situation. We cannot ignore what is going on. There is a revolution taking place that is having a negative effect. We also have the employer national insurance contribution. We cannot ignore that either; it is a big deal.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I am speaking from the Back Benches to make two brief points. I apologise for not speaking at Second Reading.
First, if we have to have a purpose clause—it is not an approach that I particularly favour—it has to include a reference to competitiveness, growth and perhaps, as the noble Baroness, Lady Carberry of Muswell Hill, has suggested, productivity. Does the Minister agree?
Secondly, like my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral, I am shocked at the number of government amendments made to the Bill at such a late stage, and to legislation that is so important to all parts of business, all employers in the public sector and of course all employees, and their representatives, whom the noble Lord, Lord Monks, rightly referenced.
I have some sympathy for the Minister. I had a similar experience with the Procurement Act, although it was not quite as bad because we had consulted extensively, and it was a Lords starter. But like this Bill, it was introduced before it was ready and needed a large number of amendments. As the responsible Minister, I was very keen to listen to criticism of the detail and respond by agreeing to amendments or tabling government amendments that responded to the genuine difficulties, and I think there are genuine difficulties with this Bill. We worked across the House very well and I hope the noble Baroness will consult her Front-Bench colleagues, the noble Baronesses, Lady Chapman and Lady Hayman of Ullock, who engaged constructively in scrutiny on all the procurement detail.
Another good example is the minimum wage legislation referenced by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady. I remember when I was at Tesco persuading the then Labour Government that they should not include a requirement to put the national minimum wage on all payslips. It was going to cost us millions and require a change in our IT systems. Labour listened and the implementation of the Act went more smoothly as a result. It is very important to listen to the practicalities when making these changes. They can affect different parts of the Bill in different ways.
Finally, we have heard a lot about Europe and comparisons with Europe. I have spent a lot of time in Europe, but I would be interested to hear also about what is going on in the growing markets of Asia and—I suppose until more recently—the growing market of the United States.
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
My Lords, I will speak briefly to Amendment 1 from the noble Lords, Lord Fox, Lord Sharpe and Lord Hunt. Paragraph (c) would
“make provisions about pay and conditions in certain sectors”.
My noble friend Lady Stowell of Beeston made some very good points about the tech sector—those entrepreneurs and businesses of the future. It was very important to hear what she had to say. However, I wish to stand up for the hospitality sector. Do any of the Members opposite know what it is like to run a hospitality sector business and the challenges of employing people to cater and serve in that sector?
UKHospitality recently launched the social productivity index, which shows that the hospitality sector is also a key driver in socially productive growth, not only contributing to economic expansion but fostering social mobility and regional development. With 57% of the workforce working 30 hours or fewer per week, the sector offers flexible employment options that make it particularly accessible to students, carers and parents—I do not know how many noble Lords in this Chamber today at some stage in their career worked in hospitality, but it is an excellent first opportunity to get into the world of work.
Unfortunately, in broad terms, the proposed changes in the latest set of amendments to the Bill seem destined to result in a framework of requirements that are more likely to hinder than to promote growth in the hospitality sector. In particular, without further addressing the concerns of businesses and considering alternative options, it is felt that the Bill is likely to lead to reductions in staff recruitment, the rate of wage growth and the level of investment. The Bill looks likely to hinder hospitality businesses and restrict growth. It seems to assume that all employers are bad actors with regards to their dealings with their staff. This is patently not the case for the majority of businesses, which recognise the need to recruit and retain staff and ensure they are supported and secure at work.
There still appears to be a disregard for seasonal business models and unpredictable trading in sectors such as pubs and wider hospitality businesses, which are required to adapt quickly to changes in trade patterns determined, for example, by weather or other events outside their control. A reduction in businesses’ ability to respond quickly and proactively to changing demand will undoubtedly result in higher operating costs. That will naturally need to be met by either increasing prices, reducing other staff costs or reducing investment.
These impacts are compounded by the Budget announcements on employer NICs and national living wage rates. Spiralling employment costs will be exacerbated by the additional cost and administrative burdens that the Bill will layer on top, all impacting investment and growth. The unintended consequences of this Bill are slower wage growth and recruitment. I am sure the Minister does not intend that to be the case. Can she reassure the Committee that it will not be the case if the Bill goes ahead as it is?
Lord Moynihan of Chelsea (Con)
My Lords, I support this important amendment and endorse the serious concerns just now expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, and my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral. I declare my interests as a businessman, an entrepreneur and an investor.
The noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady of Upper Holloway, questioned the need for a stated purpose for the Bill. I am not sure what the logic is there: the most likely reason for a Bill having no purpose is a lack of clarity by its sponsors as to what they are trying to achieve. The noble Baroness, Lady Carberry of Muswell Hill, complains that the list stated in the amendment is non-exhaustive, which I agree with, and then somehow jumps to the conclusion that no list at all would be preferable. Again, I am afraid the logic of that escapes me.
I am far less experienced than my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe, but I feel that there is always an obvious advantage in having a purpose clause. In the case of this Bill, I am sure the Government must agree that those who will face the task of interpreting the meaning of the Bill in the future should be given as much clarity as possible, through a purpose clause, as to why the Bill was passed and what its purpose was. Courts in the future will far prefer to have a lucid statement of what the new law sets out to accomplish, rather than being given too wide latitude and freedom to interpret the Bill in this way or that. So I commend the overall objective of the noble Lord, Lord Fox, and hope that the amendment, or similar, will form part of the eventual Bill.
This very lengthy Bill will, if passed without a purposes section, be more open to abuses of the extensive powers it contains. This amendment would put a few appropriate, albeit modest, restraints on the ability of a Government to go too far in applying these powers. To be clear, this proposed purpose clause from the noble Lord, Lord Fox, is just a start and, for me, not completely satisfactory by any means. The list is indeed not exhaustive. In addition, the additional amendments would burden companies with yet another compliance code of conduct, which will serve to send sensible non-executives screaming from the room and possibly off to Dubai. We have to let boards focus on managing their businesses, serving their customers and making sure it is a well-run business, not having to implement new compliance code after new compliance code that will only ever be observed with lip service.
On this point of a non-exhaustive list, I wish to add to the list of purposes of the Bill, in addition to the wording that my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe suggested, an additional purpose of supporting, improving and not reducing flexibility in employment relationships. We will move on to the issue of flexibility in the next group of amendments, so I will not expand on that point here, but I recommend the addition of that purpose, as well as the wording proposed by my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe, to the list in Amendment 1.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, I have never been much enamoured with purpose clauses, although they are a convenient way of having an early debate on the principles of a Bill before we get stuck into the detail. Indeed, we can see that the opportunity and attraction of another Second Reading debate is irresistible to noble Lords. Part of the reason is probably that when we have Second Readings nowadays, at most about four minutes are allowed, but when we get into Committee we have 10 minutes, which is a wonderful way of proceeding.
The noble Lord, Lord Fox, has tried to encompass the Government’s aims for the Bill in his wording of Amendment 1, but in doing so he has not covered the whole content of the Bill. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Carberry, on that, although we probably will not agree on much else during the passage of the Bill. For example, Clause 75 repeals the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023, which we knew the party opposite hated when we enacted it. That Act empowered employers to set minimum service levels in a few defined public services so that service users, such as NHS patients and commuters, did not have to suffer the massive disruption that we have seen inflicted by the unions that are active in the public sector. Repeal of the 2023 Act takes away the power to protect public service users, and does nothing that fits within the purposes put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, in his Amendment 1. Does that mean that Clause 75 should not be in the Bill? If not, what is the purpose of a purpose clause? Perhaps the noble Lord can answer that.
Lord Frost (Con)
My Lords, I support Amendment 1, although possibly not for quite the same reasons as those already expressed in this Chamber, and I regret I was not able to speak at Second Reading.
When dealing with a purpose clause, one cannot avoid spending a moment dwelling on the broader principles behind the Bill before coming to the amendment itself. It is worth noting that one of the reasons the British economy has surprised so many people over the last decade or so on the upside, despite all the gloomy predictions, is because it is an extremely flexible and responsive economy, particularly in the labour market. Most indices of these things put us in the global top 10 of labour market flexibility, which I regard as a good thing, although clearly many noble Lords who have spoken do not.
There is a paradox here, in that flexibility is the best way of delivering security—maybe not in any individual job, but security of employment and income over a period. The Government seem to think that the only way to ensure job security is to put in place more and more intrusive and detailed legislation to require it. That is why we are going to be discussing, no doubt at great length and with huge complexity, this massive Bill which tries to do just that. It is damaging that the Bill is being made up as it goes along to such a large extent; it just multiplies the complexity and difficulty.
I do not think that is the right way to look at job security. The best way to look at it is that flexibility produces security. If it is easier to change the terms and conditions of a job, or easier to dismiss people if they do not fit, then it is also easier to re-employ or shift resources from low-productivity to high-productivity sectors and to deliver growth in the economy. The approach in the Bill protects insiders at the expense of entrepreneurs and those who are outside the labour market, so it is not surprising that the representatives of trade unions are so supportive of it. The trade unions represent the insiders, but they are not the only people who have an interest in labour market flexibility.
I make these points because they go to the difficulty of drafting a satisfactory purpose clause for this Bill. It is desirable to have a purpose clause for something that is so complex and sprawling in the way it tries to legislate. The noble Lord, Lord Fox, has written it as cleverly and clearly as he possibly could in the circumstances. It is cleverly written, but the difficulty is not so much that it is not sufficiently exhaustive but that it contradicts the contents of the Bill. It sets out a number of things which the Bill simply does not do. For example, in paragraph (a) of the proposed new clause, it talks about “fairness”. Well, that may be fairness for employees on one definition but not for employers or those who are outside the formal labour market. Whose fairness are we talking about?
Paragraphs (b) and (d) in the proposed new clause do not “facilitate”—to use the word in the amendment—good labour relations; they actually make them more bureaucratic, complicated, difficult and hard to implement. Paragraph (c) makes provision for pay and conditions but, arguably, it should not be doing that at all—that is not the business of the Government but the business of employers and employees. The only one that is an accurate description of what is in the Bill is paragraph (e), the simple statement that it is to
“make provisions about the enforcement of labour market legislation”,
which it certainly does.
I am not sure that there is a satisfactory way of dealing with this. Nevertheless, I support this purpose clause amendment, because it seems to me that if it were to pass, the logical consequence, to be consistent, would be that large parts of the rest of the Bill would have to fall away to be consistent with the expressed purpose in this purpose clause. If the Bill were to be internally consistent with the things that we say are desirable, then much of this Bill is simply not consistent with that. Now, what goes first—the purpose clause or the rest of the Bill? I think we know how that is going to play out. Nevertheless, that is why it is difficult to get to a satisfactory purpose clause for this Bill. It would be good if much of the Bill fell away—no doubt we will come on to that in the next seven days—as it is going to cause a lot of damage to the economy and to growth.
To conclude, I support the amendment, if not perhaps for exactly the same reasons that others have supported it. It will enhance and make clearer, to some extent, what is a very sprawling, complex and unsatisfactory Bill.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to all of the amendments in the group. I spoke at Second Reading. As my noble friend Lady Noakes pointed out, we only had four to five minutes then, so this gives us an opportunity to consider further what the purposes should be. In the document published by the Labour Government, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Business and Trade referred to the fact that this would be about getting more people into work. So far under this Administration, we have, unfortunately and regrettably, seen unemployment rise.
At the same time, comments have been made by noble Lords on the other side, such as by the noble Lord, Lord Monks, who referred to income inequality. What he may have forgotten is that, under the previous Labour Administration, income inequality rose. Meanwhile, under the recent Conservative Administration, income inequality fell. So, this is a case of trying to make sure that, as we take the legislation through, we focus on the outcomes it will have for people right across this country, rather than dogma. There is a combination of factors where, frankly, flexible labour has generally improved the prosperity of people in this country.
The noble Lord, Lord Hendy, complained that people in work were on universal credit. That is a large point of it. We have finally got rid of tax credits, which went earlier this month. Those had been introduced by previous Labour Governments in order to increase people’s pay—which employers were not doing. It was done in a rather crude way, such that capital was not taken into account. When we were moving people from tax credits to universal credit, we discovered—particularly early on, when we were doing some of our test and learn approach—that there were people with capital of over £100,000 who were still receiving tax credits and who decided that, although they would be entitled to one more year of such a transition payment, they did not think it was right to do so.
It is about that sort of element, of trying to consider what we want to see as an increase in prosperity and productivity. However, I am concerned, given the recent increase in unemployment and all the messages that we are receiving from businesses, small and large, that we will instead start to see a significant increase in unemployment and indeed more people going on to benefits. As I say, the whole point of universal credit is that you will be better off working than not working. The approach is to try and support people as they reach higher salaries.
My noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe is right to say that, if we were considering further things to add to the proposed new clause set out in Amendment 1, competitiveness and growth should be there. I would add that the outcome should also be about increasing the number of people in employment. I know that the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has set an exceptionally ambitious target of 80% of people being in work—which would be the highest in an exceptionally long time—but, to do that, she needs to work with other parts of her Government to make sure that more jobs will be created, so that people can go into those jobs at the rate that is set.
After thinking through what will happen with this legislation, I made the point at Second Reading that the Bill started off at 149 pages—and I am conscious of the 100-day deadline set by the Deputy Prime Minister to present it—and that it had basically doubled by the time it left the Commons. Not a huge amount of time was set aside for consideration of the additional 103 pages that were considered on Report there. As we have already heard, we are starting to see more amendments come in from the Government that this House needs to consider.
Baroness Meyer (Con)
My Lords, I, too, support what the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, and the noble Lord, Lord Frost, said. I too am very worried about this Bill and its outcome, which be to kill job creation, drive away investments and slow economic growth. It could drive unemployment, fuel inflation and trigger social unrest. It risks taking us back to the economic chaos of the 1970s, when trade unions held the country to ransom.
Back then, strikes paralysed the country. Businesses went bust and the UK entered a period of stagnation and crisis known as the “winter of discontent”. Some of us are old enough to remember it. Inflation soared to 24% in 1975. The economy flattened. The country was forced to beg the IMF for a bailout of around £3.9 billion; that is worth around £20 billion today. I remember the queues, the power cuts and the garbage piling up in the streets. I remember the feeling of helplessness as Britain slid deeper into decline.
Most of all, I remember the humiliation of seeing our great nation ranked as one of the worst-performing economies in Europe. While France and Germany grew richer, we grew poorer. Our reputation was in tatters and we were known as the “sick man of Europe”. It took bold leadership and tough decisions to turn the tide. That leadership came in the form of Margaret Thatcher. Love her or hate her, she saved Britain from economic collapse. She imposed the discipline that was needed to rebuild our economy and restore our standing in the world.
See where we are now. As has been pointed out, if we have consistently outperformed many European countries in recovering faster from the financial crisis and the pandemic, it is because of the flexibility of our economy. Do we really want to follow the French example, where unemployment rates are at 7.4%, with youth unemployment at 19.2%? That is a result of high labour costs, rigid laws, excessive bureaucracy, early retirement and overly strong—
Baroness Meyer (Con)
Unions; thank you. Remove flexibility and you remove opportunity. This will especially attack young people looking for their first job. We will end up with more workers’ rights but fewer jobs. That is why we need to examine this Bill and take account of all of the amendments—or, possibly, just scrap the Bill altogether.
Lord Katz (Lab)
I remind noble Lords that we are in Committee, not at Second Reading. We have heard a few speeches now that have strayed a little from the precise content of the amendments that we are speaking to. I urge noble Lords to concentrate on those amendments rather than making Second Reading speeches so that we can get on and make progress.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
My Lords, I support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for reasons of transparency and clarity. As we have heard today, there is too much being added to the Bill. We have not had proper sight of the Government’s amendments until it is too late. How can any business plan for the future with this hotchpotch of a Bill changing by the day?
On top of that, I echo what my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe said and I would add a competitiveness and growth purpose here. We had it in the Financial Services and Markets Act. It helps to focus people’s minds on the law, on the overall purpose, on what we mean by the economy we run and on what its aims are.
I cannot agree with the noble Lords opposite who point out, with different conclusions, that our labour laws are streets behind those of European countries. Like the noble Lord, Lord Fox, I believe that the dynamism in Britain’s economy is due to it being a competitive market economy—one that has historically been open to trade and competes and, for that reason, can offer job security and good wages on a competitive basis. Part of that is a flexible labour market.
I am worried that this Bill—particularly given that the purpose is not economic growth and competitiveness—will stultify and freeze growth and, as a consequence, the labour market. The people who will suffer will be workers themselves, who will not get jobs or job security. For these reasons, I support the noble Lord, Lord Fox.
I close by remembering a German economist who worked under Chancellor Merkel in her global economics department at the time of the discussions around whether Britain would remain in the EU or leave it. This economist implored Britain to stay, because, without Britain, Europe would have a frozen economy, its labour market would lack dynamism and its competitiveness with the wider world—with the Asian and global markets—would stultify. It therefore seems very bizarre that we are trying to put the clock back on labour market legislation and stop the flexibility which should be at the heart of any dynamic market economy.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 283 and 327 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Fox. I note that my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral has dealt with the purpose clause in Amendment 1 very comprehensively, so I will say no more on that. I remind the Government Front Bench that it was the noble Lord, Lord Monks, who opened the attacks on Margaret Thatcher. My noble friend is perfectly within her rights to defend the great lady’s record.
There is a growing troubling feeling in many of the businesses that we have spoken to, across sectors, regions and sizes, that the Government see them not as partners in growth or employers to be supported but, as my noble friend Lord Evans of Rainow, noted, as bad actors to be restrained. The sense is that the Government have concluded that virtually all businesses cannot be trusted to do the right thing, and so they are pressing ahead with a centrally planned, top-down approach to employment reform. It is an approach that prioritises control over co-operation, uniformity over flexibility and ideology over evidence. This approach does not benefit businesses: it burdens them with cost and complexity; it strips away the flexibility on which many sectors rely, especially those with seasonal, part-time or rapidly evolving workforces; and it will impede their functionality.
The noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, said that this Bill is popular, but it is not popular with the Federation of Small Businesses, the British Chambers of Commerce, the CBI, the Institute of Directors, Make UK, nor the Recruitment and Employment Confederation—and, as we have learned from my noble friend Lady Stowell, it is not popular with techUK. They have all raised serious concerns and called for urgent changes.
If there is a groundswell of support out there, it is an incredibly well-kept secret. If there is a group of employers which believe that these changes will make them more confident to hire, invest and grow, we have yet to meet them. Judging by the open letters, briefings and consultations that have been submitted to Parliament, neither have the Ministers opposite. Let us not pretend that this Bill is being driven by the demands of business, because it is not.
I move on to the amendments. The Government claim that this Bill is about protecting workers, but it is time that we recognised that protection cannot come at the cost of opportunity. For many workers, the most important protection is the ability to get a foot on the ladder, gain experience, build skills and find stable, long-term employment.
In that regard, I commend the noble Lord, Lord Fox, on his Amendment 283. I agree with my noble friend Lady Noakes that, in some ways, it risks creating a monster, but I think that, in this case, and because of the nature of this Bill, it will be a friendly monster, because it will at least provide some certainty. As we know, and as anyone who has had a conversation with businesses will tell you, businesses crave certainty more than anything else. The fact that the code of practice is written as it is reflects the complexities in the Bill, the vast array of delegated powers that the Government are about to award themselves and, of course, the lack of certainty.
The noble Lord is entirely right to focus his attention on SMEs. It is worth reminding the Committee that 48% of business turnover and 60% of employment is accounted for by SMEs. In many cases, they will be the businesses without extensive HR departments to help them interpret the facts in this Bill. Therefore, the Government will have to do it for them. This is not perfect, but it deals with the main issues. We would prefer to see no need for this amendment, but, because of the other factors that I have mentioned—the delegated powers and so on—we have no choice.
We need a framework that recognises the diversity of business models, the pressures that employers face and the legitimate role that they play in building opportunity. This is not an employers versus workers situation. We are all committed to improving workers’ rights but we must do so in a way that is realistic, pragmatic and supportive of the broader economy. Without that, we risk achieving the opposite of what we intend: fewer jobs, more uncertainty, greater barriers for the people we are trying to help and, frankly, less equality.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Information and Technology (Baroness Jones of Whitchurch) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for his detailed engagement with our Bill and for Amendments 1, 283 and 327. I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this wide-ranging debate, which has revisited many of the debates that we had at Second Reading.
Amendment 1 seeks to insert a new clause of the beginning of the Bill to set out the overarching purpose and to provide a framework for understanding the aims of the legislation. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for his challenge on this issue, but it is important to reflect on why we are bringing the Bill forward and what we hope to achieve through it.
The plan to make work pay sets out a significant and ambitious agenda to ensure that workplace rights are fit for the modern economy, to empower working people and, importantly, to contribute to economic growth. Delivery of that plan was, as we have heard, a manifesto commitment and part of the mandate on which the Labour Government were elected. On 10 October, the Government fulfilled their manifesto commitment to bring forward legislation within 100 days of entering office by introducing the Employment Rights Bill.
The noble Lords, Lord Fox and Lord Hunt, and others have asked about the later amendments that have been tabled. I reassure noble Lords that these are technical amendments and that the Committee will have adequate opportunity to scrutinise them all properly. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and others asked about an implementation plan. I reassure noble Lords that that will be shared as soon as it is available. We agree that businesses need guidance on the timescale and implementation of the measures in this Bill. We are working at pace to ensure that they have that information.
There is strong support for the measures included in the Bill. The Institute for Public Policy Research found that every constituency in the UK has a majority or plurality of people who believe that workers’ rights should be strengthened. My noble friend Lady O’Grady mentioned the latest poll. In addition, the TUC’s polling and that of HOPE not hate of over 21,000 people across the political spectrum has found strong support for key policies in the Bill. More than seven in 10 of UK voters—72%—support a ban on zero-hours contracts. Three-quarters of voters support giving all workers the right to statutory sick pay and ensuring that it is paid from the first day. Three-quarters of voters support giving all workers protection from unfair dismissal from the first day in their job.
This is a comprehensive Bill which delivers on a clear mandate from the British public. Once implemented, the Bill will represent the biggest upgrade of workers’ rights in a generation. Good employers support this package, because many of them are already delivering these standards. What they do not want is to be undercut on an uneven playing field.
I can give a few examples; I know the Opposition like to ask this question. Centrica, the Co-op, Richer Sounds, Nationwide, IVC Evidensia and IKEA UK and Ireland have all given their support to the measures in the Bill, and a lot of SMEs have done likewise, so it does have resonance with the business community.
Modernising the world of work will raise standards and tackle undercutting so that businesses are empowered to compete in a race to the top. I can reassure noble Lords that the Government, of course, recognise the concerns about the costs to business. The £5 billion figure from our impact assessment is a top-end estimate of the costs, which will largely represent a direct transfer to the lowest paid in society, with the bottom end of the range close to £1 billion.
The costs, therefore, are likely to be under 0.4% of our national wage bill and could even be as low as 0.1%. Furthermore, improving workers’ well-being, increasing productivity, reducing workplace conflict and creating a more level playing field for good employers would grant significant benefits worth billions of pounds per year. That is why delivering the benefits of the Bill would offset the costs.
I can reassure noble Lords that a number of these measures, as I have already said, have strong support from businesses, and we will of course carry on consulting them as we put these plans into practice to ensure that they are as effective as possible. The noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, mentioned the tech sector and will know that I am very minded of this. We will continue to engage with the tech sector on a regular basis to make sure that it contributes everything it can to the Government’s growth strategy.
The noble Lord, Lord Fox, and others have mentioned SMEs, and we will have the chance to debate this later in the Bill. In short, we do not agree that there should be two-tier employment rights: employment rights for all is a fundamental principle.
The noble Lord, Lord Empey, and the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, talked about skills. We are absolutely committed to a new skills agenda, which is why Skills England is modernising our skills provision. It is an area where, traditionally, the unions and employers have made common cause to make sure that the upskilling of the workforce happens on a comprehensive basis.
This Bill shows the Government’s commitment to strengthening collective bargaining rights and trade union recognition. Our approach will foster a new partnership of co-operation between trade unions, employers and the Government. In response to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, our reforms remove hurdles that frustrate the voices of workers, but trade unions will still need to win a majority of workers’ votes in a ballot to be recognised by an employer. If workers do not want to be represented by a trade union, they will have the option to vote against recognition in that ballot.
On Clause 1 and the proposed list of priorities, I agree with my noble friends Lord Hendy and Lady Carberry that the purposes are already covered in the Bill. My noble friend Lord Hendy pointed out that the Long Title already addresses the purposes within the Bill, and as my noble friend Lady Carberry pointed out, the list is not exhaustive. If we are to have a list, it would need to be a whole lot longer than it is at the moment and cover a whole range of other aspirations already covered in Labour’s Plan to Make Work Pay.
The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, raised other issues that could be included in that list. Again, I assure her and others that all these issues have been consulted on extensively in the Bill. I would like to reassure noble Lords that there is no need for such a clause to be inserted to achieve this aim. The Explanatory Notes set out the purpose of the Bill clearly and provide further detail on the aims of the legislation. These notes were updated when the Bill transferred to this House and will be updated again when it receives Royal Assent. The Government have also published a series of fact sheets, which are available on GOV.UK and aid the understanding of the Bill’s aims.
Finally, from a legal perspective, inclusion of such a clause could risk producing unintended consequences on the interpretation of specific provisions within the Bill, which have been drafted to achieve the particular purposes concerned. While I understand what the noble Lord, Lord Fox, is trying to achieve, and I appreciate the debate that he has created, I hope I have persuaded him that it is not appropriate to include this in the Bill.
Amendment 283 seeks to require the Secretary of State
“to publish a code of practice providing employers with guidance on complying with the Act”.
This has had much less attention in the debate but, nevertheless, I will attempt to address the concerns that the noble Lord raised.
We have consulted and remain committed to consulting widely on the detail of implementation. The Government have also committed to ensuring that, where appropriate, guidance is published to ensure that all stakeholders have the information they need to make necessary adjustments. However, a Bill-wide code of practice, as suggested in the amendment, would be duplicative of the policy-specific guidance and codes of practice that the Government will already produce to support workers, employers and trade unions in implementing the reforms.
There is existing provision for the issue of guidance and codes of practice across employment law. Where relevant, the Bill amends those provisions to reflect that they will need to be updated to take account of the changes made by the Bill. This includes codes of practice issued by ACAS under the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act. Such codes are subject to consultation requirements and must be laid in draft in both Houses for approval, and we are already working closely with ACAS to plan ahead for this work.
Where new statutory guidance is required, this is also provided for, such as in Clause 30, which inserts new Section 83D into the Procurement Act to make provision for the issue of codes of practice on relevant outsourcing contracts by appropriate authorities.
By requiring a single Bill-wide code of practice, this amendment would also risk delaying the Government in offering certainty on the details of policy and regulation on individual issues as they become available. I hope I have persuaded the noble Lord that this would therefore result in duplication and unnecessary delay.
Amendment 327 would prevent the implementation of measures in the Bill until the point at which the Government produce a Bill-wide code of practice. Some measures in the Bill will not require any further guidance before they are implemented—for example, the repeal of the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023. Delaying the date on which these measures can commence would unnecessarily delay the point at which workers can benefit from measures in the Bill.
Codes of practice are used to provide guidance to employers on how to comply with employment law. By nature they are detailed, building on and clarifying requirements set out in statute. There are several measures in the Bill where further consultation will be required to develop regulations setting out key details of reforms. Within six months, it would not be possible for all the outstanding policy details to be finalised to inform the content of a Bill-wide code of practice. Codes should bring clarity, but these timelines would risk patchy or unclear content if we were to go ahead on the basis of these amendments.
I agree with the need to ensure that workers, trade unions and employers are sufficiently supported for the implementation of the Bill, but this amendment is unnecessary and duplicative. I hope I have persuaded the noble Lord that the codes of practice that he envisages would not help to provide the detailed guidance that employers and workers require. I thank him for raising the issue, but I hope I have persuaded him not to press those amendments.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
The Minister has shared with the Committee that there is an implementation plan. As we are now moving to consider each clause, the first few in particular, it would be helpful for the Committee to be made aware of the part of the implementation plan that governs each and every clause. Is she able to share it with the Committee and, if so, by when? Might we at least see a draft of the implementation plan, so that businesses across the UK know what lies ahead?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
I know the noble Lord has already raised this, and he tempts me, but there has to be further consultation. He will understand that. Part of the legislation obviously requires further consultation to take place. We are still looking at the timescales for all this, and we obviously understand the need to provide guidance as soon as we can, but what I can say that will be reassuring to everybody concerned is that this will be a phased process; this is not a day-one process. We just need to make sure that the phasing of all this makes sense for employers so that it can be done on a proper basis and with the appropriate guidelines behind it. We are working on it, we will share it as soon as we can, and we understand the need for it, but it is not available at this time.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to this debate. The noble Baroness, Lady Carberry, may be relatively new to this House, but she is not wrong that purpose amendments are often the source of great opprobrium across your Lordships’ House—and I am afraid I am something of a serial offender in that regard. But the aim of this amendment has certainly partially been achieved, in that I think we have started the process of flushing out some of the issues.
I have a great deal of respect for the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, and I think she gave a very spirited speech, but I think that she gave a spirited speech to the speeches that came after hers and not to mine. If she reads, in tomorrow’s publications, the words of what I said, I think she will find that at no point did I speak against the Bill. I was seeking through this process to achieve two things from the Benches opposite. First was a recognition that there is much work to be done to bring employers into this process, and I did not hear that empathy from the Benches opposite or from the Minister. The second point on which I was seeking recognition is that a lot of this legislation is arriving late. The Minister said she would give this House an adequate time to consider it; it is already too late for it to be adequate time, because this stuff is arriving well past due date. We are not getting adequate time on the programme that we are currently getting, and there needs to be a recognition of that. If the Government want to reach across the House and support all the good things in the Bill, then they have to have some empathy about the things that are wrong with it and with the process of the delivery. That was my main purpose in this purpose amendment, and it has not achieved that purpose to date. I hope that, going forward, we can get some recognition of what is required.
On Amendments 283 and 327, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, who I think got my point: we need an operator’s manual for the Bill. The Minister absolutely cemented the reason why we need one, because she then went on a journey across several different bits of legislation and all sorts of codes and practices and stuff. If I am sitting in the HR department of one person in a business of 12 people, I need a guidebook that takes me to the right guides and the right legislation. The information may already exist, but I do not need to go on a website trawl to find it; I need a signpost that takes me to the places that I need to know to operate this legislation when it becomes an Act. That is what Amendment 283 is seeking to achieve. If this stuff already exists, then it will not hold up the process; it is merely a question of bringing it together and saying, “You get this bit there and that bit there”. The more that can be done within a code of practice to deal with that, the easier it will be for businesses to comply, and the easier it will be to avoid a proliferation of tribunals, which I am sure no one in this House is seeking to achieve. With that, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 1.
Lord Moynihan of Chelsea
Lord Moynihan of Chelsea (Con)
My Lords, I rise to move Amendment 2. I apologise to noble Lords if anything in my moving of this amendment is maladroit or otherwise at fault: it is the first time I have moved an amendment, let alone a group of amendments.
Why am I suggesting that new Section 27BA be removed in its entirety? The primary reason is the onerous inflexibility that it imposes on employers, the creators of jobs. The Bill as it stands, in theory, works even for those key groups who, as has been reported widely, much prefer flexibility in their employment arrangements—to take just a few examples: students, working mothers, part-time creatives and casual workers of all stripes. It is acceptable to them because they do not have to accept the guaranteed hours that the employer is required to offer them. To them and other groups of workers, some of whom may indeed prefer to be offered guaranteed hours, the employers will be required to offer those guarantees, but, once the offer is made, the employees can accept them or not. Thus, this new section creates considerable additional flexibility on the demand side. Many people looking for jobs will find those jobs more attractive.
On the supply side, however, flexibility is enormously reduced, to be replaced by stark uncertainty for all employers, particularly for sectors such as the NHS, hospitality, retail, care work, the gig economy, delivery driving, Christmas work, warehouse work and so many more. The absolute importance of flexibility to the employer can hardly be better illustrated than in the reports on the Guido Fawkes website as to how unions and the Labour Party itself have happily offered zero-hour contracts in the past.
At Second Reading, I stated that this Bill in general will kill business across the country, serving to shrink rather than grow the economy. This unfortunate section is just one part of that but an important one. In general, as I have just discussed, on the demand side, the removal of significant elements of flexibility creates distortions in the employment market, leading to employers, in many cases, being far more reluctant to offer employment. In consequence, the level of employment will fall, not increase. For smaller businesses, just creating the offers required by this section in the first place will involve onerous costs in time and money, making the employer highly reluctant even to start the process of seeking new employees. Some of the subsections in the new section raise the likelihood, in real life, of employers doing their level best to covertly figure out which employees will be flexible and which will seek inflexible, guaranteed arrangements, and, having come to a conclusion, hiring the one who wants flexibility and not the one who does not. That destroys the whole intent of this clause. The Government might denigrate such behaviour by a small business employer, but few in the Government have ever run a business.
A further problem is that the new section envisages the employer having to go to all the lengths of creating the guaranteed-hours offer, and to present it to the candidate employee, without having any idea whether the candidate will take the offer. This imposes considerable friction and inefficiency on the economy and more unnecessary costs on the poor benighted employer.
Interestingly, I read through the several pages of this new section—quite possibly ineptly—but I cannot find anything about what happens in a hypothetical situation where an employer presents the required offer then says to the prospective employee, “Will you be wanting these guaranteed hours?” and, if the prospective employer says yes, the employer then does not make an offer of employment to them. It seems odd that I cannot find that; maybe it is there somewhere. In my view, if the ability of the employer to renege in that way after having been forced to make that offer is in fact there in the Bill, it would be a good thing. The Government may or may not agree, but, even if I were right in saying that this loophole existed in the current drafting and the Government, having been alerted to it, were to choose to close that loophole, it would just drive similar behaviour by employers underground.
The Bill is driven in great part by a belief in what is “fair” to employees, and so forth. I have seen in my short time here that “fairness” is often used in this Chamber; “outcomes” is not used so much. Whatever the Government’s view may be as to the crucial importance of fairness, with the best will in the world, the government drafters who focused on fairness will not have been able to bring to the issue anywhere near the level of seriousness as to outcomes with which a business owner facing survival or destruction for their business will view this matter.
This new section is just one component of an extensive and intrusive Bill that will, if implemented, see the UK’s economy further driven into the ground, with more and more parts of that economy and key players in it either becoming economically inactive or, as we are seeing on a daily basis, leaving the country. On Report, I imagine my party will oppose the entire Bill, but in the meantime, I state that it can be significantly enhanced by removing this new section in its entirety. I beg to move.
Lord Wolfson of Aspley Guise (Con)
My Lords, I rise in support of Amendment 8 in my name. I declare my interests as stated on the register, in particular my role as chief executive of Next plc, the job I have held for 24 years, which makes me the UK’s longest-serving FTSE 100 chief executive. I add that Next employs over 25,000 part-time employees—and, I hasten to add, it does not use zero-hours contracts.
I start by assuring the Minister that I have sympathy with the intentions behind this section of the Bill. Zero-hours contracts can leave employees feeling obligated to accept hours from employers, who can feel no obligation to provide work. I commend the Government’s intention to tackle this lack of reciprocity. In the Minister’s polling, I would have come out as one of those people not in favour of zero-hours contracts.
Amendment 8 would increase the Bill’s effectiveness by clarifying the distinction between zero-hours contracts and legitimate part-time contracts, because there is a world of difference between tackling potentially abusive zero-hours contracts and eliminating the flexibility that legitimate part-time contracts provide to those who need and want them. My concern is that the requirement to offer additional contract hours to those who voluntarily work extra hours will inadvertently prevent those additional hours being offered at all.
I am not exaggerating when I say that if the threshold for low-hours contracts is set too high, it will take a wrecking ball to the UK’s part-time economy. It will deprive millions of people of a valuable source of flexible income, and multiple industries of the flexibility they need to offer excellent services in sectors where demand is variable and volatile.
It is important to understand the nature of flexible part-time work. The vast majority of part-time workers provide an important supplement to their household income but are not the mainstay. They are people such as a parent whose childcare responsibilities mean they cannot work full time, students balancing their studies with their earnings, carers for elderly relatives, and those seeking to transition into retirement. What this diverse group of people has in common is that they value the guaranteed regular income their part-time contracts provide but also appreciate and value the ability, at their discretion, to add hours of work when they have more time available: for example, during university holidays, during term time for parents of school-age children, or at times when household costs rise—for example, in the run-up to Christmas.
These reciprocal arrangements benefit all involved. From a business perspective, sectors such as retail, hospitality, health and travel can maintain excellent services despite the intrinsically variable nature of demand in consumer-facing businesses. These flexible additional hours allow businesses to respond to seasonal peaks and unexpected surges in demand, and to do so in a way that offers voluntary additional hours to those who want them.
I hope this gives some sense of how important flexible part-time work is for the 8.5 million part-time employees in the UK. This flexible work will be under threat if the threshold for low-hour work is set too high in the Bill. My worry is that the Bill will make it almost impossible for businesses to offer additional voluntary hours to workers with contracts below the low-hour threshold. There are two reasons why: first, the complexity of trying to comply with the law, and secondly, the risk it creates for businesses that offer additional hours to part-time staff that they will end up with permanent and unaffordable overstaffing.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, it is with some trepidation but some pleasure that I follow that speech. I rise to speak to Amendment 4, which is in my name, and to offer support to Amendments 7 and 15 in the name of my noble friend Lord Goddard, although he will speak to those on his own account.
Speaking on the previous group, I said that there should be a change in the polarity of the guaranteed hours offer from an obligation to offer to a more streamlined right to request. We have heard in the previous two speeches that the aim is for this offer to be made to people who want it rather than there being an obligation to make it to everybody, when we know for a fact that a large number of people who will get the offer will not want to take it up. It is unnecessary activity when there is plenty to do in business. It is a very simple principle, and I genuinely do not think it subverts the intention of the Bill, in the same way as I think the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, was trying not to subvert the purpose of the Bill but to help it succeed while helping business at the same time. In a sense, that reflects the point I made before withdrawing Amendment 1. It is really asking the Government to have some understanding of how these things will be delivered on the ground, in the workplace. That is why the previous speech was so helpfully revealing.
I think that a large part of the early part of this Bill is designed to deal, in essence, with a number of employers who the Government have in the back of their mind as not doing the right thing and not achieving what we would all like to achieve. I understand that. Unfortunately, it is dragging the whole business programme, from microbusinesses right up to huge businesses, into a series of practices to crack those particular nuts. Later in Committee, my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones will introduce Amendment 318, which targets the sort of employer who I think the Government have in their mind as bad or exploitative. It would create, in essence, a new class of employee, the dependent contractor, which is in fact in many cases what we are starting to look at. It would sharpen the regulatory focus, particularly on some elements of gig economy employers, but avoid the heavy-handed approach that we are in danger of using with this Bill.
Amendment 4, and I think there are a couple of others that are very similar, would simply reverse that polarity to: if employees ask for it, the employer is obliged to deliver it. Some obligation on employers occasionally to remind their employees that they are entitled to ask for this would help the process.
As for the rest of the group, I will listen with interest to the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, when he comes to his amendments. I think much of this will be addressed also when we get to the issue of freelancers and to the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones, so I imagine this is not the last time that we will have some elements of this discussion, but some sign from the Government Front Bench that they understand that something should and could be addressed in this area would be a good starting point.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak in support of Amendments 3, 6 and 9 in this group, tabled by my noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom and supported by my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral. I also support Amendment 8 tabled by my noble friend Lord Wolfson of Aspley Guise, but for different reasons. I will not speak on that, but I like the idea of a low-hours contract. I will speak about zero-hours contracts, because I do not believe they are getting a fair look in.
These amendments would give workers the right to request, rather than putting an obligation on employers to guarantee hours. I think they are worth while and worth supporting. In the labour market this year, there are 33.9 million people employed. Of them, 1.3 million are on zero-hours contracts. There has been an increase since 2000 of 805,000 people on this type of employment contract. This is 3.1% of employment in the UK. Most are young people in the 16 to 24 age group. This is a popular way of working; the figures speak to that. There has been far more significant an increase in this type of contract than in the overall type of working arrangements chosen by employees and their employers.
Much of the popularity lies in the flexibility on both sides. The evidence is that the majority of people on zero hours, 60%, do not want more hours, although some, 16%, do. Amendments that would allow an employee to request guaranteed hours as distinct from obliging the employer to guarantee certain hours seem more in tune with people’s wishes. Of those on zero-hours contracts, around 1 million are young people. However, 946,000 16 to 24 year-olds are not in employment, education or training; that is around 50%. Yes, people on these contracts may work fewer hours than other workers—I gather the average is around 21.8 hours a week compared with 36.5 hours for all people in employment—but is it not better that there are jobs which people want and can get, particularly young people who may not yet be in the labour market or who may have been thrown out of the labour market or left it for one of the many reasons we hear about it? I am afraid that it seems from the Government’s approach that they do not think so.
This Bill and Clause 1 must be seen in the overall context of the party opposite’s approach to labour market and economy reform. Not only is the NIC tax hike on the productive sector along with the decrease in the NIC threshold taking £24 billion out, affecting 800,000 businesses and their ability to employ people and offer opportunity to the 16 to 24 age group, but other costs have been piled high, one on top of the other, since the party opposite came to power. Of those employed in December 2024, 27.8 million were in the private sector and 6.14 million in the public sector. If employers are obliged to move to guaranteed hours, that will most likely serve to cut the number of people productively employed under these arrangements, with a corresponding decrease in output and growth. Surely these amendments speak for themselves, and a Government whose priority is to increase economic growth should accept them.
Baroness Verma (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interests as laid out in the register. I regret that I was unable to speak at Second Reading. As someone who has been an employer for over 40 years for various small businesses, and knowing that these amendments were coming up, I spent the weekend speaking to small and medium-sized businesses, particularly the small businesses in my home city of Leicester. All were very concerned about the impact that the Bill may have, if it becomes law, in providing a set amount of guaranteed hours.
I come from the home care sector—that is one of my businesses—which really does work on contracts in which we do not, and cannot, guarantee hours, simply because of the nature of the job. We do not know when people will require care or for how long, how long they will be in hospital for, or whatever. The hospitality sector is in exactly in the same place.
Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 7 in this group, as well as my Amendment 15. I also apologise for not being able to speak at Second Reading. I am walking somewhat of a tightrope this evening. For 15 years, I was a senior shop steward for the GMB as a national negotiator. I also have my own company with 20 employees. I do not think that I will be able to cope with the ramifications of some of this legislation. Also, I have some guests up in the Public Gallery: they are small business men who employ people. Dinner could get quite difficult if I say the wrong thing in the next 10 minutes, which I hope I will not do.
My first amendment would set the initial reference period for the right to guaranteed hours to 26 weeks, to give flexibility to industries that rely on a seasonal basis for operating and employing people. It would also give greater flexibility to the labour market itself. When Members see this amendment, they automatically think of seasonal workers as fruit and veg pickers harvesting crops, but nothing could be further from the truth. Work has changed. We are now essentially a service-led economy, with no more enormous factories employing thousands of workers every day, producing goods to export across the globe, clocking in and clocking out, as I did back in the 1970s. Flexibility is the key, and work/life balance for many is crucial. The days of the nine to five are well and truly over, in my opinion, especially for small businesses. That flexibility is not only for the agricultural industries but for tourism, retail, hospitality and events—things that bind our country together.
We welcome this Bill. One could argue that it is 30 years too late; that was probably the time when unions were most under attack, when our beloved Margaret was in charge. Perhaps that was when people should have risen up, but we are where we are. However, the Bill should be proportional and reasonable; those are the two things that we would wish to persuade the Government to embrace, through not only some of our amendments but those of other parties. Reasonableness and proportionality are what we are proposing. We will support the Bill, but its architects must accept that the labour market has evolved. Flexibility for workers and protecting workers’ rights go hand in hand.
I will now speak to my Amendment 15. Other amendments in this group have rightly raised challenges regarding the right to be offered guaranteed hours. My Amendment 15 strikes a necessary balance between protecting workers and allowing flexibility for genuine short-term employment situations. This amendment would not undermine the main principles of the Government’s legislation. Instead, it would make a reasonable accommodation for short-term contracts while maintaining safeguards through proper disclosure requirements and strict time limits.
For seasonal workers, this amendment offers significant advantages. It would increase their employability, as businesses could confidently offer work during peak periods without complicated hour guarantees that extend beyond the season. Many seasonal workers prefer concentrated work periods with higher hours, allowing them to earn more money during these limited timeframes. Additionally, this flexibility would enable workers in industries such as tourism, agriculture and entertainment to secure multiple seasonal positions throughout the year, improving their overall financial stability. Many industries in our economy, including agriculture and education, are connected to seasonal events. We need this practical provision.
I urge the Minister to consider this amendment, or at the very least be cognisant of the challenges these seasonally dependent sectors face. If this legislation is designed correctly, we can arrive at a set of provisions that will protect workers while acknowledging the realities of our diverse job markets.
Finally, my noble friend Lord Fox and I met Amazon a couple of weeks ago in Portcullis House. Amazon employs 75,000 people in the UK and is not unionised. It has evolved its own democratic in-house solutions. I am not commenting on that, but it shows that, sometimes, legislation is not the only way to protect people at work, guarantee earnings and pay reasonable rates. That is the kind of bigger picture thinking that this Bill is missing.
Lord Barber of Ainsdale (Lab)
My Lords, this group of amendments deals with the hugely important issue of zero-hours and short-hours contracts. As the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, said, well over a million people in the UK work on zero-hours contracts. In sectors such as retail, it is also common for workers to have a small number of guaranteed hours but to work the equivalent of full-time hours.
These arrangements are not a win-win for worker and employer. More than eight in 10 zero-hours workers want regular hours of work. Without guaranteed hours, workers do not know whether they will be able to pay their bills or organise their caring responsibilities. The flexibility is invariably on the employer’s side. Research has shown that more than half of zero-hours contract workers have had shifts cancelled at less than 24 hours’ notice. Many experience being sent home mid shift and very few are compensated. The vast majority of those who ask for guaranteed hours are turned down, so I fear a right to request would not resolve that issue.
There is also significant evidence that employers do not use zero-hours contracts just as stopgaps but will often park workers in these insecure arrangements long term. Two-thirds of zero-hours contract workers have been with their employer for more than a year, and one in eight for more than a decade.
As well as causing financial uncertainty and disrupting workers’ private lives, this distorts workplace relations, with workers fearful of challenging inappropriate conduct in case it leads to them losing their work. Recent accounts of poor behaviour at McDonald’s branches, where zero-hours contracts are prevalent, included a 17 year-old reporting that she had been asked for sex in return for shifts. Also, when employers rely on zero-hours contracts, what incentive do they have to invest in skills? The answer is: little or none, with predictable consequences for productivity.
The Bill implements measures first developed by the Low Pay Commission, with the support of both trade union and employer-side representatives. An employer will have to offer a contract based on a worker’s normal hours of work in line with a 12-week reference period. That gives a clear indication of a worker’s usual hours while evening out peaks and troughs. Any period longer than that, such as 26 weeks, would simply allow employers to park workers on a zero-hours contract for a prolonged period.
The Bill contains powers for Ministers to specify the notice period for shifts that employers must give to workers and compensation for cancelled shifts, and these are an essential part of the package. Currently, workers on variable-hours contracts bear all the risk of any changes in demand, and they are usually low-paid workers who can ill afford the sudden changes to income.
In the House of Commons, the Bill was amended to ensure that those rights also apply to agency workers. That is crucial in order to close the loophole that could have led to employers hiring zero-hour staff by agencies and entirely subverting the intent of the legislation. I know the TUC would strongly oppose any amendment that would exempt agency workers or fixed-term contract workers on variable-hours contracts from these provisions.
Employers will still be able to put in place arrangements for coping with fluctuations in seasonal work—for instance, via fixed-term contracts. What will change is that workers will not bear alone the burden, in reduced wages, of sudden changes in demand. The current situation allows manifest injustices to take place. It is time that we level up the labour market.
Baroness Verma (Con)
My Lords, what will the noble Lord do when all those small businesses—I emphasise small businesses—start to close down because of this rigid approach to flexible hours?
Lord Barber of Ainsdale (Lab)
I say to the noble Baroness that I have more confidence in the adaptability of British businesses to cope with intelligent, progressive legislation like this to even up the labour market.
Baroness Carberry of Muswell Hill (Lab)
My Lords, I am sorry that I find myself disagreeing for the second time today with the noble Lord, Lord Fox, specifically on the proposition that the right to be guaranteed regular hours should be replaced by a right to request.
My noble friend Lord Barber reminded us that this proposal originally came seven years ago from the Low Pay Commission. In that room were nine commissioners, who produced a unanimous report. There were three independent labour market experts, three representatives of workers and senior representatives from the Federation of Small Businesses, the CBI and big business, and, as I say, the recommendation was unanimous. In that discussion, the Low Pay Commission considered, in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Fox, whether a right to request could operate more effectively than a guaranteed offer on the ground and in the workplace, and the conclusion was that a right to request would not be a better option. That was primarily because you would be asking workers who have the least power in the labour market—the most vulnerable workers—to assert their rights. As we have been reminded, the vast majority of those workers who at the moment request guaranteed hours are turned down.
Another problem, from my point of view, with the group of amendments that are suggesting that there should be a right to request is that they are all silent on the consequences of a denied request. That is a major problem with the propositions in the amendments. In this context, I suggest that a right to request is no effective right at all.
Lord Hendy (Lab)
My Lords, I have a small point on Amendments 7 and 11 to 13, which seek to extend the reference period from the current 12 weeks in the Bill to 26 weeks. Last year the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development published some figures showing the number of workers who stayed in their job for a three-month period, which I take to be some 13 weeks rather than the 12 weeks in the Bill. Some 1.3 million workers worked for less than that period of time, meaning that under the Bill 1.3 million workers will never reach the end of the reference period in order to claim the right. The figures show that if the period were extended to 26 weeks, as the amendments propose, that would cover some 8.9% of all employees, which comes to 2.7 million workers. So the effect of those amendments would be to exclude a further 1.4 million workers from ever being covered by the reference period.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)
My Lords, I was not going to speak on this group but the noble Lord, Lord Barber, has painted a horrific picture of the impact of zero hours on some workers. For some people I know who have been on the receiving end of zero-hours contracts, sometimes it has been even worse. I know of people who have been required to turn up at work at 4 am for a shift and been sent home again at 5 am, so I know how bad this is. However, my noble friend Lady Verma makes a strong argument as to why just removing all the measures, which would happen by virtue of the Bill, would also have a detrimental effect.
So far, I have not heard from those on the other side a response to the argument put forward by my noble friend Lord Wolfson, which is that we have to find a way forward on this matter that addresses the employment rights issue, which the Minister has said is the purpose of this legislation, but also allows business to deliver the kind of economic growth that the Government are also saying is the purpose of the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Empey, is not in his place at the moment, but we have to take heed of the point that he made in the debate on the first group: we should not be in a situation where this is a stand-off. Hopefully, through some responsiveness and empathy from the Minister, we will find ourselves in a position where the Bill will not have a detrimental effect on business but will address the worst work practices, as described by the noble Lord, Lord Barber.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, I think I am allowed to come back in Committee. I want to respond to the noble Baroness, Lady Carberry, because I probably did not articulate terribly well what I was proposing. I certainly was articulating a right to request, but I was also assuming there would be an obligation to meet that request, given certain thresholds that the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, was talking about. It would not be an option for the employer as long as the request was within those thresholds. I suspect that is not what the noble Baroness thought I was proposing, and I just wanted to set the record straight.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I support Amendment 8. I commend my noble friend Lord Wolfson on his excellent speech, bringing the reality of employing so many people into the heart of this debate, along with the constraints and the concerns being raised, while still recognising that I understand why so many people consider casual work and zero-hour contracts to be particularly poor when people are trying to have certainty of employment over some time. I also support Amendments 7, 12 and 13—in essence, any amendment that refers to specifying the reference period in the Bill.
I say that because, when thinking of 26 weeks, I think in particular of the hospitality industry in coastal areas. There are a number of employers around the country who literally shut down their businesses, or move to a much lower level of needing people, at certain times of the year, and then, in the summer, are desperately trying to find people. We need to give flexibility. The 12 weeks simply does not recognise that, as has been referred to. It is perfectly usual for people to work at different points throughout the year, potentially in on annualised-hours contract, but varying the number of hours expected to match the demand of customers requiring a particular service. I fear that the 12 weeks does not address that sort of business.
Across the country, 2 million people work in the hospitality industry. It is one of our biggest industries, and for many families it is key to how they support their household income. For the flexibility that employers want, and—thinking of how many people lose their childcare at certain times of the year—for employees to have flexibility around their hours worked, bringing in casual staff is a key element in how employers keep those businesses going.
There is another element that needs thinking through. While I appreciate that the Government seek to reduce the number of agency and bank workers in the NHS, let us not get away from the fact that, unfortunately, many NHS trusts are actually terrible employers. A lot of people leave or reduce their permanent contracts because they simply cannot get the flexibility that they need working in the NHS. That could be for caring reasons, for all sorts of people—it does not matter whether it is men or women; people provide care to their families and to their friends. I am concerned, and I intend to discuss further with NHS Professionals how this will impact on the NHS fulfilling its expectations for people right across the country. I appreciate that it is not simply NHS Professionals; many individual trusts have their own bank. That is intended to provide flexibility based on need, and recognises that simply not everybody can work the NHS shifts expected.
Thinking of the 26 weeks or the 12 weeks, I am also concerned that, at the other end of the Corridor, 650 Members of Parliament are all individual employers. They have to sign contracts, which are provided, but when people are ill or go on maternity leave, MPs can and do take people on through certain term contracts. I am concerned that there will be unintended consequences for the provision of services. As a real example, if you had to guarantee hours beyond when the employee came back, you could end up in a situation that you simply could not manage.
It is for those reasons that we need to think very carefully about the reference period when we are considering the different employment situations that small employers find themselves in, as well as the large sectors, such as hospitality and retail, which have already been discussed.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, Amendments 3, 6 and 17 stand in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Hunt. Before turning to the detail, I would like to frame the debate in its proper context.
At the heart of this issue lies the question of incentives. Much of the discussion around zero-hours contracts rightly concerns the security and well-being of workers. We must not lose sight of the fact that only a relatively small proportion of the workforce is employed on such contracts, or in other forms of temporary work. Many of these individuals are young people—as my noble friend Lady Lawlor illustrated in her very detailed speech—who are starting out in their careers. Others are disabled people, who may be able to work only a limited number of hours due to their personal circumstances. If we make the regulatory environment too rigid, we inadvertently create a disincentive to hire precisely these groups. We reduce the number of vacancies, reduce opportunities and end up harming those we most wish to support. Good intentions do not alone lead to good results. It is the incentives that lead to results.
I thank my noble friend Lord Moynihan and the noble Lords, Lord Fox and Lord Goddard, for their contributions in this group, and I will come on to others. My noble friend Lord Moynihan made a compelling argument to leave out this part of the clause altogether, because it is simply unworkable in its current form. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say in response.
I turn to the specifics of my amendments. Job security is vital, and there can be no disagreement on that point, but we have to recognise that guaranteed-hours contracts are not always practical or appropriate across all sectors of the economy. The principle that we wish to uphold is simple: autonomy. Workers themselves are best placed to judge their own circumstances and to decide whether a guaranteed-hours contract would suit their needs.
Research from the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, published in its report on zero-hours contracts, found that workers on such contracts often report a better work-life balance and higher well-being compared with other workers. This is an important reminder that flexibility, when genuinely chosen, can be empowering rather than exploitative.
Not every worker wants a rigid schedule. Young people, parents with caring responsibilities and disabled people may actively prefer the flexibility that variable hours allow. A one-size-fits-all approach simply does not reflect the realities of the modern labour market. Sectors such as retail, hospitality and tourism, and other seasonal industries, are heavily dependent on flexible staffing to meet seasonal demand. It is these very sectors that offer the vital entry-level opportunities to workers who might otherwise struggle to find employment.
Despite the Government’s understandable ambition to improve labour market fairness, the Bill as currently drafted risks reducing that flexibility rather than enhancing it. The automatic obligation placed upon businesses to offer guaranteed-hours contracts once certain thresholds are met would impose significant and disproportionate administrative burdens, even when the worker involved may have no desire to change their current arrangements.
The problem is particularly acute for larger employers, such as national retailers, as we have heard from my noble friend Lord Wolfson, who delivered an expert speech. They would be forced into a continual cycle of recalculations and offers, simply because an employee’s working patterns have shifted slightly. As my noble friend Lady Verma explained, that affects small businesses as well. In practice, firms would face a daily or weekly obligation to offer a new contract based on changing patterns, resulting in huge and unnecessary administrative costs. This would not only create inefficiency but would discourage businesses offering overtime and additional work voluntarily, thereby reducing opportunities for those who value flexibility.
The amendments I propose take a different approach. Instead of an automatic right to be offered a guaranteed-hours contracts, we propose a right to request a guaranteed-hours contract. It entirely respects the spirit of the Government’s intentions. As the noble Lord, Lord Fox, has already explained, it would impose the same the obligations on employers as the Government’s Bill. This would preserve the choice for workers, empowering them to seek greater stability when they wish, but it would avoid imposing blanket obligations on employers that may lead to perverse outcomes. The Government’s current drafting, with an automatic right to guaranteed hours, risks creating a bureaucracy that neither workers nor businesses have asked for.
On the subject of businesses, it is worth referring to the letter received from five employers’ organisations. For reference, those are Make UK, the CBI, the IoD, the Federation of Small Business and the British Chambers of Commerce. They say in that letter:
“Not every job can be made compatible with every possible need. This reform means businesses incur admin costs whenever an employee works variable hours. The result is that firms are discouraged from offering variable hours even when the flexibility is requested by workers, including voluntary overtime. The cost associated with administering and calculating contract offers on a rolling basis whenever staff work additional hours is also disproportionate and provides no clear benefit to workers”.
I could not have put it better myself.
There has been some reference on the other side, by the noble Baroness, Lady Carberry, to the Low Pay Commission, which met seven years ago. That ignores the fact that, over the last seven years, working practices more generally through the economy—whether on flexible-hours contracts or not—have changed very dramatically, partly as a consequence of the pandemic. I note that the FSB has now signed the letter which includes the quote I have just delivered, so it has clearly changed its mind.
I recognise that there may be an even simpler and more effective alternative to the right to request, which would be an automatic offer of a guaranteed-hours contract combined with the right for the worker to opt out if they so wish, so Amendment 17 introduces a worker opt-out mechanism. A qualifying worker may opt out of receiving a guaranteed-hours contract provided that the employer has provided clear written information about the guaranteed-hours system, the worker has given written notice in a prescribed form, and the employer reminds the worker at regular intervals, at least every six months, that they can opt back in at any time. Under that model, every eligible worker would be enrolled on to a guaranteed-hours contract after the reference period by default.
However, those workers who genuinely value the flexibility of their zero-hours arrangement—and there are many, particularly, as we have already discussed, young people, carers and so on—would have the right to decline the offer by providing written notice. This approach would strike a better balance, because it would ensure that guaranteed hours are the norm unless the worker themselves chooses otherwise, thereby protecting workers who might otherwise feel pressured not to request more security. Equally, it would avoid the unnecessary administrative burden on employers of offering contracts that in many cases would be rejected. We would be sparing businesses the cost and disruption of a process that delivers little practical benefit where flexibility is mutually valued by both employer and employee. It would ensure that the choice remains a real and continuing one, recognising that workers’ needs and circumstances evolve.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, Lord Goddard of Stockport, Lord Moynihan of Chelsea and Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, for tabling their amendments to the clauses on zero-hours contracts. I will begin with Amendments 7, 11 and 12, which seek to amend Clause 1 to set the initial reference period for the right to guaranteed hours at 26 weeks. They would also remove the power to define the length of the initial reference period in regulations, or would render it obsolete. I say to the noble Lords that the length of the initial reference period will be set out in regulations, and of course we will consult further on this issue, but it is expected to be 12 weeks—that is the figure we are currently thinking about.
The noble Lord, Lord Goddard, urged that the measures be proportionate and reasonable. We feel that our proposals as they stand are exactly that. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Hendy for reminding us that 1.3 million people will never reach the reference period if it is 26 weeks, as their employment will not be that long. There is a very good reason why we should not extend the period.
We believe that 12 weeks is the appropriate length. It would be long enough to establish the hours that the workers regularly work while allowing qualifying workers to be offered guaranteed hours reasonably soon after they start a job, or after the right to guaranteed hours comes into effect. If the initial reference period was set at 26 weeks, workers in precarious and unpredictable work would have to wait six months to access their right to guaranteed hours. We believe this is too long in the current labour market circumstances.
Similarly, Amendment 13 would specify in the Bill that the subsequent reference period for the right to guaranteed hours is 26 weeks. The length and frequency of the subsequent reference periods will be set out in regulations. Subsequent reference periods may well be of a different length and frequency from the initial reference period. This is because, unlike the initial reference period, subsequent reference periods are not qualifying periods. Therefore, a different balance needs to be considered. It is necessary to set out both the initial reference period and subsequent period lengths in regulations to allow changes to reference periods to be made, for example in response to emerging evidence about how this novel right is working in practice or in light of evolving working practices. As I said, we intend to consult on the length and frequency of subsequent reference periods.
Amendment 9 seeks to amend Clause 1 to take workers on fixed-term contracts out of scope of the right to guaranteed hours. This could lead to avoidance behaviour, whereby employers move workers from open-ended zero-hours contracts to fixed-term zero-hours contracts. We also believe that workers on limited-term contracts lasting longer than the duration of the reference period should be entitled to a guaranteed-hours offer. This is because such workers may experience one-sided flexibility in the same way as those on permanent contracts.
I emphasise that the right to guaranteed hours will not prevent employers using limited-term contracts. Employers can make a guaranteed-hours offer resulting in a limited-term contract if it is reasonable for that contract to be of a limited term. For example, as has been mentioned several times, it might be reasonable to provide a worker with a limited-term contract only to cover the increase in retail demand during the Christmas period. If a limited-term contract is shorter than the initial reference period, then the worker would likely not qualify for a guaranteed-hours offer, but that would depend on the conditions as to regularity or number and whether it was reasonable for the contract to be of a limited term.
Amendment 8 seeks to amend Clause 1 to set the hours threshold in the Bill at a maximum of four hours a week. It would also remove the power to set the hours threshold in regulations. I listened carefully to the arguments, in particular from the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, on the interests of part-time workers, but under this amendment workers who are guaranteed more than four hours per week would not be eligible for the right to guaranteed hours.
The hours threshold will be crucial to determining how many workers are included in scope of the right to guaranteed hours. It is partly intended to act as an anti-avoidance measure, preventing employers avoiding the duty to offer guaranteed hours by moving a worker on to a contract guaranteeing only a very small number of hours. Setting it to only four or fewer hours per week would mean, for example, that any worker with only five hours guaranteed per week would fall out of scope of the new provisions, even though they may experience unpredictable hours and income in the same way as other zero-hours workers. Similarly, if we were to set the threshold too high, it could have unintended consequences and impact the overtime arrangements of workers who already have sufficient predictability and security.
Additionally, given the novelty of these provisions, it is important that the Government retain the flexibility to amend the threshold in future, for example in the light of evolving work practices. I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, and others that we intend to consult on the hours threshold, including the issues raised today, as part of the consultation. Including the threshold in the Bill at this stage would remove the opportunity to have that consultation and for unions, employers and workers to feed in their views.
Lord Wolfson of Aspley Guise (Con)
Would the Minister accept that having a maximum number in the Bill would be enormously important so that business can prepare for this? The number of hours set as the threshold will determine the number of employees who need to be dealt with. If it is 3% of our workforce, that will be one thing; if it is 50%, that will be another. While I accept that the Government need flexibility, would they at least consider setting a maximum number of hours in the Bill so that business can start to prepare now, as we will need to do if we are to have the systems in place in one year’s time to implement this Bill?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
As we have said when other people have suggested fixed rates, we need to avoid unintended consequences or the gaming of those arrangements. I am inclined at the moment to resist what the noble Lord has said, but we can consider that further as the Bill progresses.
Baroness Verma (Con)
My Lords, in adult social care or care, you are at the mercy of people going into hospital or passing away and those hours suddenly becoming contracted. Where are the safeguards for the employers at that point? There is no guarantee that people will come out of hospital. You cannot wish more hours to happen; you are at the mercy of people wanting care. I do not understand how this will work in the care sector, so it would be really helpful to understand the Government’s thinking on that.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
The same thing would apply as for seasonal workers, in the sense of that unpredictability. The Bill allows seasonal work to continue; fixed-term contracts can be an effective way for an employer to meet temporary or seasonal demands for work—
Baroness Verma (Con)
Forgive me; I thank the Minister for her patience. Seasonal work is incredibly different from care, which is about the elements around you. We cannot predict when somebody will fall sick, go into hospital for long or short periods or pass away. It is a very different discussion point. I want us to be mindful, in thinking about the overall picture, of how certain sectors fit in.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
Obviously, we want all sectors to have the right facilities for them. I am not sure whether the noble Baroness is talking about home care or the care home sector. Perhaps we can have a conversation outside; I will attempt to set up a meeting with her, because I do not want to be misconstrued.
Amendments 10 and 31 seek to amend the Bill so that agency workers do not have a right to guaranteed hours. We are determined to ensure that agency workers who seek more certainty of hours and security of income are protected. Some workers choose agency work because they value flexibility, but they can also experience one-sided flexibility in the same way as other workers. Failing to include agency workers in the scope of the Bill could also see employers shift to using more agency workers to avoid the zero-hours measures altogether. As with other eligible workers, agency workers who prefer the flexibility that agency work provides would be free to turn down the guaranteed-hours offer.
After public consultation, the Government brought forward amendments to the Employment Rights Bill so that hirers, agencies and agency workers are clear where responsibilities will rest in relation to the new rights. However, we recognise that some measures may need to apply in a different way to agency workers because of the tripartite relationship between the end hirer, the employment agency and the agency workers. The Government will consult further and continue to work in partnership with employers’ organisations, the recruitment sector and trade unions to develop the detail of regulations in a way that avoids unintended consequences for employment agencies and hirers.
Amendment 32 seeks to remove from the Bill the power to place the duty to make a guaranteed-hours offer on the work-finding agency, or another party involved in the supply or payment of an agency worker instead of the hirer. We included this power in line with the responses to the Government’s consultation on applying zero-hours contract measures to agency workers. Responses from stakeholders were split about whether this new duty should lie between the hirer, the agency or another party in the supply chain. We are clear that, as a default, the hirer should be responsible for making the offers of guaranteed hours because they are best placed to forecast and manage the flow of future work.
However, given the unique and complex nature of agency worker relationships, which vary in different parts of the economy, the power is required to allow the Government flexibility to determine specific cases in which the responsibility to offer guaranteed hours should not sit with the hirer. For instance, this could be the case with vulnerable individual hirers who receive or procure care from agencies—I am not sure whether that is the point to which the noble Baroness referred earlier—where instead the agency might be in a better position to offer guaranteed hours. We are aware of the importance of this power and the impact these regulations could have on agency workers, hirers, agencies and others in the supply chain. For this reason, this power will be subject to the affirmative procedure, ensuring both Houses of Parliament get further opportunity to debate its use.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
Can the Minister talk us through the agency question a little bit more? If you need emergency care, you go to an agency and it finds you someone, then you pay a very large sum of money for agency care. Is the Minister suggesting that in future, and considering the ups and downs, the agencies will have to guarantee those who are involved in emergency care these very high salaries, which they will have to pay, even if they do not find clients? Is that how she thinks it will work out in practice? Is it enough to say it is going to go into regulations, when this is so important for the care sector and emergency care?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
I was making the point that this has complications because there are some people who are individual hirers. Some people get benefits to employ people directly, so it is not always done through a third party. That is why we need to have clearer rules about this. I am happy to write to noble Lords or explain this in a little bit more detail if that helps.
Baroness Verma (Con)
The problem with direct payments is that you are making the person who receives the payment into the employer. They are usually individuals who are looking after their own care; they will not have the facilities to go through the quagmire of rules and regulations. I say this just to give some assistance.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
I take that point. I was attempting to explain in my description, which I obviously need to develop a little bit more, that we understood some of those issues and are trying to find a way through it.
Amendments 3, 4 and 6 seek to change the model for the right to guaranteed hours from a right to be offered to a right to request. We have debated this at some length. These amendments would mean that a qualifying worker experiencing one-sided flexibility would need to make a request to their employer to access their right to guaranteed hours. Noble Lords underestimate the imbalance of powers that employees in this circumstance face. The noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, mentioned young people, which is the group that is likely to be the most intimidated by having to request guaranteed hours. Therefore, we are attempting to make sure that these rights are balanced in a proper and more effective way.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Carberry for reminding us that the Low Pay Commission also looked at a right to request and, understandably, rejected it for exactly that reason. It understood that the people in those circumstances had the least power in the labour market and would therefore, quite rightly, feel intimidated about coming forward. She also raised the issue of what happens if the request is denied. I know the noble Lord, Lord Fox, attempted to address that, but I do not know that the amendments necessarily do so. The noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, says that employment has changed since those days. I would say that employment has become even more unpredictable and unreliable. Nothing that the Low Pay Commission said—or indeed that I said—addresses the potential exploitation which the commission identified. There is an imbalance, and it is very difficult for people to come forward and make that request; that is why we are insistent that it is done in the way that we have suggested.
After receiving an offer, the workers would then be able decide whether to accept it, based on its specific terms. That would empower the worker to decide for themselves, having seen the offer on the table. This addresses the point that some people do want to work flexible hours, and we understand that.
Amendment 15 would allow workers on limited-term contracts of four months or less to voluntarily waive their right to guaranteed hours. We believe that workers should be able to retain the flexibility of a zero-hours contract or arrangement if they wish, which is why those who are offered guaranteed hours will be able to turn them down and remain on their current contract or arrangement if they wish. This amendment would add an additional opt-out mechanism for workers that could create needless confusion for both employers and workers.
Amendment 17 would provide workers with the ability to opt out of receiving guaranteed-hours offers. We understand the importance of workers being able to retain the flexibility of zero-hours contracts or arrangements if they wish, which is why those receiving a guaranteed-hours offer will be able to turn it down. However, to ensure that all qualifying workers will benefit from the legislation, all workers should be able to receive a guaranteed-hours offer. We want to ensure that employers and workers are starting from a position of equal bargaining power. Therefore, through the Bill we have allowed for employers and unions to collectively agree to opt out of the zero-hours contract measure, if they agree. Unions can make these deals based on their knowledge of the industry and a holistic view of what is best for the workers. We feel it is more appropriate than individual workers opting out of receiving offers. After receiving an offer, qualifying workers would then be able to decide whether to accept, based on their individual circumstances.
Finally, Amendment 2 would remove from the Bill the right for qualifying workers to be offered guaranteed hours. We think that all employers should be required to offer their qualifying workers guaranteed hours, as this is the best way of addressing one-sided flexibility in the workplace and ensuring that jobs provide a baseline of security and predictability.
Without guaranteed hours, workers do not have any form of certainty as to their earnings, making it difficult to apply for credit or a mortgage, to rent a flat, to plan for major events, or even to manage their day-to-day life expenses. As I have previously iterated, those who are offered guaranteed hours will be able to turn them down and remain on a current contract or arrangement if they wish. We believe that this is the right balance. I therefore hope that I have persuaded noble Lords not to press their amendments.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
The Minister is relying a great deal on the fabled consultation that we are going to have. Can we have some idea of when that consultation is likely to take place? Can I suggest that it perhaps takes place before we get to Report, because it will iron out a great many of these arguments? The Minister asserted that some businesses have supported the 12-week reference period. Can she say which ones?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
The Bill sets out, in a number of ways, that there will be regulations that will be consulted upon. This goes back to the issue of when that consultation will take place, but there is a framework for that set out in the Bill which should cover that point.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
As I said, I read out the names of a number of businesses that are broadly supportive, but we have not gone through clause by clause asking which particular pieces of the Bill they are supporting. However, businesses that are household names are in support of the Bill.
Baroness Verma (Con)
My Lords, very quickly, large businesses may be able to be supportive. Could the Minister name any small business that she has come across that supports this?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
Again, there is a list of SMEs that support the basis of the Bill. I do not think it is going to help anybody if we go back and ask them for the specifics of whether they agree with each clause. The fact is that they agree with the direction of travel and a number of businesses, big and small, are already carrying out many of these practices, so it will not be unusual to them. This is about good employment practice and I am sure a lot of businesses will support it.
Lord Moynihan of Chelsea (Con)
My Lords, the debate on this group of amendments has been invigorating and useful. I thank all those noble Lords, in particular, the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, who have contributed to it.
My noble friend Lord Wolfson of Aspley Guise commended the intention of the Bill to counter the ill effects of zero-hours contracts, which his company does not use. I honour his intent and indeed his extraordinary contributions to the nation’s employment and its economy in general. I note that he tended to agree with my proposal overall, in respect of the dysfunctionality of this clause. I would be happy if the wording of the clause, if it is incorporated into the Bill, incorporated his wording but removed the rest of the clause from the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Fox, who does not appear to be in his place, spoke to Amendment 4, which, in the case that Section 27BA is retained in the Bill, switches the origination of a flexible-hours discussion from employer to employee. Clearly, this is a more sound and flexible approach, although I of course cannot go along with his later statement that he meant there to be an obligation on the employer to provide what the employee demanded.
My noble friend Lady Lawlor spoke movingly on the many things this Government have already done to depress economic activity and said—better than I—how this clause would make things much worse. She added the crucial point that the ill that this clause purports to address is in fact a good, much preferred by the majority of those working flexible hours.
My noble friend Lady Verma spoke with the authority of one who has great experience as an employer. She implored the Government to get their nose out of what should be a more relaxed and less formal relationship between employers and employees. The Government should pay her heed. My noble friend Lady Coffey spoke forensically about the wreckage this clause would create in the hospitality industry and also, very worryingly, in the NHS. Over and again, we heard noble Lords speak about the need for flexibility; this clause creates the opposite.
My noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom pointed particularly to the appalling outcomes this clause will create on the numbers of youth unemployed. Earlier, my noble friend Lady Meyer mentioned French youth unemployment at 19.2%. Have the Government any clue how that occurred? They did not intend that to happen, obviously. They do not want one in five of their youth unemployed who are seeking work. It occurred from precisely the sort of legislation that the Government are proposing to introduce here. Do we really want our youth unemployment to be one in five of those wanting to be employed? That is what I mean by outcomes rather than this notional and very generic idea of fairness—because it is not fair, either.
The Minister confirmed that the reference period will be in the legislation. This is welcome news, but it would have been better were it in the draft legislation right now, so that we could debate it right now—the time that we are supposed to be debating it. The Minister showed an impressive ability to wade through the latest iteration of what is an extraordinarily complex proposed set of rules, but creating and explaining such rules misses the entire point. This Government believe that “We know best” and therefore that if we create this perfect machine, these wonderful processes, all will be well. They do not know best; the market knows best and the market should be left to itself to sort out most of these matters. I urge the Minister to heed the words of the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, to provide clarity as soon as possible and to provide flexibility in the way that they have just urged her.
The Minister sought to provide clarity on agency workers. With respect, her words did not reflect reality. Let us take as one random example the interim management sector. These individuals take jobs to fill gaps that suddenly appear in a company, to fill the period before a permanent replacement can be found. The appointment of an interim manager may last a day or it may last a year, depending entirely on events that will only be happening in the future. To guarantee hours for these individuals is, quite frankly, entirely impossible. That is just one of many different sectors and different possible examples, as the noble Baronesses, Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lady Verma, made clear just now.
I remain convinced that the outcome of this clause, if passed into law, will be significantly fewer—not more—jobs. Having said which, there are of course other ways of improving this clause if it is not removed entirely. These are ways that my noble friends and the noble Lord, Lord Fox, have offered with their own amendments, the vast majority of which I have indicated that I agree with, not least after listening to the experienced voices of business from these Benches.
To conclude, the removal of flexibility from employers cannot possibly be a good thing. The more employment flexibility that is created in an economy, the more creative are the ways that entrepreneurial employers find to grow the economy, to create more jobs, to improve living standards and indeed to provide the Government with more tax revenues to meet the depressingly larger and larger commitments that this Government continue to take on. Having said all of which, I reserve the right to bring this amendment back on Report. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw it.
Baroness Noakes
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, along with another in the name of Baroness Noakes, takes small and micro businesses (and similarly sized undertakings) out of the ambit of Part 1 of the Bill.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, I rise to move Amendment 5 and will speak also to Amendment 124 in this group. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Londesborough and Lord Vaux of Harrowden for adding their names to the amendments. The noble Lord, Lord Vaux of Harrowden, was hoping that we would be progressing rather more rapidly during Committee. Unfortunately, he has now had to leave us, but he has assured me that he remains fully committed to the principles behind these amendments.
Amendment 5 seeks to amend new Section 27BA of the Employment Rights Act 1996 as inserted by Clause 1 of this Bill so that the new right to be offered guaranteed hours will not apply to small and micro businesses. Small and micro businesses should not be dragged into any of the changes made in this part of the Bill, which is why I tabled the more extensive exclusion in Amendment 124. The Public Bill Office would not let me table that amendment at the beginning of Part 1, which is what I wanted to do, but it suggested Amendment 5 as a mechanism to enable us to have an early debate on the impact of the Bill on small and micro businesses. It is such an important issue that it has already arisen in the speeches of several noble Lords on the other two groups that we have debated, so now is a good time to have an initial debate on small businesses.
My blanket Part 1 exclusion—in Amendment 124 —applies to small and micro businesses. I have used the definitions in the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015, so that a “small business” is one with fewer than 50 staff and a “micro business” has fewer than 10 staff. The 2015 Act also encompasses other types of undertaking, so small charities et cetera would come under that definition.
I have some considerable sympathy for Amendment 282 in the names of my noble friends Lord Sharpe of Epsom and Lord Hunt of Wirral, which is also in this group. It is similar to mine, but it instead also covers medium-sized companies, which are those with between 50 and 250 employees. I believe that the greatest harms done by this Bill will be to those at the smaller end of the scale, because they have the fewest management resources to cope with the kinds of burdens that the Bill will inflict on large swathes of our business community. I am not opposed to my noble friends’ amendment, but if we could see where the biggest harm would be, it would be at the very smallest end.
According to the latest Department for Business and Trade statistics, there were 5.5 million businesses in total, employing nearly 28 million employees. The micro-business segment—those with up to 10 employees —accounts for 95% of the total number of businesses, 5.2 million. However, 4 million of them do not have any employees. The rest—1.2 million businesses—have over 4 million employees between them. So we are talking about businesses with an average size of three employees; these are very small operations.
The 220,000 businesses that have between 10 and 50 employees have 4.3 million employees in total. The average for this category—small businesses—is around 20 employees, so it is still a very small operation. The rest, large and medium-sized businesses, account for only a bit over 1% of the business population—that is the number of businesses—but they employ 53% of the workforce.
If my amendment—to take Part 1 out of scope for small and micro businesses—is accepted, it would still apply to private sector businesses employing around 15 million employees, plus, of course, the 6 million employed in the public sector. It would not apply to around 1.4 million businesses with around 8.3 million employees.
The Government’s economic analysis cites a figure of 13 million employees who would be excluded for small and micro businesses, but that seems to include the 4 million businesses with no employees, which I have assumed are things such as sole traders, who are not actually employed. If the Minister responding to the amendment has any better analysis of the numbers, I would be grateful if he would write to me, because I find them a little confusing.
The Government’s assessment of small and micro businesses shows that five of the nine largest measures and two of the four medium-sized measures have a disproportionate impact on small and micro businesses. I am genuinely astonished that the Government would even contemplate bringing forward measures which are so disproportionately skewed in terms of harm to small and micro businesses. Those that have the biggest impact are found largely in Part 1 of the Bill.
Several noble Lords have already raised the problems that the Bill will create for those small businesses, and at Second Reading a number of noble Lords spoke to exactly the same issues. At the weekend, I went back to the closing speech of the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, at Second Reading. She did not even refer to the problems for this important sector of the economy; she talked about business more generally, but not about the small and micro businesses, or even the medium-sized businesses, that will be impacted.
Lord Londesborough (CB)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendments 5 and 124 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, to which I have readily added my name.
Before I get stuck into the detail, I should perhaps offer an apology for comments that I made at Second Reading, when I compared this Bill to a giant vampire squid sucking the life out of our economy. Although this metaphor generated considerable media coverage, it prompted several eagle-eyed members of the public to point out that the vampire squid is no bloodsucker as it eats only dead organic material. It turns out that I inadvertently picked the only mollusc that does not eat live prey, so I stand corrected and apologise to the marine life community for this oversight.
As far as the Bill goes, I make no apology. I will focus on Part 1 and its impact on our all-important start-ups and scale-ups. We have 35,000 scale-ups in the UK, contributing £1.6 trillion to the UK economy annually; that is more than 50% of the value of the whole of the UK’s SME economy, despite these companies making up less than 1% of the SME population. They are crucial because they represent the most dynamic element of our economic growth: they create jobs at the fastest rate, promote their staff at the fastest rate and attract significant investment.
I should declare my interests as set out in the register: I chair, advise and invest in a range of start-ups and scale-ups, and it is their lived experience that informs my comments, along with my own years as a micro, small and medium-sized employer.
Working for scale-ups and start-ups is both demanding and rewarding. Entry-level jobs tend to pay less than average and have considerably fewer benefits than average, but progress more rapidly in terms of pay, bonuses and promotion, with such employees often becoming equity stakeholders. Scale-ups thrive on flexibility and a performance culture—something that Part 1 of this Bill seems to ignore.
Another important group sitting within the small and micro sector is family businesses employing fewer than 50 staff, the majority of them having fewer than 10 employees. These businesses often have only one member of staff covering each responsibility, and their HR has to be covered by the owner or the senior manager. Subjecting these groups to the full battery of clauses and schedules in Part 1 of this Bill is, I believe, disproportionate, costly, distracting and growth-sapping.
On the subject of costs, the Bill’s impact assessment suggests a burden of an extra £5 million per annum for all employers and admits that this will disproportionately fall on small and micro-businesses, as the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, just outlined. However, that is a crude estimate and appears to have been drawn very narrowly. It fails to assess the invisible costs of complicated recruitment, performance reviews, dismissals and the general administration of HR. The smaller the business, the greater the distraction from core activities, tying up key leadership and management time in less productive areas. In plain language, this means lost output.
Recruitment is critical for small and micro-businesses and is set to become far riskier in an already difficult climate. Part 1 of this Bill threatens to complicate probation, performance reviews and dismissal for fair cause. Day one rights and dismissal constraints will deter risk-taking and reduce employment opportunities at entry and graduate levels, especially in middle and senior management. It will encourage employers to hold on to bad hires and to promote mediocre or underqualified ones.
Flexible working, shift changes and guaranteed hours have already been covered in the previous group, so I will not duplicate, other than to say that this is a special problem for small and micro-businesses, especially those that rely on part-time workers and shift patterns. The hospitality sector is a prime example.
I shall finish by countering the Government’s expected response to this group of amendments: that there should be no exemptions as these new employment rights should apply universally across the economy, and that we should not create a two-tier workforce. Although I understand the thrust of that argument, it does not reflect the real employment market. SMBs, as we have already heard, cannot compete with large businesses when it comes to pay scales, training, promotion opportunities and a whole range of benefits, including pensions. Indeed, most have no HR function, let alone department, and that reflects their size.
However, what SMBs do have to offer is a friendly working environment; greater flexibility than average; a stakeholder culture, whether that is reflected in equity or in identity; and the fact that every role in their organisation is a critical part of the business, leading to strong employee loyalty and identification. Applying to small and micro-businesses consisting of five or 10 staff the very same employment rights that are applied to multinationals such as Amazon, which employs 75,000 people in this country, will do serious damage to our jobs market. That is why I wholeheartedly endorse these amendments.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak briefly in support of Amendments 5 and 124, so ably spoken to by my noble friend Lady Noakes, and well supported by the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough. I also support Amendment 282, which I expect will be addressed by my noble friend Lord Sharpe or my noble friend Lord Hunt.
The impact on the smallest businesses will, as stated by my noble friend Lady Noakes, be great. The cost to business of implementing the Bill could be as much as £5 billion, according to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch. She said that this would be a transfer to the lowest-paid segment of the workforce. I do not think that that would be the result. My noble friends’ amendments would mitigate the stifling effect on small businesses that the Bill will have.
Small and micro-businesses are already struggling with the additional costs of the increases in employers’ national insurance contributions introduced two weeks ago. It is small and micro-businesses that most need flexibility in the nature of the employment models they can offer workers. Putting such businesses into a straitjacket will remove employment opportunities for many of those who prefer flexible-hours contracts, and even for the many young people who actually quite like zero-hours contracts, or who would at least rather that such opportunities existed than not—which will otherwise be the consequence of enacting the Bill. My noble friend Lady Lawlor spoke convincingly on this matter in the previous group.
Part 1 of the Bill will prevent many small businesses taking the risks inherent in adding a new business line or expanding the size of their operations. I hope that the Minister will carefully consider the strong arguments made for the exemption of small and micro-businesses from these measures. In that way, the Government might achieve their declared aim of transferring value to the lowest-paid segment of the workforce.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
My Lords, it is a great honour to follow my noble friend Lady Noakes and the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough. My noble friend and I worked on the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act, which I am pleased has provided good use here on in. Of course, she has a most distinguished business career, not just, as we all know, in very large financial services companies but as my president at the Institute of Chartered Accountants, where she interacted with many small and medium-sized businesses. The noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, and I spent the turn of the year discussing the Bill and its ramifications.
I speak as someone who takes a particular interest in SMEs, for reasons I will explain. I am, of course, in full support of this small group of amendments—as are, I think, all business representative bodies. The FSB, which is the UK’s largest employer group, has said that this will
“wreak havoc on our already fragile economy”.
We have had survey after survey: 1,270 companies were surveyed. Two-thirds of them said that they will curb hiring, and one-third said that they would reduce staff as a result of this Bill. The aforementioned Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development discovered that 25% of its members will be considering lay-offs as a direct result of this Bill. The Institute of Directors called it
“a sledgehammer to crack a nut.”
As I mentioned, I am particularly close to the SME sector, not least because, in 1989, I started a small business with one partner and one assistant. I should therefore declare an interest that I still own a chunk of shares in that small business, which, when we started, was called Cavendish Corporate Finance and is now Cavendish plc. At this point I normally take a pot-shot at the Labour Front Bench as not having any business experience to talk of—certainly not in the other place—but I have to be much more deferential in this Chamber, not least because the noble Lord, Lord Leong, two years after I started Cavendish Corporate Finance, started Cavendish Publishing, except, of course, that he had much greater success than me. According to Wikipedia, in his first year made £250,000 profit, which is very impressive, because in my first year I lost money, so I have to be suitably deferential. None the less, I am sure the noble Lord will remember those formative years of starting a business, when one was focused on nothing else but that business. Clearly, we desperately need people to do the same as the noble Lord and me: to take the risk, start a business, have a go and then employ people.
The decision to employ a person is a very big one. It is the toughest decision for the first person, but it is still tough for the second, third, fourth and fifth. As it happens, we now have 220 people employed at Cavendish, but it took a long time to get there and we had to merge with a number of other companies so to do. For many years my small business would have been covered by my noble friend Lady Noakes’s exemption, and it would need it because, to take on people in a small business, you are recruiting someone not just to do a job of work but to join your culture and your aspirations, and to fit in. Sometimes it works and sometimes it does not, and when it does not you have to make difficult decisions to make changes. The fact that we are now allowed to let people go relatively easily encourages people such as me to take a chance and employ someone where I would not otherwise do so.
I am very worried that this Bill will lead to a reduction in business growth and, in particular, in employment. Its main burdens will be borne by small businesses. I think the Minister cited five companies that she said were broadly supportive of the Bill. All but one were larger companies, and one was actually the Co-op—I am not sure that entirely counts. Another was IKEA, but I would be very grateful if the Minister could cite the support from IKEA, because I cannot find it. The SME sector realises that the financial burden that the Bill imposes of some £5 billion will largely fall on it, and it is very worried. So the first issue is financial.
The second issue is operational. SMEs do not have an HR department. They simply do not have the facility to wade through this enormous amount of legislation about how they are supposed to treat their staff. The only way round it is, of course, to deploy an agency at great expense to advise and consult every time there is any HR issue, and it is just another cost for businesses which are, for the most part, feeling pretty fragile, and much more fragile after the horrendous NIC increases that are being imposed on them.
The third hammer blow is that those business just will not hire. They just will not take the risk of hiring new employees, which will, of course, restrict their growth, because the only way a business can grow is to recruit new people with fresh blood, fresh ideas and fresh reach. It is impossible for a business to grow without making hires.
Fourthly, the Bill will make businesses risk averse. The Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales has specifically said that this will make businesses risk averse in all their decisions, because of the extra risks that are imposed on those businesses by the Bill because of the costs and burdens they have to undertake.
Lastly, the fifth problem with the Bill is the lack of consultation. It has been rushed through to meet the 100-day deadline and, as a result, there has not been proper consultation and we are wading through a vast number of amendments that we are trying to get our heads round.
For all those reasons, one accepts that the Bill is in the manifesto and that it has to happen—it is in, in many ways appropriate that it does—but please can we leave out the SME businesses that will struggle with this Bill? Maybe we can bring it in later, suitably amended, but not now.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I think the Government would do themselves a great deal of good if they made special arrangements for small business. They are well precedented: we have the VAT threshold, the employment allowance and the small business audit, and it would be a powerful addition to their forthcoming White Paper or Green Paper on small businesses.
Everyone knows that I often speak in favour of small business and have very good relations with the Federation of Small Businesses, so I obviously support the expert trio of my noble friend Lady Noakes and the noble Lords, Lord Londesborough and Lord Vaux of Harrowden, who we should listen to. To put it simply, either we need some special arrangements for small businesses, or—and it might be even better—we need changes to the Bill to remove the bureaucratic provisions that are going to get in the way of success; to look at the lack of flexibility and remedy it; and to avoid the inevitable huge increase in tribunal cases and the overuse of delegated powers. I encourage the Minister to think creatively in this important area.
Baroness Verma (Con)
My Lords, I also support these amendments from my noble friend and other noble Lords. It would be really helpful if the Government took a hard look at this. I spoke to coffee shop owners over the weekend, and to a very small business that is trying to manufacture British products in this country. They are all very worried about how they are going to cope with the burdens that will be placed on them.
It may well be useful for the Government to go back and look at whether they can make an exception for small businesses up to a certain number of employees—maybe three, maybe five and at least for those that have no ability other than to reach out and pay for very expensive advice, which often they cannot afford. These small businesses are at the heart of our high streets in local communities. They add value and are familiar to customers. The very small business—the micro-business, but particularly businesses with 10 employees or less—should be exempt from this Bill.
Lord Ashcombe (Con)
My Lords, it a pleasure to support my noble friend Lady Noakes and the noble Lords, Lord Londesborough and Lord Vaux of Harrowden, on Amendment 5 and their other amendment.
Small businesses and microbusinesses form a vital component of our national economy. These enterprises, while often agile and innovative, are particularly vulnerable to regulatory and financial pressures. Like all businesses—I should declare that I work for a very large American insurance broker—these enterprises have had to absorb the recent increases in the national minimum wage and adapt to the changes in national insurance contributions legislation. However, unlike larger businesses, they often lack the structural resilience and financial buffer to absorb such changes with ease. The impact on them is therefore disproportionate. This amendment proposes a sensible and measured opt-out for SMEs from additional obligations stemming from the proposed changes to zero-hours contracts—specifically, the move towards tightly prescribed guaranteed hours. As the Government’s own impact assessment acknowledges, these reforms are likely to have a disproportionate cost on small businesses and microbusinesses. I stress that this is not speculation but is drawn directly from the Government’s impact analysis.
Small businesses and microbusinesses span a wide range of sectors, but many are embedded within the UK as world-renowned creative industries that bring global acclaim and substantial economic benefit to this country. Many are driven by the energy, passion and commitment of individual entrepreneurs and small teams. I have had the privilege of speaking with several such business owners during the course of this Bill, and a recurring concern has emerged: the smaller the business, the harder it is to digest and manage such legislative change. Some have gone so far as to tell me that they are considering closing their operations altogether. That is a deeply troubling prospect. It is no exaggeration to say that measures such as these, if applied without nuance, risk undermining the very entrepreneurial spirit that we so often celebrate in this House.
There seems to be a regrettable habit forming on the Government Benches of legislating in ways that hinder rather than help the economic engines of this country. This approach is not conducive to national growth. It is not conducive to competitiveness. It is not conducive to job creation. It is certainly not conducive to easing the burden on the Exchequer—quite the opposite. Driving small businesses to closure will reduce tax receipts and increase demand for state support. We need to encourage investment, not chase it away.
Can the Minister explain clearly why this legislation must apply so rigidly to a critical sector of our economy? Why must we impose further burdens on the very businesses that we rely on so much for our innovation, employment and growth? Is there no room for proportionality and no scope for recognising the distinct challenges that are faced by the smallest enterprises? What I have said applies, to a great extent, to the middle-sized companies mentioned in Amendment 282, tabled by my noble friends Lord Sharpe and Lord Hunt of Wirral.
I leave your Lordships with a quote from the Spirit of Law by Montesquieu:
“Commerce … wanders across the earth, flees from where it is oppressed, and remains where it is left to breathe”.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
My Lords, I support the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lady Noakes and the other amendments in this group. I do so as an employer, and my interests are declared in the register.
I am a very small employer, in a not-for-profit company. I am therefore one of the microbusinesses to which my noble friend Lady Noakes has referred—those which have zero to nine employees. I echo what the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, said: smaller businesses will find it very difficult to afford the costs which this Bill will impose upon them.
Small businesses and the employers in them are not the adversaries of those we take on. Many small businesses, including a number in the digital sector, are start-ups—some started in that garage, about which Hermann Hauser once spoke. They build up their teams and develop by commitment. Each member of the team taken on is an asset—not just an expensive potential asset but a cost to begin with, in time and in the compliance of dealing with every member of the workforce. Such businesses do not have large HR teams or sometimes any HR teams. There is a cost in the salary and in trying to keep the employee by continuing to raise the salary as often as one can. There is also a cost in the investment of time.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I too support Amendment 5. Without small businesses growing and taking on people, we will not achieve the outcomes that the Government have set for getting more people into work. I referred in a debate on an earlier group to the 80% target.
I am conscious of what happened with the Kickstart scheme. We particularly encouraged small businesses to participate in the scheme and to consider the opportunity of an extra pair of hands, giving them the confidence that they could grow their business and employ people, often for the first time. That was an important step in thinking about how to minimise risk in the first instance. A considerable proportion of people were offered permanent jobs as a consequence.
That first step of taking people on is often the hardest for many small businesses and microbusinesses. That is why I would be even happier if this amendment was altered on Report to make it solely for microbusinesses, not just small businesses, as that first step is one of the hardest.
We already have thresholds in many other employment practices. We already have thresholds about things that connect with pension contributions, and other financial thresholds have been referred to. But this is about having the courage to take on people. You may decide to expand your services, whether in the care sector or elsewhere, as you do not want to let clients down, but you need to make sure that you can guarantee quality support to your clients. That is one of those uncertain things when we discuss a wide range of the amendments to Part 1 of the Bill.
There are other opportunities where I will raise the issues impacting small businesses in the Bill, but overall we should take the successful approach of previous Governments, including Labour Governments, of keeping small businesses out of this area. The impact assessments talked about mitigations they plan, but there is no mention of what those mitigations may actually be, and that level of uncertainty is one of the things that will hold back growth, which we are led to believe is the number one mission of this Government. I fear that without some of the exemptions, we will not see that growth coming in our UK industry.
Lord de Clifford (CB)
I rise in support of the gist of these amendments with regard to small businesses. I declare my interest as the owner of a medium-sized business with 130 employees, so it would not apply to me. But the burden on small businesses, certainly of Part 1, will seriously restrict their ability to grow and have the courage to take that step of employing people. I certainly think that micro-businesses should be exempted from a lot of these burdens. As we go through Part 1, we need to keep those micro-businesses in our thoughts.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, I am channelling the noble Lord, Lord Fox, who has been called away. He, on behalf of these Benches, cannot accept a two- tier workplace in regard to employment rights, which obviously form the content of this Bill, so we will not be supporting these amendments.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, for setting out the position so clearly, but I am particularly grateful to my noble friend Lady Noakes because, as a result of her moving the key Amendment 5, we have had a remarkably positive debate about what I believe is the lifeblood of the UK economy, namely the small and medium-sized business sector. The noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, of course, is a great authority on all this, and it was good to hear from the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, as well.
When we reflect for a moment on the speeches that have been made in this debate—apart from that of the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer—we have not had any contributions from the Government Benches. But, as my noble friend Lord Leigh of Hurley pointed out, the most important contribution will be made by someone who really does understand. The noble Lord, Lord Leong, knows all about small businesses, and I am thrilled and delighted that he is summing up the debate because he understands what so many of my colleagues have tried to point out. The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, said that bureaucracy can get in the way of success. Look at the amount of rules and regulations and bureaucracy.
I agreed with all my noble friends, including my noble friend Lord Ashcombe when he pleaded for a sensible and measured response. We all want to see bereavement leave—all good employers allow for bereavement leave. We want to see rights established very clearly, but my noble friend Lady Verma pointed out that if we impose them on the small and medium-sized sector in the way that my noble friend Lady Noakes outlined, three, four or five employees will suddenly have to deal with all this legislation.
Let us remind ourselves of the importance of small businesses. As several of my colleagues pointed out, at the start of last year there were 5.45 million small businesses with up to 49 employees, making up a staggering 99.2% of the total business population in the UK. We are talking about a massive sector, and therefore we have to worry and concern ourselves about the effect of the Bill. As the Federation of Small Businesses put it, in its current form the Bill risks becoming nothing short of a disaster for small and micro-businesses.
The noble Baroness from the Liberal Democrat Benches spoke about a two-tier workforce system, which those Benches object to. But as my noble friend Lady Noakes pointed out, we do in fact have tiering alive and well throughout the UK economy. It is not trying to impose one size fits all; it is recognising that over 99% of businesses in this country are small and cannot possibly cope with the burden of this Bill.
It just so happens that I already have a quotation from the noble Lord, Lord Leong, which I readily move to. We have heard from the Government on multiple occasions that they are committed to supporting SMEs and ensuring that they are not burdened with excessive costs or red tape. The noble Lord, Lord Leong, made a very important point during the passage of the Product Regulation and Metrology Bill:
“we do not want to burden SMEs with additional regulatory or financial cost”.—[Official Report, 25/11/24; col. GC 138.]
What wise words: we would love to hear those words from him again tonight. He will realise that the reality of this Bill is starkly different. The only thing this Bill seems to do for SMEs is to burden them with additional regulatory and financial costs. It is incredibly difficult to reconcile the Government’s stated intentions with the actual impact this legislation will have on small and micro-businesses across the country.
I know that my noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom and I have Amendment 282 in this group, but I do not want to go into it. I was taking the old Companies Act definition, and I do not need to go into all the findings of the Bolton committee and all those who have sought to define this, because I think my noble friends have done a great deal to define small and medium-sized enterprises.
We just need to know what the Government intend to do to alleviate the burden on small and micro-businesses. The impact assessment has highlighted the significant challenges that these businesses will face in implementing these reforms, and at the moment there is no adequate plan to support them.
I would like to ask the Minister these questions. First, will he please outline what the three main expected benefits of this Bill will be for small and micro-businesses? Secondly, how will the Government support small businesses in complying with the provisions of this legislation? What kind of guidance, training and resources will be made available to ensure that these businesses can navigate the new regulations without inadvertently falling foul of the law? Finally, can the Minister provide an assessment of the risk of unintentional non-compliance by small businesses? What steps are the Government taking to mitigate this risk and ensure that these businesses are not unduly penalised as a result of a lack of guidance in the legislation?
The Government have not consulted the small and medium-sized sector. If they have, can we please have a great deal more detail on what their conclusions were? If they have not consulted, will they please do so now?
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Leong) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who contributed to this group of amendments with such passion. The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, together with the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe and Lord Hunt, tabled several amendments—Amendments 5, 124 and 282—that seek to remove micro-businesses and small and medium-sized businesses from the scope of large sections of the Bill.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
With respect, the statement that was issued on April Fools’ Day seems to be in support of the minimum wage, not of the specific clauses in the Bill.
Lord Leong (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for that, but IKEA is pretty supportive of the overall intention of the Bill and of the national minimum wage, which is obviously outside the scope of the Bill, such as what we are doing on zero-hours contracts, other short-term contracts and all that. I will write to the noble Lord with further details on the various clauses that it supports.
Various noble Lords asked about the impact assessment. The benefits of the Bill that were published by the TUC show that even modest gains from reforms to workers’ rights will benefit the UK economy by some £13 billion. Opposing this, the impact assessment says that the costs to business would be some £5 billion or 0.4% of employment costs. The benefit is huge, and economists have done research on this.
I cannot agree more with the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, who says that start-ups and scale-ups definitely generate employment. It is absolutely right that we have to support them and I strongly believe that the Bill does support them.
Various noble Lords mentioned day-one rights and difficulty in recruiting employees. Remember that, when you run a small business, yes, it is very competitive to employ your first employee: sometimes you have to compete with the big companies in matching salaries or even benefits. I believe passionately that the Bill puts SMEs on a level playing field with large companies, where they can offer the basic benefits in the Bill.
Sometimes we asked: why are we excluding SMEs because it is so difficult for employers to recruit, and why should employees in SMEs not get day-one rights? My answer is: why not? Why should they not get day-one rights? As I said, they are the people who work for the owners, for the owners to make the profit. Without them, the owners will not have a business, so it is very important that they are supported and I believe strongly that good businesses provide fantastic support to their employees.
Lord Ashcombe (Con)
My Lords, I am not sure that it is the difficulty in recruiting that is the real problem for small and micro businesses; I think it is the fear of recruiting. That is a really different point.
Lord Leong (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for that. I might turn that around and say that, if I am looking for a job, I have a choice of big or small companies. I am taking a chance and a risk working for a very small company. I am not sure whether that company will last. That risk works two ways. I strongly believe that most people work for companies not because of what the company does but because they look at the owner or the founders and whether they want to work with such people. At the end of the day, the employees will also be taking a chance on the employer.
Baroness Verma (Con)
My Lords, there is a huge difference between a large business—and its culture and the ability to respond to all the new burdens that will be placed on it—and a small business. The Minister himself said that a happy business and happy employees add to a good bottom line. The problem is that, if an employer is so burdened by so many things to comply with because it is a small employer, that happiness is soon going to disappear. All I think that all noble Lords around the House are asking is that we ease the burdens for small and micro-businesses by removing not the rights but just the burdens.
Lord Leong (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for that. There are other additional responsibilities, not only in terms of HR. A company that sets up needs to have IT support and payroll support. How many SMEs have their own IT department or payroll department, let alone an HR department? There will be big businesses that will be providing services to support SMEs. The whole argument is about responsibility: basically, when you set up a business, you have all these responsibilities, and this is part of those responsibilities.
Baroness Verma (Con)
My Lords, I do not want to labour the point but, if the Minister were to speak to the small businesses that people like us are speaking to, I think they would really argue that these are huge implications for them.
Lord Leong (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness. I will not hold the House for too long, because I think the dinner break is coming up, but I will obviously meet up with her to talk further on this.
To conclude, the Government believe that having an entitlement to fair, flexible and secure working should not be reserved for those people who work for large companies. It is fundamental that our “make work pay” reforms, including those in this Bill, apply across all employers. Any exceptions to this provision based on the size of the business would create a two-tier labour market, with some workers facing fewer rights, entitlements and protections. This would reduce the talent pool from which SMEs could attract employees, as I mentioned earlier. This in turn would lead to an uneven playing field between employers of different sizes and reduced incentives for small businesses to grow. I therefore ask the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, to withdraw Amendment 282 and the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, to withdraw Amendments 5 and 124.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, I think the Minister will find that the only amendment that can be withdrawn at the moment is Amendment 5. The others have not been reached on the Marshalled List.
I thank all noble Lords who have taken part: the noble Lords, Lord Londesborough and Lord de Clifford, on the Cross Benches, and all my noble friends who have spoken in this debate. Between them, they have communicated the very special issues that arise for smaller businesses right at the beginning of their life, when those early decisions are made about taking people on as they grow, and the risks and opportunities that come thereafter. I do not think that the Minister has begun really to internalise all the additional impositions that the Bill will place on that group of people.
I have a couple of small points. The Government’s economic analysis says that there are 13 million employees in small and micro businesses. I may not have been listening carefully to what the Minister said in response to my question on the numbers, but I did not hear him mention 13 million. I am hoping that I can get an analysis of where that 13 million comes from in due course. That is probably the most straightforward of the questions that arise.
The important thing here is that small and micro-businesses are very prevalent in our communities and involve really small numbers of people in their businesses, and it is a question of understanding what effect the additional imposition of the rights that are being conveyed in the Bill will have on their businesses. Small businesses, as the noble Lord said, know that they are about people and that their whole success or failure depends on the people they get and the people that they can develop to grow with their business. But they also need significant flexibilities because, when you are that small, you need to be able to cope with the situations that arise in relation to those small numbers.
I do not think any small businesses are trying to get out of treating their employees with respect and developing them as suits their particular business, but it appears that the Government feel that you can impose the measures such as those in the Bill across the whole of the business community and just rest on platitudes such as, “Oh, well, the direct costs on business are going to be outweighed by the productivity gain”. That productivity gain is not peer-reviewed research; there is no evidence that there is a causative link between giving extra employment rights and getting any productivity. That has not been examined in detail, so it is wrong to keep asserting that the Bill will result in that.
But, importantly, the issue is what is relevant to different categories of business. I and my noble friends, and my colleagues on the Cross Benches, have been trying to convey the particular issues that small businesses encounter and need to be protected from. I had rather hoped that the noble Lord, Lord Leong, with his background, would have understood that and would have understood the need for those small businesses to have some degree of understanding from the Government Benches and not be told, “Well, of course they have to have payroll and IT; they’ve just got to go and get all those things”. We are talking about the wealth-creating segment of our economy. Not everyone is going to be growing fast, but some of them are, and some of them are going to be growing a lot. If we harm those, we harm the economic potential of our country, and that is what we have been trying to argue.
I am sorry that the Government are not in listening mode today. I am hopeful that they might be prepared to listen further, especially if they genuinely engage with the representative bodies that represent the smaller end of the business scale, because I believe that the Bill needs to take some account of the special circumstances in which small and micro-businesses find themselves. But obviously, today I will withdraw Amendment 5.
Employment Rights Bill
Tuesday 29th April 2025
(10 months, 4 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Employment Rights Act 2025 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 81-I(a) Amendments for Committee (Supplementary to the Marshalled List) - (29 Apr 2025)
Lord Leong
“(8A) Subsection (8B) applies where—(a) a worker’s contract or arrangement requires an employer to make work available to a worker for a number of hours, and(b) some or all of those hours may be made available either on days falling within a reference period or on days falling within another period (all of the days on which the hours may be so made available together forming “the longer period”).In subsection (8B), “the unassigned hours” are the hours that may be made available at any time during the longer period as described in paragraph (b).(8B) Where this subsection applies—(a) subsection (3)(a)(ii) is to apply as if the contract or arrangement required the employer to make work available to the worker during the reference period for the apportioned number of the unassigned hours (in addition to any other hours that the employer is required to make available to the worker during the reference period);(b) “the apportioned number” of the unassigned hours is—Image-1where—H is the number of the unassigned hoursD1 is the number of days in the reference period that fall within the longer periodD2 is the number of days in the longer period.(8C) Where there is more than one longer period in relation to the same reference period, subsection (8B) is to be applied separately in relation to each longer period.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment makes provision, for the purposes of proposed section 27BA(3)(a)(ii) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, about the calculation of the number of hours for which an employer is required to make work available to a worker during a reference period in cases where hours might be made available in that period or another period.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Leong) (Lab)
My Lords, I beg to move government Amendment 14 and shall speak also to government Amendments 23, 25, 26, 30, 34, 35, 39, 40, 41 and 45 to 61. I reassure the Committee that these are technical amendments brought about as a result of very welcome scrutiny of the Bill.
The amendments incorporate technical and clarificatory adjustments, close loopholes to safeguard policy functionality, and resolve uncertainties to ensure the measures are comprehensive and will accurately deliver the policy intent set out in the plan to make work pay, delivery of which was a clear manifesto commitment of this Government. They do not introduce new policy; they simply ensure the Bill works to achieve its intended aims effectively. Making technical amendments to the Bill in this way is an entirely appropriate and ordinary part of making good legislation.
On Amendment 14, as the Bill is drafted, workers on annualised contracts—or other contracts where the hours are guaranteed over a period longer than the reference period—that have a total number of guaranteed hours of work but little detail as to their allocation may fall out of the scope of the right to guaranteed hours. This is because the worker would be on neither a zero-hours contract nor a contract guaranteeing a certain number of hours over the reference period. It is the case even if they would otherwise be eligible. Workers may therefore fall out of the scope even if they are guaranteed only a very small number of hours over a year.
On the other hand, workers on annualised hours contracts who have a sense of when their hours will be worked may fall into scope of the right to guaranteed hours if they have a certain number of hours guaranteed during the reference period. This is not our policy intention—workers on annualised contracts may experience one-sided flexibility in the same way as those on weekly or monthly contracts. As the Bill is drafted, there may also be a perverse incentive for employers to place workers on to annualised hours contracts guaranteeing a very small number of hours with no indication as to when they should be worked to avoid being in scope of the right to guaranteed hours.
Amendment 14 will ensure that the policy works as intended and expected and will act as an anti-avoidance measure. It makes provision to determine what the minimum guaranteed hours are in the relevant reference period by providing a calculation method to find the apportioned number of any unassigned hours under the contract for that reference period.
Amendments 49 to 57 add grounds on which a dismissal would be automatically unfair. A dismissal would be automatically unfair where an employee was dismissed for bringing a complaint to an employment tribunal that they were wrongly issued a notice by their employer stating that their guaranteed hours offer had been withdrawn or for alleging the existence of any circumstance which would constitute a ground for bringing such proceedings. Adding these grounds aligns with the approach taken where a worker is unfairly dismissed for taking a claim to an employment tribunal on other grounds relating to the right to guaranteed hours. All employees deserve protection from unfair dismissal. These amendments will ensure that employees who make a claim in an employment tribunal on any of the grounds related to the right to guaranteed hours will be protected from being dismissed as a result of making such a claim. Consequential amendments have been tabled to amend the right not to suffer a detriment for workers and agency workers to ensure consistency when referring to the proceedings that can be brought or referred to and that could lead to that detriment.
Amendments 25, 26, 34 and 35 relate to the movement of shifts for the purposes of payment for workers for shift movement at short notice. These amendments make technical changes to the definition of the “movement” of a shift. This is to provide for situations where a shift is split in two or more parts, or where a part of a shift is moved with the result that the shift ends later than it otherwise would have but the start time remains the same. For example, a worker could have a 9 am to 5 pm shift changed at short notice to 9 am to 12 pm and 4 pm to 9 pm. In this case, it is right that a payment for a short-notice change is granted given that the worker may have already incurred costs for plans associated with the shift, such as childcare or other care arrangements.
Amendments 30 and 40 make technical changes relating to payments for shifts that have been cancelled, moved or curtailed at short notice where an exception applies. Where an exception applies—meaning that the employer is not required to make a payment for that changed or cancelled shift—the employer must provide the worker with a notice so they are aware that they will not receive a short-notice payment and why. The notice must be given to the worker within a certain amount of time, which will be specified in regulations. This period may be shorter than the deadline for making payment, which will also be specified in regulations. Under the current drafting, even if they make the payment despite an exception applying, the employer still has to provide an exception notice if they make the payment after the deadline for giving a notice. The amendments change this so that employers do not need to provide a notice if they pay the worker within the deadline for making the payment. The same applies in respect of work-finding agencies and agency workers.
Amendment 23 aligns the wording used in Clauses 2 and 3. To be eligible for the right to short-notice payment, workers must be on a contract of a specified description, if they are not on a zero-hours contract or arrangement. This is referred to in Clause 2 as a contract
“that requires the employer to make some work available to the worker”.
We are adding the same description into Clause 3 to ensure that this is included in the provision.
Amendment 39 is a minor and technical amendment that corrects a cross-reference to align paragraph 23(5) of new Schedule A1 to the Employment Rights Act 1996 with new Section 27BR(3) of the same Act, both inserted by this Bill. This concerns the duty to give notice where an exception applies that means that no payment is due for a shift that has been moved, cancelled or curtailed at short notice. The amendment ensures that, for both directly engaged workers and agency workers, only the requirement to give an explanation in the notice of exception does not require the disclosure of information where that would contravene data protection legislation or breach a duty of confidentiality, or where the information is commercially sensitive.
Amendment 45 signposts at Clause 6 the definition of “work-finding agency” in Clause 4. This minor and technical amendment adds the definition of “work-finding agency” to the interpretation section in new Section 27BZ2, with other definitions used for that part. It does this by referring to its meaning in new Section 27BV of Part 2A of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
Amendments 46, 58 and 61 amend Schedule 6 to the Insolvency Act 1986, Schedule 3 to the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 2016 and Section 184 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 so that employees can receive short notice payments in the same circumstances as they receive other wages on the insolvency of their employer. When an employer goes insolvent, outstanding wages due to employees are treated as preferential debts—or preferred debts in Scotland. Amendments 58 and 61 ensure that outstanding short notice payments are also treated as preferential or preferred debts.
Amendment 46 enables employees to obtain payment of unpaid short notice payments from the Secretary of State in the same circumstances as they receive other wages under the scheme created by Part 12 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
Amendment 59 amends Section 202 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 to ensure that information does not have to be provided and will not be disclosed to a tribunal or court under the zero-hours provisions where a Minister is of the opinion that such disclosure would be contrary to the interests of national security.
Amendment 60 amends Section 206 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 to ensure that, in the event of a worker’s death or the employer’s death—or the death of another respondent in the case of agency workers—tribunal proceedings under the zero-hours provisions can still be instituted, continued or defended as appropriate by a personal representative of the deceased.
Amendments 41 and 47 amend Section 12A of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996 and the provisions on short notice payments for agency workers in order to enable employment tribunals to impose financial penalties on all types of respondents in claims brought under the zero-hours provisions where there are aggravating circumstances.
Amendment 48 amends Section 16 of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996 to include payments for cancelled, moved or curtailed shifts in scope. This ensures that regulations can be made to enable benefits to be recouped where a worker has not received such a payment and so has had to claim benefits, and the tribunal has then ordered the employer or work-finding agency to make the payment. The amendment also ensures that regulations can be made so that benefits can be recovered from all types of respondents in claims brought under the zero-hours provisions—for example, in respect of the payments that are compensation for loss of wages.
These amendments seek to prevent workers receiving double award where their rights have been breached and ensure that employers and other respondents do not benefit from breaching these rights. I therefore beg to move these amendments.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak to this group of government amendments. I am surprised that the Minister made the assertion that they are all technical. Amendment 53, for example, extends the types of dismissal that will be regarded as “automatically unfair”. That is not a technical amendment; it is an extension of what is already considered potentially controversial in being added to the Bill in this way.
There are other amendments in this group that really concern me in their drafting. Multiple amendments leave out several lines of the previous Bill presented to this House and the other House and then leave the employment tribunal and the employer to get into the detail. For example, Amendment 52 states:
“It is immaterial … whether or not the proceedings were, or would have been, well-founded provided that the agency worker acted in good faith in bringing the proceedings or alleging the existence of the circumstance”.
I ask the Minister, what has changed? Why do we now have an employment tribunal group which has to decide whether the actor worked in good faith? They will not necessarily need to know what the Government proposed before, but it would be very helpful to understand why significant parts of the Bill on the operation of the employment tribunal are being changed at this stage.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, as everyone knows, I am very new to this piece of legislation. I do not know whether “shambles” is a parliamentary term, but 27 amendments at this point, after going through the other House and now coming to this House, is completely unacceptable. A Bill needs to be developed virtually to its finish point before it enters the legislative process, not be continuously revived as it travels on through. That is not the way these Houses are meant to operate.
I was struggling to follow the Minister as he described this, not because he is unclear but because he is tackling such complexity within these regulations. I am going to go back and say to the team that they will have to read Hansard multiple times and then keep double-checking the amendments to have a feel for what is going on here. These are not just technical; it is reasonably obvious that they are not. Will we at the very least get a detailed code of conduct? People outside these Houses will have to apply all of this and will need real clarity. I work with employment tribunals, admittedly on whistleblowing issues, and I am incredibly conscious that this is the kind of thing that leads to them being flooded with even more cases—and employment tribunals are a part of the court system that does not have that capacity.
I ask that the Government rethink whether there are areas where the Bill is inappropriate or undeveloped and somehow find a way to bring all those issues very rapidly to the attention of parliamentarians. This is no way to carry out legislation, to ask us to apply sensible scrutiny when it is impossible to get to the bottom and the root of what is being presented to us.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, and my noble friend Lady Coffey. It is frankly not acceptable for the Government at this stage in a Bill to lay this many amendments of this magnitude to the policy in the phase of the Bill as it is travelling through the upper House. These measures will receive no scrutiny from the elected House. It is frankly not constitutionally proper to use this method. It should be used for only minor and technical amendments, and by no measure can these proposals be put into that category. The Government should be very ashamed about this. Frankly, the correct way of proceeding would be to withdraw the Bill and start again, and to lay this entire Bill back before the Commons so that it can be properly scrutinised in accordance with our conventional norms.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his detailed introduction to the amendments in this group. As he was speaking, I thought that he had inadvertently highlighted the mind-boggling complexity of what employers are up against when dealing with this Bill. I did hear all the words but, to paraphrase a famous comedian, I was not entirely sure that they were necessarily in the right order.
As my noble friends Lady Coffey and Lord Murray, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, have pointed out, the Government tabled these 27 amendments only a few days ago. Perhaps they are simply technical amendments, but I am afraid I am inclined to agree with the other speakers that they do not appear to be so. I will just pick a few items at random from the Minister’s speech. If amendments involve national security, insolvency and the death of a claimant at an employment tribunal, these are matters of substance; they are not technical at all.
This is not the way to do business in this House. The last-minute approach is symptomatic of a much deeper issue, which is the lack of care and due diligence when it comes to this Bill. It is rushed, it is poorly thought-through, it has been inadequately consulted on, and it is one that these Benches will scrutinise to the fullest possible extent.
We have to ask why the Government have still not tabled any amendments to address the concerns of businesses regarding the changes to zero-hours contracts in this Bill. These are not niche or minor concerns; they go to the heart of how businesses—especially, as we have been discussing all evening, small and seasonal employers—operate.
We have heard already some of the germs of the future scrutiny that these amendments can expect to receive in depth. We will not oppose them today, but we of course reserve the right to revisit them at a later stage, when we have had time to digest them and read the Minister’s comments in much more detail.
On a personal note, I read Amendment 14 with mounting horror. It induced a minor heart flutter because it reawakened memories of a particularly unsuccessful algebra exam I took when I was about 16. I would be very grateful if we could have a minor health warning on any future amendments of that type.
Lord Leong (Lab)
I thank all the noble Lords for their contributions. Some noble Lords raised concerns about the number of amendments tabled by the Government, and I would like to reassure the Committee that these really are technical amendments, brought about as a result of welcome scrutiny of the Bill. They are entirely appropriate and an ordinary part of making good legislation. I remind noble Lords that we had tons of government amendments when we debated the Procurement Bill recently, so this is not unusual.
I will answer some specific points raised by noble Lords. The noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, asked about Amendment 53. This is one of a number of technical amendments designed to ensure that the Bill operates as it was intended to operate. As an example of how technical they are, Amendment 53 seeks to amend new Section 104BA because we realised that it was not clear that Section 104 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 already ensured that dismissal in such cases was automatically unfair.
The noble Lord, Lord Murray, mentioned scrutiny. There will be technical regulations tabled at a later stage, or during the course of this legislation, and the House will have every opportunity to scrutinise these through the affirmative procedure. There will be time for noble Lords to scrutinise delegated powers and this Bill.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
The Minister appears to be saying that the House’s deficit in scrutiny can be made up by the fact that we can scrutinise secondary legislation. As the Minister will be well aware, the last time this House negatived a statutory instrument was, I think, in the 1970s. It is an all or nothing: either we agree to a statutory instrument or we do not; we cannot amend a statutory instrument. The Minister will surely agree that, realistically, this is not an avenue for scrutiny.
Lord Leong (Lab)
I take the noble Lord’s point, but I am sure he will appreciate that, when he was a Minister, a number of statutory instruments were placed before the House and we had every chance to scrutinise them. There is a question over whether noble Lords want to table whatever options are open to them, but the whole objective is that the House will be able to scrutinise regulations as well.
I refer to the point about algebra from the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe. I had to read three times the formula in Amendment 14 to understand what it actually means. I will try to explain in plain English what we are trying to achieve with H times D1 over D2.
To qualify for guaranteed hours, a worker’s existing guaranteed hours need to be lower than the threshold and the worker needs to work more than the guaranteed hours in the reference period. That condition does not work for someone whose guaranteed hours may or may not fall entirely in the reference period, such as someone on an annualised-hours contract with no clarity on when those hours fall.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
Before the Minister sits down, could he answer my question on whether or not there will be a code of practice? I can see many businesses struggling their way through all this stuff. I think his attempt to clarify the complex algorithm illustrates the need for such a code very powerfully.
Lord Leong (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for her question, which I have written down. In response to an earlier grouping, my noble friend the Minister said that the Government would publish detailed guidance on the government website, which I hope will give some clarity on that.
“(10A) In making regulations relating to the duty to offer guaranteed hours under this section, the Secretary of State must have regard to the nature of the work and operational characteristics of different sectors, including but not limited to sectors with irregular or seasonal work patterns.(10B) Specifically, in sectors where work schedules are inherently variable and unpredictable, such as the theatre sector, the Secretary of State shall consider the concept of Available Hours, which reflects the actual hours an employer can reasonably offer workers based on the known operational needs of the sector, without imposing undue rigidity on employers or creating unfair advantage or disadvantage for workers.(10C) The Secretary of State must by regulations issue specific guidance on how employers in sectors with variable work patterns may meet their obligations to offer guaranteed hours, while taking into account the fluctuating nature of work, the distribution of available hours, and the need for flexibility to accommodate the unique operational demands of the sector.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment ensures the Secretary of State considers sector-specific work patterns, like those in the theatre industry, when regulating guaranteed hours.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 16 in my name, I offer my apologies for not being able to be present at Second Reading, although I followed the debate that your Lordships had then, as I have today’s debate, particularly the earlier group on zero-hours contracts.
I also offer my thanks to the Society of London Theatre and UK Theatre, which represent some 500 of the UK’s leading theatre producers, venue owners, managers and performing arts centres, and with which I had the honour of working closely when I was Arts Minister, for raising the issue that underlies my amendment and for discussing it with me in some detail. I stress that those organisations welcome many of the measures in this Bill and share the Government’s ambition to eliminate exploitative practices, but they have flagged their concerns with the provisions relating to zero-hours contracts, which are integral to operations in theatre and other live performing arts, and which presently operate in a way that delivers fairness, flexibility and inclusion for the sector and the brilliant, creative people who sustain it.
I am sure, by the end of proceedings on the Bill, that the Minister will have tired of special pleading on behalf of every sector of the economy, but theatres operate under a unique set of pressures, including the stark new pressures that I saw them confront during my time in government—from the bleak months of Covid-19 to the rising costs of energy and materials following the inflationary effects of that pandemic and of the illegal invasion of Ukraine.
The effects of that turbulence—rising costs and falling real-terms income—mean that theatres must work harder than ever before to balance the necessity of making a profit with long-term investment and their sincere commitment to delivering social good. The arts hold a mirror up to our society and help us to understand the human condition—a value that cannot simply be measured in ticket sales and bottom lines, important though those are.
In particular, as major employers of a casual workforce, theatres have to manage highly irregular and unpredictable staffing needs while supporting and valuing their workers, without whom theatre simply could not happen. As one of the organisations which sprang up during the pandemic put it in its very well-chosen name, freelancers make theatre work.
The proposals in the Bill as currently drafted, regarding the right to guaranteed hours for casual workers, risk upsetting the delicate equilibrium by which the theatre sector operates, balancing commercial viability with social value, long-term investment with short-term realities, and the demands of an irregular calendar with a commitment to fairness for its workforce. Although I am glad to see that the Government have amended the Bill in the ways we have just debated in the previous group and will debate when we look at further government amendments which follow—particularly, in this instance, to allow collective agreements to override the new statutory right—the mechanism set out in new Section 27BW does not fully solve the problem and is unlikely in practice to provide the safeguards that this cherished sector needs.
Theatre’s operating model is inherently shaped by irregular programming, seasonal variation and periods of closure. Those aspects are baked into the way that theatre works and are part of what makes it so dynamic and diverse. Notwithstanding the well-known mantra that the show must go on, theatres do not operate continuously. Even long-running productions experience periods of closure, known as dark weeks, when no performances can be staged and no box office income is generated. The opening of a major new production might require up to 12 weeks to load in sets and equipment and to undergo technical rehearsals. These help productions to dazzle us with ever-more ambitious technical wizardry, and are rightly the stuff of separate award categories for lighting, sound, set design and more.
Short, planned closures, typically for at least a fortnight each year, are needed to carry out essential inspections and to ensure that buildings remain safe and compliant for those who enjoy visiting them. That is particularly important in heritage venues, which receive heavy footfall but only modest and irregular investment. I pay tribute to the work of the Theatres Trust and others who champion the value and plight of historic theatres, concert halls and other cultural buildings across the country, and acknowledge the pressing capital needs of our cultural estate, particularly at a time when many of the boilers, roofs and windows that were funded by the first wave of National Lottery funding some quarter of a century ago are all reaching or long passing the natural time for an upgrade.
Sometimes, of course, these periods of closure are needed without much warning at all, as I saw during my time as Minister, when I had occasion to learn, along with most of the rest of the country, what reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete was. The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, from the Benches opposite, and I were both at a very enjoyable performance of “The Witches” at the National Theatre, which had to be halted midway because of a breakdown of the Olivier’s revolving stage. I am very pleased that the last Conservative Budget helped the theatre to fix that before its 60th birthday year was over.
The sad fact is that performances can be cancelled at short notice for a variety of reasons, most of which are beyond the control of the theatre operator and staff. I have mentioned two egregious examples already—the pandemic and the need for health and safety in the face of things such as RAAC—but many other external challenges beset theatres from time to time: severe weather causing leaks or other damage which requires repairs, external events such as power cuts, or industrial grievances from other sectors having a knock-on effect. I am sure it is not betraying any state secrets to say that one of the few COBRA meetings I was called to attend as Arts Minister was to discuss the effects of the train strikes on our theatres and other parts of our night-time economy, which lost audiences and vital income as a result.
Of course, there are those unforeseen incidents which come like the theatrical deus ex machina. Last year, for example, a touring production of “Chitty Chitty Bang Bang” was brought to a halt when the eponymous vehicle, “our fine four-fendered friend”, was damaged during the get-out at one of its venues. The repairs to the vehicle took several weeks, leading to the cancellation of all performances during that period. That meant that other venues which had booked the production received no income and were unable to programme another show at such short notice.
During times such as these, there is, quite simply and unavoidably, no front-of-house work available. Guaranteeing hours during periods like that, as the Bill requires, would mean paying staff when no work exists, placing enormous pressure on theatres’ and other arts venues’ already very tight operating budgets. That is the reason for my Amendment 16.
The proposed right to guaranteed hours assumes that organisations operate with consistent demand and regular staffing patterns. That is not the case in theatres or, as we heard in previous debates, in many other businesses and organisations. Theatres’ scheduling requirements and therefore their staffing needs shift weekly—sometimes daily. Guaranteeing fixed hours based on short-term patterns of work, as the Bill proposes, would introduce a level of rigidity that threatens their entire staffing model.
The aim of my Amendment 16 is to urge the Government to acknowledge the unique dynamics of theatre and of the arts sector more broadly, and to adopt a more realistic framework, which will be beneficial to many sectors beyond theatre and the performing arts. UK Theatre has suggested the concept of “available hours”, which I have reflected in my Amendment 16, referring to the actual hours that an employer can collectively offer workers in a given period. This approach would allow for the equitable allocation of work while remaining responsive to the volatile nature of theatre operations.
It would also reflect the desires of the staff who value the flexibility that theatre work currently affords them. Many of those who work front of house do so to support other careers or responsibilities; as noble Lords noted in our debates in relation to other sectors, people have many family or caring burdens. But theatres particularly attract front-of-house staff who want a flexible job, perhaps because they are creative freelancers balancing work with auditions, because they are students are still learning their trade, or because they are retirees and theatre lovers seeking fulfilling part-time work or seeking sociable evening, but not night-time, working hours—rather unlike your Lordships’ House.
The theatre sector’s sincere understanding of its workforce is rooted in over a century of constructive and collaborative industrial relations with the trade unions in the sector, whose names are almost as well-known as those of some of their famous members: Equity, BECTU, the Musicians’ Union and the Writers’ Guild of Great Britain. Their symbiotic relationships have produced agreements which are highly tailored to this unique sector. These strong union relationships and robust collective agreements already guarantee protections such as minimum calls, notice periods and compensation for cancelled shifts.
The recent amendments to the Bill include a provision under new Section 27BW which allows certain rights, such as the proposed right to guaranteed hours, to be excluded through a relevant collective agreement. But such an agreement must explicitly exclude the statutory right and include clear replacement provisions. Retaining this flexibility would now depend on being able to negotiate its exclusion.
Without that flexibility, the Bill before us risks creating structural unfairness, entrenching advantage for a small number of workers at the expense of wider opportunity, undermining long-standing and vitally cherished industrial relations, and damaging the ability of theatres to take creative risks, maintain their heritage buildings and serve the community. What is intended as a protection could in practice become a barrier to access and inclusion. I am sure that is not what the Government want to see, so I hope the Minister will agree to look at this carefully and to discuss it with me, with UK Theatre, the Society of London Theatre and many others from the world of the arts to make sure that the Bill delivers for those cherished sectors. I beg to move.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, this amendment points up the need for a nuanced approach tailored to industry requirements. This is the first particular instance we have in the Bill of its potential effect on the creative industries, which will crop up again—I assure the Minister—as the Bill progresses. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, on introducing this amendment. I hope the Minister will look carefully at the SOLT/UK Theatre briefing, which is highly informative and measured and demonstrates well the wide degree of flexibility required for the employment of, for instance, front-of-house staff in theatres.
We often take front-of-house staff in theatres and cinema workers for granted, but they are the backbone of these organisations. They could not run without them. In my experience, they are unfailingly polite and helpful and often highly knowledgeable. A fair number, as the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, said, have jobs in other areas of the creative industries, which highlights the complexities of working relationships in this sector.
The briefing from SOLT/UK Theatre is, of course, the view from the employers, and the solution has to have the support of all stakeholders, including the workers themselves. According to The Stage,
“actor Nicola Hurst, who is also a duty manager … at Southwark Playhouse, said … she had turned down permanent contracts multiple times … as they could never offer her the flexibility she needed to pursue her creative work”.
She speaks for many in this sector when she says:
“I have colleagues and friends working at all levels in the theatre industry, from fringe to the West End, and for all of them, zero-hours contracts are essential to support themselves between creative jobs, and often, to bolster fees from a tragically underfunded sector”.
Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)
My Lords, I was prepared to put my name to this amendment because I believe that the whole nature of the creative industries, and theatre and festivals in particular, depends on flexibility. Let me give noble Lords an example. When I joined the board of the Royal Opera House, there were in place at the time union restrictions which meant that several operas in the repertoire would go beyond them because they could not possibly fit into that time. The unions and management got together and worked out a flexibility that would allow operas—Wagner’s, for example—to go beyond the hours without penalising people. It is a give-and-take situation. The arts need the flexibility that the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, is suggesting in his amendment, and I simply rise to endorse it.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, I am going to stick with being very brief. We have had three exceptionally powerful speeches. Amendment 16 is, in a sense, tackling a subset of a debate that this Committee has already had on Amendment 7 in the name of my noble and good friend Lord Goddard. I hope that the Government are beginning to accept that not all work comes in steady flows; it can have peaks and troughs and be disrupted by events way beyond anybody’s control. I hope that the Minister is going to take this away and work out how the current drafting needs to change in order to make the necessary allowances, whether it is for theatres, festivals, farmers or food and drink. A whole series of activities that experience those irregular patterns must be incorporated into this Bill.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, that we need to brief as we have debated this area already. But we do have a great debt of gratitude to my noble friend for bringing forward this amendment. He was, of course, a distinguished Minister for the arts. I do not think people have yet recognised the dangers of one size fits all.
We are very grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty. I join with him in wanting a detailed impact assessment, particularly for the instance he gave of front-of-house workers. I do not believe that the effect on creative industries has been properly assessed so far as this Bill is concerned, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley of Knighton, said, there is a need for flexibility.
The theatre industry has only just now recovered—or perhaps it has not yet recovered—from the effects of the Covid-19 pandemic. The last thing it needs now is to be hit by this crude instrument of a Bill, which makes no allowance for the unique nature of the work that it does, and the flexibility that is necessarily inherent in how it delivers for audiences. I really do want to hear from the Minister the extent to which theatres—the larger groups, such as ATG and Delfont Mackintosh, but also small and independent theatres—have been consulted. To what extent have they been consulted about the effects of this Bill?
I will finish off with five questions for the Minister. First, does the Minister accept that the right to guaranteed hours as drafted risks reducing work opportunities for the very people it claims to support, such as students, carers, disabled workers, et cetera? Secondly, can the Minister explain how theatres and other seasonal or project-based employers are meant to reconcile guaranteed hours with programming closures, touring breaks or production gaps?
Thirdly, what modelling have the Government done to assess the potential job losses or reduced shift allocations that could result from this policy, and will they please publish that modelling? Fourthly, why have the Government ignored the clear expert evidence submitted by the Society of London Theatre and UK Theatre to the Public Bill Committee? Finally, does the Minister seriously believe that this legislation embraces inclusion and opportunity for the creative sector, when the sector itself is warning that it will do precisely the opposite?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Information and Technology (Baroness Jones of Whitchurch) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, for tabling Amendment 16, which would require the Secretary of State to have regard to sector-specific work patterns when making regulations relating to the right to guaranteed hours. I am grateful to all noble Lords for their contributions and for highlighting the sometimes unique employment practices that occur in the creative sector and, in particular, the theatre sector.
In response to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, I would say that we have engaged extensively with the Society of London Theatre and are happy to carry on doing so. We appreciate that some sectors—including the theatre sector, which is highlighted in the noble Lord’s amendment—do have fluctuating demand across the year.
This is a sector that I know all noble Lords recognise we need to support, for all the reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, said, particularly for social value reasons. We therefore want to take note and make it right for the sector.
I reassure the Committee that flexibility is already built into the Bill to address issues of seasonal demand. There are several ways under the Bill that an employer could approach that issue while upholding the new rights to guaranteed hours depending on the circumstances, particularly by using limited-term contracts where that is reasonable. Those who are offered guaranteed hours will be able to turn those down and remain on their current contract or arrangement if they wish. Furthermore, through the Bill we have also allowed for employees and unions to collectively agree to opt out of the zero-hours contract measures. Unions can make these deals based on their knowledge of the industry and with a holistic view on what is best for their workers.
We will ensure that the needs of different sectors are considered when we come to design the regulations. We will continue to work in partnership with employers across the different sectors, their representatives, the recruitment sector and the trade unions to develop those detailed regulations, and we will provide clear guidance for both employers and workers in advance of implementing these measures.
The amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, had a new concept of available hours for sectors with varying seasonal demand. We would push back on that issue. It could risk creating a two-tier guaranteed-hours framework for workers in sectors with more or less seasonal fluctuation. We believe that the reference period provided for in the Bill will ensure that qualifying workers are offered guaranteed hours that reflect the hours that they have previously worked.
I hope that, in that short contribution, I have been able to persuade the noble Lord that we are aware of the issues and are on the case. We feel that there is considerable flexibility in the Bill as it stands. We are happy to have further discussions. As we have heard from noble Lords, there are a range of issues and a range of options here, so there is not just one way of solving this problem. We are happy to get round the table and talk some more. We feel that, as the Bill is currently designed, it answers the concerns that are being raised with us, but we are happy to talk further. I therefore hope that, on that basis, the noble Lord will be prepared to withdraw his amendment.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
The Minister talked about the reference period. SOLT would like to see a longer reference period because a year is much more of a real time length than 12 weeks. Is that something that the Government would consider at all?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
We have previously had a debate on the nature of reference periods, and that is something that we are going to consult further upon. If we are going to have a discussion, let us have a discussion on that as well, and I will see if I can reassure noble Lords on that matter.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister, particularly for the willingness she has just indicated to continue discussions. SOLT and UK Theatre updated their briefing on the Bill in the light of the amendments that the Government have brought but they retain some concerns about the amendments in this area, so I am sure that they and others across the arts sector will be glad to continue to discuss it with the Government as they continue to write the Bill as it is before us.
I am grateful to the noble Lords who have spoken, especially the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, and the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley of Knighton, at this late hour; their championing of the arts knows no temporal limit. I am grateful to them for staying to express support for this amendment. I should say that I am much attracted to many of the amendments that the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, and the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, have tabled later in the Bill on the need to consider its differential impacts on certain sectors. I look forward to the debates we will have those.
I am grateful too to my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral for his generous remarks. I am happy to say that the UK’s theatres have indeed bounced back well from the pandemic. Last year, more than 17 million theatregoers attended a show in the West End alone—an 11% increase on pre-pandemic levels. In fact, the West End outperformed the Premier League, attracting 2.5 million more attendees. As we have just finished a long Bill on football, perhaps we ought to spend a bit more time on the things that people go to in greater numbers.
However, the sector remains precarious. As the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, said, the people who are that smiling welcome at front of house are often taken for granted. During the pandemic, we saw how challenging it was for them, especially when enforcing some of the Covid restrictions. They deal with exuberant, sometimes well-oiled audiences, and during that time they had to explain to people why they had to sit two metres apart or wear face masks, or why the show had been cancelled or much delayed. They perform a vital role in welcoming people to theatrical productions, orchestral recitals and much more. As the noble Earl said, that relates just as much to cinemas and many other cultural venues. The UK Cinema Association has provided a helpful briefing on the Bill and its impacts on our cinemas.
I am grateful to noble Lords who have taken part in this short but important prelude to the other debates that we will have on the creative industries and the cultural sector, and I am grateful to the Minister for her willingness to continue to discuss these matters with those organisations. On that basis, for now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Employment Rights Bill
Thursday 8th May 2025
(10 months, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Employment Rights Act 2025 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 81-II(a) Amendments for Committee (Supplementary to the Second Marshalled List) - (8 May 2025)
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment removes the Secretary of State’s power to make regulations specifying additional circumstances in which the duty to offer a guaranteed hours contract does not apply, or an offer may be treated as withdrawn.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Leong, for his letter explaining certain matters that were left over from the last day of Committee. The fact that the algebraic question required a three-page, detailed answer for one worked-up example rather illustrates our point that this adds a huge and possibly unnecessary level of complexity for small businesses in particular. But I will let that lie for now.
Amendments 18 and 19 standing in my name would remove the broad delegated power in new Section 27BD. This Bill continues the concerning trend of the steady transfer of legislative authority from Parliament to Ministers. As I noted at Second Reading, it contains no fewer than 173 delegated powers. The Government may, and probably will, argue that this is justified by ongoing consultation, but that is in effect an admission that this Bill is not yet complete or ready for full and proper scrutiny by this House.
Time and again, we have seen ill-defined powers handed to the Executive allowing for significant policy changes to be made by regulation without meaningful parliamentary oversight. Clause 1 exemplifies this problem. It inserts new sections into the Employment Rights Act 1996, establishing a framework for a new statutory right relating to guaranteed hours. However, through new Section 27BD(6), it grants the Secretary of State a remarkably wide power to make regulations specifying circumstances in which the duty to offer guaranteed hours does not apply or where an offer may be treated as withdrawn. There are no limitations, no criteria and no guiding principles. There is no requirement for a consultation or justification. In effect, the Secretary of State is given a blank cheque.
The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee has been very clear that the power is “inappropriately broad” and should be
“restated with a greater degree of precision”.
While the Government’s memorandum refers to
“maintaining the original policy intent while allowing reasonable exemptions”,
the committee rightly points out that nothing in the Bill legally constrains the Secretary of State’s discretion in that regard. Moreover, as we raised on the first day of Committee, businesses need clarity on the operation of guaranteed hours. If there are to be sector-specific exemptions—and there may very well be a case for them—they should appear in the Bill, not be left to future ministerial discretion. Uncertainty benefits no one—not workers, not employers and not enforcement bodies. Allowing such fundamental aspects of the regime to be decided later by regulation undermines the transparency and stability of the framework that the Government are seeking to establish.
I remind the Minister that, during the passage of the Data Protection and Digital Information Bill, she rightly accepted similar concerns and tabled amendments which directly reflected the recommendations of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. At the time, she said:
“I hope the Minister is able to commit to taking on board the recommendations of the Delegated Powers Committee in this respect”.—[Official Report, 27/3/24; col. GC 198.]
Why should that principle not apply here? If it is truly the Government’s intention that this power will be used only in limited and specific cases, then the legislation should make that clear. As it stands, any future Secretary of State could by regulation significantly weaken or disapply this statutory regime without the involvement of Parliament.
Regardless of one’s views on the underlying policy, that is not an acceptable way to legislate. When Parliament creates new rights in statute, they should not be left vulnerable to being hollowed out at the stroke of a ministerial pen. This amendment removes that overly broad delegated power and ensures that any substantive changes to the scope of the duty must be brought back to Parliament through primary legislation. Will the Minister now commit, as she has done before, to taking seriously the recommendations of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and amending the Bill accordingly?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Information and Technology (Baroness Jones of Whitchurch) (Lab)
My Lords, it is very good to return to the subject of zero-hours contracts as we start day 2 of Committee. As we debated last week, the Government are committed to ending one-sided flexibility and exploitative zero-hours contracts, ensuring that all jobs provide a baseline of security and predictability so that workers can better plan their lives and their finances.
Employers who already provide this security and predictability for their workers will benefit from a level playing field, but these measures will help drive up standards and eliminate undercutting across the board. Meanwhile, employees who enjoy the flexibility of their current zero-hours arrangements will not be pressurised into accepting a guaranteed-hour contract.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, for tabling Amendments 18 and 19, which would remove the power to make regulations specifying circumstances in which the duty to offer guaranteed hours does not apply, or an offer may be treated as withdrawn. This power would allow the Secretary of State to react dynamically to changing employment practices that may arise, allowing for updates to maintain the original policy intent of providing a baseline of security and predictability so workers can better plan their lives. It could provide the required economic flexibility that businesses have been asking for, to ensure that the policy is working as intended while adapting to changing circumstances.
This power is separate to the power in the Bill to exclude categories of workers. Regulations made under the excluded workers power would allow specified workers to be taken out of scope of the right to guaranteed hours. Since the right to guaranteed hours is a new, novel right, it could be necessary to exclude certain workers in order to respond to the changing employment environment.
The power at issue here relates to specified circumstances where the right to guaranteed hours would otherwise apply but limited and specified circumstances justified an exception to the duty to make a guaranteed-hour offer. We envisage that any exceptions to the duty to offer guaranteed hours will be narrow and be applied in specified circumstances; for instance, where the measures would otherwise have significant adverse impacts, even when the employers and the workers act with good intentions and there is no other accepted way to mitigate the risk. Examples could include unforeseen circumstances such as a pandemic or a state of emergency.
Consultation is required to further determine which specific circumstances may justify a potential exemption. I assure the Committee that we will give full consideration to any representations made in this House and by respondents to that consultation. Gathering the views from those who will be impacted by the policy via consultation remains of the utmost importance to this Government. By removing the power, we would become unable to make such exceptions and to provide flexibility in those specific circumstances. The power will also be subject to the affirmative procedure, meaning that both Houses will have the opportunity to debate this matter.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, I am, as ever, grateful to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee for its careful consideration of the Bill, including in relation to the power with which we are here concerned. The committee continues to serve your Lordships’ House well by providing a thoughtful analysis of the Government’s legislative programme, and I thank it for that.
As acknowledged by that committee, the need to respond to changing circumstances is an appropriate basis for such a power, but in the committee’s view, that power should be narrowed—whereas the amendment goes much further than what has been proposed by it. On that basis, I hope I have been able to set out more information on how the Government intend to use this power, and I of course look forward to responding more fully to the Delegated Powers Committee report in due course. I hope that reassures the noble Lord so that he feels able not to press his Amendments 18 and 19.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response to these amendments, but I have to confess that I am disappointed, not simply that the amendment is being rejected but that the Minister has chosen not to uphold the principle of parliamentary scrutiny which she championed herself only last year. At that time, she said
“the limits on effective scrutiny of secondary legislation are manifest”.—[Official Report, 27/3/24; col. GC 197.]
That is spot on; I could not agree more, so I have to ask: does the Minister still stand by those words, or does she now disagree with her own assessment—and indeed that of the Attorney-General? I will refrain from quoting again from the Bingham lecture that he gave last November, but we may have to return to that in due course.
Today, the Government are defending a delegated power that is not just broad but boundless. It is a power that allows a future Secretary of State to undo or dilute a statutory right without reference to Parliament and without any of the safeguards the Minister has previously endorsed. I am disappointed, and I regret that the Minister has chosen not to accept these amendments or to listen to the Committee, but it seems that she does not listen even to her own warnings. For now, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Hunt of Wirral
(c) in determining whether it was reasonable to enter into a limited-term contract, regard must be had to the employer’s operational circumstances and information available at the time the contract was made, including—(i) genuine short-term business needs or uncertainty,(ii) seasonal, project-based, or event-based fluctuations,(iii) relevant financial or staffing forecasts, and(iv) industry norms or practices relating to temporary contracts.(d) a decision to enter into a limited-term contract must not be considered unreasonable solely because subsequent business conditions changed in a manner not reasonably foreseeable at the time the contract was entered into.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies that the reasonableness of entering into a limited-term contract should be assessed based on the employer’s operational context and the information available at the time of contracting. It lists specific factors that may be relevant to that assessment and states that unforeseeable changes in business conditions after the fact should not, by themselves, render a decision unreasonable.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, with Amendments 19A, 20 and 21 in my name and in the name of my noble friend Lord Sharpe, we return to guaranteed hours. As drafted, our concern is that the Bill risks creating rigidity which does not properly reflect the real-world operational needs of businesses across key sectors of our economy, particularly retail, hospitality and tourism, all of which contain seasonal work.
Lord Moynihan of Chelsea (Con)
My Lords, I welcome back the Minister and the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe and Lord Hunt, for another day on this important Bill.
To some extent, we are thrown back to the previous day’s debate, when we talked so much about flexibility. These amendments are designed to try to give more flexibility to the poor business owner who sits up late at night after the working day is done, trying to figure out, “How am I going to win? How am I going to succeed? How am I going to keep going?” It is of particular poignancy when one looks at what is happening to the high street all over this country, with shop after shop, particularly small businesses, closing down.
In last week’s debate, there was an interesting comment about the minimum wage. I am afraid that my memory is not good enough, but a noble Lord said, “Well, they all said that the minimum wage would be a disaster, but here it is: a triumphant success”. I think we are united, as a House, in looking for economic growth—that is the big objective. Economic growth comes only from jobs and businesses growing, so a triumphant success would be that there was more employment and that employment did not drop down.
Both sides of this House went for this higher and higher minimum wage, so I am not making a partisan attack here, but the impact is unknowable because we do not know whether employment would have been higher or lower if we had had no minimum wage or a lower one. We cannot actually tell; it is one of those mathematical enigmas. In America, the states that have no minimum wage, or a lower one, have higher employment, and people move from one state to another to find employment in the states with higher growth—but here we literally cannot tell whether employment went up or down.
What we can tell—this is a very interesting point—is that the introduction of the minimum wage and the higher minimum wage led precisely to what we are debating today: zero-hours contracts. A businessperson may be thinking, “Shall I hire somebody?”, and they have three choices. One is, “Yes, I can afford this on the minimum wage”—and great: a new job is created. The second is that they say, “No, I can’t afford that”. Particularly with a gormless youth—I remember back to my own gormless youth, when I was almost unhireable by anybody—they will say, “No, I’m not going to do it. My business will be less profitable if I hire this person and have to pay the minimum wage”. The third is: “Well, can I hire them but in some other, more flexible way?”—and here comes this whole zero-hours thing. Everybody denigrates it, but we find that a lot of people who are hired on these contracts say it is what they wanted—but, God bless, we can have different ideological views on that. The point was that zero-hours contracts created flexibility, and that must by definition have led to higher employment and economic growth, the thing that we are all trying to accomplish.
Lord Londesborough (CB)
My Lords, I will speak briefly to Amendment 19A in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe of Epsom and Lord Hunt of Wirral, and offer my support for Amendments 20 and 21.
My main concern, as I expressed on the first day in Committee, is over the impact of guaranteed-hours contracts on the small and micro-business sector, specifically those with fewer than 50 staff. Amendment 19A is particularly relevant to start-ups and scale-ups, and we cannot ignore their high-risk operational context. Again, I declare my interest as set out in the register: I chair, advise and invest in a range of start-ups.
Clause 1’s right to guaranteed hours will inhibit job creation but also job mobility and flexibility, as we have heard, if applied to such businesses, to the detriment of both employer and employee. Rigidity—I think the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, used that word—is especially dangerous in a flat economy environment such as we have at the moment.
Small business planning requires agility and flexibility when creating new jobs. As we know, business circumstances will change, often on a month-to-month basis, given the natural volatility around budgeting, forecasting revenues, forecasting bookings and indeed anticipating demand. When we talk about
“the reasonableness of entering into a limited-term contract”,
we simply cannot afford to ignore the early-stage development of these companies and watch them avoid risk-taking.
The Member’s explanatory statement to Amendment 19A quite rightly points to
“unforeseeable changes in business conditions”,
and that is especially relevant to small businesses. As I know through bitter experience, as both an employer and an investor, there is often a huge delta between entrepreneurs’ forecasts and the actual outcomes. This is about not just seasonality, events or the weather but unpredictable customer demand.
We should therefore not handicap entrepreneurial risk-taking, which this economy so desperately needs to encourage, and specifically the creation of new jobs, by applying such blanket restrictions on limited-term employment contracts. We need a more nuanced approach, as this amendment suggests, and I ask the Government to give it serious consideration.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, I support the amendments in this group in the names of my noble friends on our Front Bench. I have a number of concerns about the guaranteed-hours provisions in the Bill, one of them being that they are drafted almost wholly from the perspective of workers and pay little heed to the needs of employers. I do not believe that is a good way to create employment law to underpin a healthy economy.
On our first day in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Barber of Ainsdale, who is not in his place today, and the noble Baroness, Lady Carberry of Muswell Hill, both spoke about the work of the Low Pay Commission on zero-hours contracts. I was grateful to them for being pointed in that direction. I have a great deal of time for the work of the Low Pay Commission, which is always balanced and very careful, so I went back and looked at the 2018 report. Unsurprisingly, I found that it does not provide the copper-bottomed support for the Bill that noble Lords opposite have claimed—I should also say that the employment bodies represented on the Low Pay Commission have told us that as well.
The Low Pay Commission did indeed recommend that workers should be offered guaranteed-hours contracts, but, importantly, it also recognised that there would be circumstances in which it would not be reasonable for the employer to have to do that. There is not a trace of that in the Bill. The Low Pay Commission was clear that the Bill should set out specific circumstances in which the employer would not have to offer guaranteed hours. The commission cited with approval some equivalent legislation which was at that stage going through the Irish parliament, which provided, among other things, that adverse changes in the employer’s business or the existence of temporary factors would allow employers not to offer guaranteed hours.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, I believe that Amendment 19A is eminently reasonable in that context. It does not give an employer carte blanche to ignore guaranteed hours but allows for some genuine business circumstances to be taken into account by the employer when looking at whether guaranteed-hours contracts should be offered.
At the end of the day, if we do not have successful businesses, there will not be any jobs on any kind of contract available. As I said on our first day in Committee, I am particularly concerned, as is the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, about small and micro-businesses, which really need to be allowed the flexibility if we are to protect the work opportunities of around half the private sector workforce.
Even if those small and micro-businesses survive the incredible bureaucracy associated with these guaranteed hours, they will potentially not survive the substantive impact of the hours if they are required in all circumstances to offer guaranteed-hours contracts. Of course, this is particularly the case in the hospitality sector, the largest user of zero-hours contracts; my noble friend Lord Hunt spoke about the problems in that sector. There are also very large numbers of small and micro-businesses in that sector.
Recognising some very limited flexibility, my noble friend’s Amendment 19A is actually very modest. It would go some way towards making this new requirement to offer guaranteed hours work in the context of businesses that have to face difficult circumstances, and at the moment the Bill pays no attention to that.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I support the amendments tabled by my noble friends. I am just thinking of my career. I have had quite a conventional career in many ways, but I have also had many extra roles, particularly when I was a student—I am conscious that we will come to Amendment 19B separately later. It is important to reinforce the challenges in starting up or expanding a particular business. It is well said that a coffee shop will know within the first week whether it will succeed. You could argue that there are different factors, but within the first month a business will certainly know whether the footfall and the sale per customer justify the number of people it is employing and adapt accordingly.
As my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral mentioned, there is also this extended element about things such as holidays. It may surprise your Lordships to know quite how many jobs are, frankly, based on whether it rains and people cancelling going out to do different things. That is one of the reasons why, in particular but not exclusively, many hotel chains have started having a price differential: basically, you get a better deal if you book up front, but you cannot cancel or get your money back. Indeed, it is why even more restaurants are, effectively, starting to pre-charge an amount of money that is expected so that people do not cancel. Having lived in touch of the coast for most of my life, I can assure your Lordships that the fluctuation in how many people actually turn up to a resort for the day in a town is real, and what that means for temporary jobs.
That is why I think my noble friend Lord Hunt has found a good way of trying to help the Government to consider some of the everyday decisions that employers have to make as to whether they open up in the first place, whether they try to expand, and whether they try to get the growth. If I go further on to Clause 20, at the same time that the Government are trying to encourage businesses to go into artificial intelligence and see all that can be embraced in that regard, they need to bear in mind that businesses will not invest in such technologies if they are concerned that the other costs will be so detrimental to them.
We keep having this Catch-22 situation: if the Government want growth, they need to recognise the success where employers have been given the chance to scope and to be flexible, although I understand entirely the Government’s intent that the employer should be reasonable with the people that they take on. It is for these reasons—and I will speak more in the next group—that I believe that the Government should seriously consider how they operationalise this. We keep hearing about more and more consultations. We have heard people from the British Retail Consortium, from retailers and from hospitality saying that these are the real issues. We are almost doing their consultation for them by putting forward these amendments, so I hope that the Minister will look on them carefully in his consideration.
Lord Hendy (Lab)
My Lords, I shall make four short points on these amendments, all of which I oppose. First, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, suggested that employers would get locked into guaranteed hours. I remind him that all contracts of employment may be varied by mutual agreement or, if not, they can be terminated and there can be re-engagement on fresh terms.
Secondly, the noble Lord mentioned the industrial reality. The industrial reality of zero-hours contracts is a complete disparity of power: 80% of those on zero-hours contracts would prefer a permanent contract, but those on zero-hours contracts are completely at the mercy of the employer. They do not know how many hours they are going to work tomorrow, let alone next week, and they do not know how much income they will make at the end of any week. Therefore, a worker on a zero-hours contract does not want an argument, to fall out or have a disagreement with the employer. That is a vital component of the legislation my noble friend proposes.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, I was a little disappointed that the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, did not welcome me back as well, but I am coming to terms with that disappointment. To briefly refer back to the first group, the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, made some comments about the letter from the noble Lord, Lord Leong, and had I not had to leave before we got to that group, I fear I was going to subject the Minister to a somewhat satirical analysis of that particular amendment—but, frankly, the letter did a much better job than anything I could have done.
I ask the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Leong, to take that letter and that response and discuss it with 10 people responsible for HR in businesses of different sizes to ask them what they think of it, then perhaps they could tell us what the result of those discussions were. I absolutely concur with the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe: it is beyond parody that that algorithm should lead to that sort of calculation that any company is expected to make. There has to be a simpler way of getting the same result; that is what we should be thinking about.
I was somewhat intrigued by the degrouping strategy. We have amendments on guaranteed hours in the previous group, this group and the next, which is why I reserved the small comments I have to just this group. I have tried to pick through the bones of what we heard. There are some bones, and I should like the Government to comment on them.
I point to the use of language by the noble Lord, Lord Hendy. On one side they are talking about flexibility and on his side they are talking about evasion and escape. Thereby hangs the problem of the debate that we might be having overall in your Lordships’ Committee. When we are talking about escape and flexibility, we are not using the same language. We have to try to find a way to bridge that divide in culture that we are dealing with. If we were doing conflict resolution, that would be the starting point.
Where I do agree completely with the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, is that we should not be looking to create a two-tier situation. We have to create a system that works for employers across the board. However, the noble Lord’s point was that it would extract a huge number of people from the benefits of the Bill were we to exclude. We have to work hard to ensure that the micro-businesses are not disadvantaged by what we are seeking to do, rather than exempt them from it. That is our view from these Benches.
Back to those bones: I look to the Minister to recognise that there are businesses that have lumpy—perhaps I should say fluctuating—demand. Some of these businesses fluctuate predictably—they are cyclic. Christmas comes at the same time every year, so we always have roughly the same amount of bulge. However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, pointed out, for others that lumpiness can come with the weather. I want the Minister to recognise that these businesses exist and then for us to explain that a number of issues have already come up around how to manage a workforce fairly while being economically sensible to the business within this lumpiness and fluctuation. We had groups on the first day in Committee, we have these groups, and we will have more.
I would like to sit down with the Minister to understand how the Government envision the Bill allowing businesses that know that they will have lumpy, fluctuating demand to manage a workforce. What will be the fair approach, in the Government’s view, and the economic approach, in businesses’ view, to ensure that there is a win-win? This should not be seen as an evasion or a flexibility but as an opportunity to bring things together and make them better for business and employees, because the two are completely linked in this. We have to cross that divide and sit down with the Government, to work out how flexibility comes into this and how a business will manage this process properly, while delivering the fairness that the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, put forward.
Can those of us who are interested sit down with the Minister in a seminar where she explains how, if the Bill goes through as it is, businesses with lumpy and fluctuating demand, whether seasonable or variable, can manage that going forward?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, for tabling Amendments 19A, 20 and 21 to Clause 1 on the right to guaranteed hours. I say to the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe and Lord Fox, that the detailed analysis of the algorithms by the noble Lord, Lord Leong, was presented only on the basis of a request for a detailed analysis of where those arguments came from. There was a much simpler version, which my noble friend gave in his verbal response, so there is more than one version of that challenge.
Amendment 20 seeks to allow employers to propose changes to permanent contracts issued after a guaranteed-hours offer within six months of acceptance, as long as there is a genuine material need in business operations. I am pleased to reassure noble Lords that this amendment is not required. As my noble friend Lord Hendy said, the zero-hours provisions in the Bill do not prevent employers offering their workers variations to their contracts following the acceptance of a guaranteed-hours offer as long as the variation does not amount to subjecting the worker to a detriment. I say to the noble Lords, Lord Moynihan and Lord Londesborough, the noble Baroness Noakes, and other noble Lords, that the Bill does have the flexibility that should reassure businesses that the zero-hours provisions can be changed. As we debated previously, when talking about zero-hours contracts in the context of, for example, individuals such as students or those with caring responsibilities, those who are offered zero-hours contracts will be able to turn the offer down and remain on their current contract.
Going back to Amendment 20, employers will still be able to propose and make changes to their workers’ contracts after they have accepted a guaranteed-hours offer, including in the sectors such as hospitality, to which the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, refers. This can be done following the usual process of negotiation and agreement between employers and workers. It would be subject to the terms of the workers’ contracts as well as existing and new legislation, such as the provisions on fire and rehire. Adding a provision stating that employers can propose variations—something that they will already be able to do—while considering only a limited number of matters may risk creating legal confusion. It may, for example, inappropriately suggest that variations can be proposed only in these circumstances or suggest that other provisions of legislation that do not include similar wording restrict employers’ ability to propose variations of contracts when this is not the case.
Amendment 21 seeks to make provisions that employers may still make redundancies where these are based on genuine business needs and not linked principally to a worker’s right to guaranteed hours. I am again pleased to reassure noble Lords that the amendment is not necessary. The zero-hours provisions in the Bill do not prohibit dismissals by means of redundancy following the acceptance of a guaranteed-hours offer. There are some restrictions on selecting an employee for dismissal by redundancy because they have accepted a guaranteed-hours offer, but this is not what the amendment seeks to address.
The Bill otherwise creates protection only against detriments and makes dismissals automatically unfair in very limited scenarios—including, for instance, where the principal reason for the dismissal is an employee accepting or rejecting a guaranteed-hours offer. If an employer wished to make an employee redundant, they would be required to follow the required processes in line with the terms of the employee’s contract and with employment law relating to individual or collective redundancies, to ensure that the dismissal is fair. This amendment would not substantially change the effect of the provisions, as the zero-hours measures in the Bill do not prohibit dismissal by reason of redundancy following the acceptance of a guaranteed-hours offer. But it could create unhelpful doubt as to how the legislation on redundancy already operates.
Amendment 19A seeks to list in the Bill a number of factors and circumstances that would need to be considered when determining whether it was reasonable for an employer to give a worker a limited-term contract. I emphasise that the right to guaranteed hours will not prevent employers using limited-term contracts. Under the guaranteed-hours provisions, it is reasonable for an employer to enter into a limited-term contract with a worker if the worker is needed only to perform a specific task and the contract would terminate after that task has been performed—for example, waiting at tables at a wedding—or the worker is needed only until an event occurs or fails to occur, after which the contract would terminate. This could include a worker covering another worker who is on sick leave or a worker needed only for some other kind of temporary need that would be specified in regulations, the contract expiring in line with the end of that temporary need.
Lord Fox (LD)
I thank the Minister for her partial response, but will she reveal the draft of those regulations while we still have an opportunity to debate them? Secondly, I think she was going to talk about consultation and so I ask what question that consultation will be asking.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
I will write to noble Lords about when the regulations will be available. This may well be part of the implementation plan, which is still awaited. Noble Lords can genuinely take it from me that they will receive it as soon as it is available.
We will consult on the contents of the draft regulations and engage with a range of stakeholders, including trade unions and businesses. The noble Lord, Lord Fox, asked whether we could have further discussions about this. Of course I am happy to talk to noble Lords in more detail about how this might apply, because I want noble Lords to be reassured that the flexibility they seek is already in the Bill in its different formulations of wording. But I am happy to have further discussions about this.
I hope that that provides some reassurance to noble Lords. I therefore ask the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Lucas (Con)
I join the noble Lord, Lord Fox, in saying that I would really appreciate the opportunity to look at how this Bill deals with lumpy demand— not only predictably lumpy but randomly lumpy. I ask the Clerk at the Table to transmit to the Clerk of the Parliaments a request to tell us how the Bill will affect the House’s employment practices, because we are a great generator of lumpy demand, not least on the Public Bill Office. I would really like that immediate understanding of how the Bill affects a substantial organisation, but one with a very unpredictable set of demands such as the Houses of Parliament.
This lumpiness is a characteristic of, say, the NHS, which may suddenly get a demand and have to do things. Suddenly something emerges and the pattern of working has to change. Will the Bill fix those longer hours so that they become set and cannot be rowed back from when the lump disappears? A good understanding, before we reach Report, of how the Bill will work in practice and interact with a range of real businesses would be really valuable, and I hope the Minister can offer it to us.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I thought I had already offered to have further discussions, but I take the noble Lord’s point.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, I think my noble friend Lord Lucas and the noble Lord, Lord Fox, were looking for the draft regulations. I do not think I need to remind the Committee of my declaration of interests; at Second Reading, I reminded the House that I am still a practising solicitor. It is no accident that, last week, City AM—a newspaper circulated widely through the City—said that the Bill is the biggest boost for the legal profession that anyone had ever seen. Many more lawyers will be needed to wade through the complexities of the Bill.
In particular, as my noble friend just pointed out, we are constantly debating the Government’s power to introduce regulations, but Parliament is not allowed to see those regulations when it passes the primary legislation that gives Ministers the power, after consultation, to do whatever they wish whenever they wish to do it. We are going to have this time and again in this series of debates. Surely it is right that, if the Government are taking the power to introduce detail—in particular by amending primary legislation—we should see that detail, if only in draft, before we decide to give that power to Ministers.
Lord Fox (LD)
I do not know whether I am allowed to intervene on this, but I wonder whether the noble Lord heard the Minister say that the Government are consulting on draft regulations. Perhaps he might ask the Minister to share those draft regulations with us during the process of consultation.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
I completely agree and am very grateful to the noble Lord, who introduced the whole concept of “lumpy”. As well as “lumpy”, we are all talking about “flexible” and he also said “fluctuating”.
This has been a very helpful debate. I particularly enjoyed my noble friend Lord Moynihan of Chelsea describing the history of the introduction of the minimum wage and how it gave rise to zero-hours contracts in the first place. It is a reminder that we have to be careful every time we take a key step down the road to creating more employment law, as we have to be mindful of the consequences.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, that we have to keep thinking of the start-ups and scale-ups, and the effect that this legislation will have on them. It was good that my noble friend Lady Noakes reminded us of the truth behind the Low Pay Commission 2018 Report that small and micro-businesses, as she put it to the Committee, need flexibility. My noble friend Lady Coffey reminded us that one’s job quite often depends on whether it is raining, as she put it. I think it was Mark Twain who once wrote that, in England, everyone talks about the weather but no one ever does anything about it. It is a fact that demand often fluctuates according to the weather and this was a good reminder of that.
I welcome the speech from the noble Lord, Lord Hendy. His four points were key; I accept them and will carefully ponder each one—particularly his point about escape routes. Our purpose—mine and that of my noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom—is to ensure that we do not need escape routes, because we will get a law that fits the way in which the economy can grow and be more competitive. That is what it is all about. It is not about short-term contracts being the answer here and another form of contract being the answer there. Most employers want stability so that they can look forward with confidence.
How right the noble Lord was to remind us of the importance of small and medium-sized enterprises. It must surely be a worry in his mind as to the effect this onerous Bill will have on those small and medium-sized enterprises looking to grow and expand that do not have an HR department that can set out for them exactly the way ahead through all the bureaucratic routes they have to follow. They want to be able to grow and expand without carefully checking which rulebook applies. They, of course, always allow bereavement leave. All the employers I have known, when there was a tragedy in a member of their workforce’s family—I am not talking about just my clients but across the whole sector—did, of course, allow people time off. Therefore, we should not be establishing rigidity.
This is where I find myself in total agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Fox: we do not want a two-tier system. However, as my noble friend Lady Noakes pointed out on our previous Committee day, there are various tiers already in the tax system. The exemption I sought in Amendment 21 surely does not in any way undermine the rights of workers but gives the Bill the flexibility it needs to succeed in practice. We have heard in this debate and from businesses across the country that a rigid one-way system for guaranteed hours simply does not reflect the way in which large parts of our economy function. Retail, hospitality, tourism, logistics, seasonal industries—all rely on flexible staffing, and they operate in environments that can shift rapidly, sometimes overnight.
I plead again with the Minister that these amendments provide a narrow, principled route for employers to propose changes: not to walk away from commitments but to respond when there is a genuine and material change in business operations. No retaliation, no loopholes, just a basic safeguard to ensure that businesses are not locked into obligations that are no longer viable.
Let us be honest, if employers are not able to make changes in response to real pressures—a drop in demand, a loss of control, over-capacity—they are far less likely to offer guaranteed hours in the first place. That is not speculation; it is what we are hearing from so many of those making representations about the Bill at the present time. The result is clear: fewer jobs offered, fewer guaranteed hours and fewer opportunities, especially for the very people who rely on flexible and part-time work. That means young people, students—who we will come to in a moment—workers with disabilities, carers and, of course, those trying to get their foot on the ladder.
Finally, I agree with my noble friend Lord Sharpe that it would be helpful to sit down with the Minister and her colleagues to see if we can find a way through. Otherwise, we shall have to return to this on Report. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Hunt of Wirral
“(13) The duty to offer guaranteed hours under Section 27BA(1) does not apply to workers who are full-time students.”Member's explanatory statement
This subsection provides that the duty to offer a guaranteed hours arrangement under Section 27BA(1) does not apply to workers who are full-time students.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, as I indicated, we now return to students and the guaranteed-hours exemption for full-time students. Amendment 19B is in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom.
At Second Reading, I heard the Government’s intention, as part of their growth agenda, to get young people back to work who are not in education, employment or training—referred to as NEETs. Retailers provide flexible and part-time jobs tailor-made for people coming off benefits and the nearly 1 million 16 to 24 year-old NEETs. However, the evidence available clearly shows that the guaranteed-hours reforms, as currently drafted, fail to realise the realities of student employment.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
My Lords, I strongly support this amendment in the name of my noble friend. I am an employer, and I have declared my interest in the register. I founded and was the executive director of a think tank for over the best part of a quarter of a century, and now I am research director there. We continue to employ students on a flexible basis. As your Lordships know, many universities have changed their timetables. Some are taking much shorter summer breaks, some have started working more flexibly and many work remotely for certain classes. Postgraduate and undergraduate students welcome the opportunity to train, get a foothold in the world of work and understand what happens there. They learn disciplines. They learn the discipline of work, timetabling and deadlines. But we have to be flexible. Terms can be busy. There can be things such as essay crises, or a postgraduate student may have an extra schedule to fit in, and of course we will accommodate that.
We have devised a good work programme. I am speaking only to give the Committee an example of the damage this will do, particularly to the students. We devise a work programme so they can work remotely and do research when they have free time. They want to earn money, and both parties are flexible. I, particularly as a former academic, recognise that their work in the university, their teaching and their essays come first. This suits all parties. We have had full-time staff who have come to us with good degrees, stayed three or four years and then gone on to do a professional training course, perhaps in law or accountancy. They, too, want to come back and continue with the work that they have brought to a high level, and they will be paid accordingly. There is no exploitation in this market; rather it is mutual gain.
It is a great pleasure for me to see young people. I have had students from inner London universities whose family had no habit of third-level or even second-level education, who came from families from abroad, who used to ask for time off during their time to take their granny to the hospital in order to interpret for her. We gave them opportunities, and it is a great pleasure to see that they have done very well as a result. Some of the work placements are organised directly with the university, and for others students write in themselves. I beg the Government to listen to this amendment and take heed, because the Bill will do untold damage to the life chances of students and their capacity to earn and keep afloat when they are paying for their studies.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, this debate takes me back to my own student days and the work that I did as a student. It was not very glamorous, I have to say. I did the overnight shift shelf-stacking at Gateway, which set me up, obviously, to be a Peer in your Lordships’ House. I also did a stint at McDonald’s. That was valuable experience in terms of socialising, learning life skills and the important opportunity to meet different sorts of people.
I believe that this Government are fair-minded and decent in the way they wish to protect the interests of working families who want the certainty of being able to put food on the table and earn a decent wage. I think we all believe that that is very important as an imperative. However, the mark of a good piece of legislation is the ability to answer the question, “What problem is this solving?” Another mark of good legislation is the ability to be flexible in carving out some parts of a Bill where the effect of the Bill will be disadvantageous to a group. I think that this is one such example and that the very important points made by my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral should be taken on board by the Government.
Remember that this is a student generation that has lived through the trauma of Covid. Many students and graduates have had to start their working career not being able to socialise in an office or a factory or out on site but at their kitchen table with their laptop. My problem is that employers who, broadly speaking, are not wicked and rapacious but want good people to join their business, make money for them and grow themselves as people and individuals and workers, will not take a risk with this legislation. This goes through the whole of this legislation. Employers are going to be significantly more risk-averse if they are going to be compelled to offer guaranteed hours to certain groups, including students. I think Ministers should give that consideration.
The reason that this is a good amendment is that it recognises that we have a very complex, fast-moving labour market and that young people are making decisions and value judgments about their work, employment, training, skills, knowledge and experience that I did not take 30 years ago and my parents certainly did not take, as you were generally in the same job for the whole of your working life, but—I would not use the word “promiscuous” necessarily, but I cannot think of a better word—younger people now are a bit more promiscuous in the decisions they take, and therefore they value that ability to enter into a flexible contract. In my time, I would not have expected a guaranteed hours contract. I would for someone aged, say, 35 or 40 who had a family and had to provide for them, but I think my noble friends have made a good point that this amendment would allow the Government to carve out this particular group. I do not think there is anything in the Explanatory Notes or the impact assessment that definitively makes the case for keeping students in this group, and for that reason I would like the Minister to give active consideration to this amendment. It is a sensible amendment. It is not a wrecking amendment. It is designed to improve the Bill. It recognises the real-life consequences and issues that may arise from the Bill: in other words, fewer young people having the opportunity to work and fewer long-term employment opportunities. For that reason, I am pleased to support my noble friend’s very good amendment.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I may also go down memory lane about aspects of employment—it was a variety of activities. Where I slightly disagree with my noble friend Lord Hunt, who moved the amendment, is that I expect the Minister will simply say that students are not required to accept a guaranteed-hours contract. She is absolutely right about that. However, if I were in a situation as a student getting a guaranteed-hours contract, happy days. I would lap them up wherever I could. I am trying to think back to my time doing my PhD. I think I worked for the university in two different jobs. I also managed to use some of my holiday to get extra work. It was a mixture of things, and we are seeing this trend increase. With the cost of living challenge that people across the country face, we are seeing a significant increase in students starting to take on quite long working hours, which is somewhat detrimental to their learning progress.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, this has been a useful debate on the subject of those who may be made exempt from the scope of the right to guaranteed hours. First off, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, that it is quite right that the Government have a detailed plan to get young people into work and training. Of course, we want to provide new opportunities for all young people, and we are determined to do that.
Amendment 19B in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, seeks to take workers who are full-time students out of the scope of the right to guaranteed hours. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, that the Government appreciate that zero-hours contracts or those sorts of arrangements can work well for many full-time students, who desire the flexibility that they provide. We have heard that from around the Chamber this afternoon. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, talked about term-time or seasonal work, but I urge him to look back through the previous debates we have had and the comments I have made, because there are a variety of ways in which employers can offer that flexibility of contract and the limited-terms contracts that could address those term-time only or seasonal work issues. I am not persuaded of his argument in that regard.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Lawlor and Lady Coffey, that there are workers who nevertheless are full-time students, and they can still experience that one-sided flexibility, similarly to the workers who are studying part-time. It seems disproportionate to exclude workers from the scope of that right simply on the basis that they are enrolled in full-time studies. Full-time students may value guaranteed hours to help them manage their job around their studies or arrange their childcare in the same way as those in full-time work.
I think there is an assumption in this debate that we are talking only about a particular age group of people and that it is a group of young people who are earning some extra beer money. This is far from the case. Many full-time students are mature students with family or other caring responsibilities, or even simply with rental or mortgage commitments. For those people, guaranteed hours can be a financial lifeline. According to a 2024 TUC poll, the majority—80% of students on zero-hours contracts—also reported that they had experienced difficulties managing study and education alongside their work. They certainly, in this generation, try to manage both of those a lot more than they did in my generation, and it is now much more expected that young people will work alongside their study. Many of those students want the opportunity to have regular hours to avoid the burden of incurring long-term student debt, which they would otherwise take into their ongoing working life. As we have said, it is entirely up to the student to say what is right for them, but there are very good reasons why the guaranteed hours should apply to all people and we should not make an exemption for students.
However, as we noted, flexibility for workers is important and the Government are not seeking to change that, where workers value that flexibility and have some benefit from a zero-hours contract. As I say, that is why workers who are full-time students and want to retain their zero-hours contracts or arrangements will be able to do so by rejecting the guaranteed-hours offer. They can accept it or reject it.
However, it is the Government’s view that they should be able to choose, based on their individual circumstances, whether to accept a guaranteed-hours offer, rather than being denied that right, as the noble Lord’s amendment seeks, purely on the basis of the fact that they are studying. I hope the noble Lord will look again at his amendment. I feel as if it is penalising young people and students in a way that feels quite unreasonable in the circumstances where everybody else is entitled to this right. Therefore, I hope he will be prepared to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, this has been a valuable debate; I agree with the Minister. Indeed, I welcomed her admission that zero-hours contracts work very well for students and are valued by them. I was interested in the TUC survey. All the surveys I have seen so far tell this Committee that full-time students do not want to lose zero-hours contracts.
It may be that the Minister will say, “Why is this amendment necessary, because they will not request full-time employment?” However, under the Bill, the employer has to work out how the business will be able to offer someone on a zero-hours contract full-time employment as and when they request it. It comes later, of course, when we are moving amendments, that we can say that it should not be the duty of the employer to give the opportunity of full-time employment; it should be the right to request full-time employment. What I think we are arguing about is whether all employers will have to go through the process in advance of any request being received. Under this legislation, they have to work out how they will be able to respond positively to an offer.
My noble friend Lady Lawlor shared the real-life experience and the way in which various students have taken advantage of these contracts. But what if they are not going to be offered them and given the opportunity of working as and when, in the flexible, lumpy way they want to organise their studies, as my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough, pointed out? I thank him for going down memory lane; it was a fascinating glimpse of life as a stacker. I suppose all of us will remember what we did as students. I volunteered. I crossed Whiteladies Road in Bristol and offered my services to the BBC. The BBC took me on as a freelance newsreader.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
Yes. I had to turn up at 5 am and then read the news.
Lord Fox (LD)
I am excited by the noble Lord’s anecdote, as I was by other noble Lords’ anecdotes, but would he perhaps concede that that was several years ago and the employment market, and indeed the student body, might have changed somewhat since then?
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
Sadly, yes. I was on a student grant and they were abolished, so I cannot draw too many analogies. My noble friend enticed me down memory lane.
I just wanted to see what the adverse effect of this amendment might be if we were to exclude full-time students. My noble friend Lady Coffey quite rightly reminded us that there is such an exemption in other legislation, such as that around universal credit. Therefore, the Minister will not be blazing a new trail; she will merely be responding to the very fact that, under legislation, full-time students do not necessarily fit into the pattern laid down by the Bill.
I am sure we will return to this. In the meantime, we can hardly wait for this meeting with the Minister, in which she will take us through the way this will all operate to cover flexible and lumpy employment. While reserving the right to return to the issue on Report, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Lucas
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to define a reasonable maximum period of temporary work for agency workers in primary legislation will help remove any uncertainty for businesses worried about genuine temp work being caught in the new zero-hours regulations.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I hope this amendment will come under the “lumpiness seminar” we have been promised. It is about what “reasonable notice” means in the Government’s intentions and how this will work in practice.
This again comes back to my request to the clerk. How did this work in the case of Parliament being recalled to deal with the Government’s rescue of the steelworks? How would it work in connection with the NHS’s response to a train crash in its neighbourhood? What about the need to change working patterns suddenly and quickly and for the workforce to be flexible? Although I have kept this amendment simple, I would like to reflect in our meeting on the equivalent provisions in Schedule A1, which deal with agency workers. How is this all going to work in practice?
Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 29 and support my noble friend Lord Fox’s Amendment 27. My amendment probes the Government’s intended meaning for the phrase “reasonably believed”, which relates to short-notice cancellation of shifts. This phrase may seem innocuous at first glance, but it carries considerable weight in determining whether workers—particularly those in insecure or temporary arrangements—are entitled to compensation when a shift is cancelled, shortened or otherwise fails to materialise. Without a clear understanding of what constitutes a reasonable belief in this context, we risk leaving both worker and employer in an uncertain and potentially contentious position. A test that lacks definition can quickly become a source of dispute rather than a resolution.
To be clear, my intention is not to impose overly prescriptive language on the Government, but rather to seek clarity on how this standard is to be understood and applied. For example, it is not enough for an employee to assert that they are expecting a shift to proceed even when the hirer has not provided written confirmation. What factors should we consider in assessing what is reasonable? Should they include previous patterns of communication, the urgency of the situation or a reliance on verbal assurances? Clarity is not a luxury that employment law has—it is a necessity. Vague thresholds serve no one, least of all those trying to navigate an already precarious labour market. I hope the Minister will take this opportunity to provide reassurance that the Government’s use of this term is underpinned by clear guidance, sound reasoning and a fair balance between the interests of workers and agencies alike.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
My Lords, I speak in favour of Amendment 22, which would allow the duty to provide reasonable notice not to apply in certain cases, and Amendment 24, which would do likewise for the duty to provide compensation under new Section 27BP(1). The Bill’s approach is likely to damage the effective working of the labour market, for which any sensible law needs to take account of the delicate balance between the needs of a business, which needs a workforce, and those of a workforce, which depends on a business succeeding to provide work and income for the future.
If a Bill does not account for exceptional circumstances, it becomes a straitjacket on all parties. In the case of this Bill, in providing for exceptions to guaranteed-hours, reasonable notice and compensation obligations, it should take account of the difficulties businesses have to navigate to keep afloat and continue to make a success of things, as well as contribute to the whole economy and the country’s overall welfare, provide jobs for the labour market, and offer opportunities for people to work, earn and, sometimes, get their first job on the jobs ladder.
We understand that businesses have both quiet periods and busy periods—such as hospitality events—where they need extra hands. A business must allow for periods of extra business as a matter of course—some of these are predictable, others not. Businesses know there are times when cover is needed with no notice, such as when a team member is off sick or at a funeral, but by the same token they need to be able to avoid adding to their problems and costs when they are a victim of circumstances that unexpectedly change. Yet the Bill requires the employer to give notice of changes and make provision for compensation if a shift is cancelled, moved or shortened without sufficient notice.
These amendments simply ask that a Government can make regulations so that the duties under new Sections 27BI and 27BJ need not apply. That would give power to a responsible Government to ensure that there can be exceptions, so that businesses are not burdened with the costs and time involved in the tribunal process and potential compensation payments in cases where, due to unlikely and unforeseen circumstances, the guaranteed-hours work was not available at short notice.
We have already heard examples, but no business is exempt from the difficult changing circumstances with which they contend. Given the burden that the business sector will face under the guaranteed-hours clause, a Government will have few tools at their disposal to tackle what could be an unfair obligation—one that might be mitigated by circumstances in the normal course of events—to exempt the reasonable notice required for changes or cancellations that have an impact on the business, and the compensation obligation, which will add unfair costs to a business.
I will take three sectors—each very different—to illustrate a potential example. The first is the retail sector, where extra help is needed to deal with a delivery and prepare it for the shelves overnight. What if the delivery van does not arrive, or the motorway is closed due to an accident or roadworks? The business has little or no notice of the failure, yet it will lose custom and income on lost sales. None the less, there is no provision in the Bill to allow for it to give less than what, under the measure, will be reasonable notice, or to protect it from paying compensation.
In the care sector, extra hours may be needed to help with certain residents needing extra support, or someone due to arrive on a given day. What happens if the person dies or the resident falls ill, has a heart attack and must go to hospital right away? There is no notice of that, and the extra work does not materialise. The care home will lose income on its empty room and overhead, yet payment will be expected. Where is the money to come from—the local authority, the care recipient, or the estate if it is a death? What will the care home do to tide over an income shortfall when having to pay its suppliers for everything from food and cooking to linen, room cleaning and care?
The CEO of the Carers Trust explains that social care providers are often forced to rely on zero-hours contracts because of a “lack of funding” from local authorities. She says:
“If zero-hours contracts are banned”—
or, I would add, made more difficult or costly—
“social care providers must be given the funding to afford the increased costs that brings”.
The CEO of the National Care Forum says that
“these measures must be accompanied by the financial and wider support necessary for providers to implement them, as well as interim measures to boost care worker pay”.
These changes must be reflected in its funding so that it can continue to do its vital work. So are the Government prepared to make a commitment to cover the costs that will be incurred if these clauses go through unamended?
Another example would be a conference organiser where the IT system fails. Despite a service contract in place to repair it instantly, nothing can be fixed because the failure lies elsewhere: a cyberattack or an energy blackout. This can happen overnight. The business loses its data, it loses customers, who are unable to pay an entry price, and it loses an overhead. Depending on how long it is before the system can be got back to normal, it may lose so badly that, ultimately, if the problem recurs, it may have to curtail operations and overheads. Without the amendments allowing the Government to provide for exemptions from the clause, there will be higher costs that may ultimately lead to the failure of the business.
There are enough uncertainties and costs for employers without making these worse, but the obligations of the Bill and these clauses could add significantly to costs and complications. Who will pay these extra costs? We know that this Government have been in the habit of saddling the taxpayer with additional costs in respect of workers in the public sector but not for businesses or charitable trusts, or indeed independent schools in the case of imposing VAT. What about the care homes taking local authority work? What about the costs of the uncertainties of the Bill itself? Although the compensation clause stipulates that compensation will not exceed pay for the lost shift, we do not yet know what the amount will be, what “short notice” is supposed to mean and what is meant by “qualifying shift”. We have to wait for regulations.
There are good reasons for these amendments. If we want businesses and the labour market to flourish, and to enable businesses to navigate the unwelcome outcomes of unexpected problems preventing expected workloads without adding to their costs, there are good reasons for the Government to accept them and for the regulations to respect the spirit in which they have been made.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, I will comment briefly on my noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom’s Amendment 28, which replaces the test of reasonable belief with that of formal confirmation. I mentioned earlier the work done by the Low Pay Commission on zero-hours contracts when it reported in 2018. It also examined the issue of compensation for short-notice cancellation of shifts. It emphasised in its report that there would need to be fairly rigorous record-keeping. It said that both employers and employees would need
“proof a shift had been offered”.
That speaks to the content of Amendment 28. It does not seem to me to be sensible to have something that rests solely on reasonable belief, because that is impossible to prove and would result in difficult questions being put to an employment tribunal. Although I am obviously not in favour of imposing bureaucratic requirements on employers, this is one area where the legislation should point towards there being some formality of record-keeping so that there can be no dispute about whether shifts have been offered or cancelled.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, in the main, this is a reasonable debate—or, rather, a debate about “reasonable”. We have yet to hear the proposal from the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, on Amendments 22 and 24, which sit outside the theme of the other amendments in this group, which I expect to be about Henry VIII powers. We shall see.
My noble friend Lord Goddard proposed his amendment, and I am here to speak to my Amendment 27. My amendment is about the definition of “reasonable notice”, and what that means. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, proposes a different time for reasonable notice in his Amendment 21A. Either way, this is an opportunity for the Minister to walk us through what the Government are thinking around reasonable notice.
My noble friend set out a probing amendment to ask about “reasonably believed”, and in Amendment 28 the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, essentially seeks to replace that. If the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, is an official spokesperson for the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, I can see many reasons for adopting something that is clear—albeit bureaucratic. I never thought that I would hear the noble Baroness speak to bureaucracy. However, somehow being able to show that belief is backed up by documentation may well prove to be essential in the good managing of workers’ relationships.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Lucas for introducing this group with his Amendment 21A. I could not agree with him more that flexibility is a key part of an efficient economy. That deserves to be written in stone. I am also grateful to my noble friends Lady Lawlor and Lady Noakes for their support for various amendments in this group and to the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for his positive comments.
I shall speak to Amendments 22, 24 and 28 in my name. There are many circumstances in which an employer has no choice but to make a request or cancel a shift on short notice—my noble friend Lady Lawlor gave us some very useful examples of that. But to go on a bit, for example, if a colleague calls in sick, which is something that is likely to increase in frequency with changes to statutory sick pay governed in other areas of this Bill, or if events beyond the employer’s control intervene, such as local flooding or public disturbances, payment for unworked cancelled shifts becomes an additional financial burden at precisely the time when a business is already experiencing a downturn. It is not simply about inconvenience; it is actually about viability.
To give another particular example, we have heard from the hospitality industry that the proposed rights around notice and cancellation of shifts could severely undermine existing staffing practices. For instance, in the case of pubs, which as we know are under pressure anyway, those with outdoor garden spaces in particular operate in a highly unpredictable environment. One representative of the sector made it very clear to us when he said:
“The new right to notice of shift allocation and cancellation could undermine a pub’s ability to offer voluntary overtime”.
During the course of the discussion, the examples were magnified to some extent—and to some extent the example that I am about to give is the flipside of the one that my noble friend Lady Coffey highlighted with regard to restaurants in a previous group, and the fact that they are pre-charging for tables. The representative of the industry pointed out to us that in many cases, for example, offering food in a pub Monday to Wednesday is a highly marginal business, and they often let their staff go early, and so on. He is of the opinion that, as a result of the Bill, much of that work will simply disappear; they will not bother to open, because it will be too complicated to administer. Not the least of it is that it is not just the administration but the costs of offering the compensation that is governed by this clause. That would obviously not be very good for consumer choice, plus of course there are implications for tax receipts and a whole host of other areas as well.
In practice, these businesses rely heavily on flexibility, which includes voluntary shift swaps and short-notice availability. As we have discussed on numerous occasions, if the weather turns—and in Britain, let us be honest, that is not a small variable—a pub expecting a busy day may suddenly find itself very overstaffed. Under the Bill, cancelling those shifts could result in mandatory compensation.
I turn to Amendment 24. Another flaw identified in the Bill is that it presumes that, in every instance, a cancelled, moved or curtailed shift entitles the employee to compensation. This rigidity, however, does not account for the unforeseen events which, as noble Lords across the House will know, are a common occurrence throughout the working world. We have heard many examples of those. The assumption that the employer is always somehow at fault does not reflect the realities of working life. Our amendment therefore seeks to clarify and incorporate a degree of flexibility into the Bill. As the noble Lord, Lord Fox, pointed out, we are proposing that the conditions that govern this entitlement to compensation should be subject to regulation in this case. There is a strong case to be made for this exception to our general principled dislike of the amount of regulation on which the Bill relies. As defined by the Secretary of State, this could be nuanced to ensure greater parity in the employer/employee relationship.
It is vital that we remember throughout these debates that we are discussing a piece of legislation that will profoundly affect workers and employers across the country. I am concerned that, in certain elements of this Bill, an ideological assumption is made about the relationship between the worker and the employer, which leads to absolute positions—another point that the noble Lord, Lord Fox, raised in a previous group. We all have a duty to ensure that the Bill meets the practical demands of the real workplace and does not just speak to such assumptions. This amendment would balance the relationship between the employer and the employee and would make sure that those who provide the work are protected, alongside those who undertake it. There is an essential symbiosis that needs to be maintained in order for us to have a thriving economy, with good jobs available for workers. We cannot fall prey to inflexible, absolute stances that upset this relationship. Our amendment seeks to correct this mistake in the text of the Bill.
I am very grateful to my noble friend Lady Noakes in particular for her support for Amendment 28, because she raised unarguable points. The reasonable belief test outlined in the Bill raises several concerns. One of the most substantial is that the term “reasonable” is incredibly broad and creates a great deal of uncertainty for both workers and employers. As noble Lords across the House will know, this part of the Bill is designed to make working entitlements clearer and provide greater clarity and certainty to workers about the shifts they are working and the sort of income they can therefore expect to receive. However, the text in its current form is wide open to a massive range of interpretations and fails to provide clarity or protection for either workers or employers. How is either party to know what constitutes a reasonable expectation? Redefining this element of the Bill so that a formal confirmation of a shift is required for entitlement to compensation will provide clarity for both parties and will create a mutual responsibility between the worker and the employer to make expectations and duties clear.
It is my understanding that the Government intend this section of the Bill to place an obligation on the employer to clearly communicate shift assignments to workers in order to avoid misunderstanding. We agree that this should be the case, although the current text of the Bill uses language that is far too vague. If the Government want to promote the clear communication of shift assignments, surely providing for a formal commitment of work, rather than the belief of being needed, is the way to make sure that that obligation is met. Our proposal of a formal confirmation requirement would mean that both employer and employee know where they stand and what is expected of them and would address the shortcoming in the text as it stands.
I will say just a few brief words on Amendment 27, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Fox. Forty-eight hours seems to us a perfectly reasonable notice period regarding the time before a shift is due to start. A survey from the Association of Convenience Stores found that 90% of colleagues in the convenience sector report that they have never had a shift cancelled with less than 48 hours’ notice. Unless a reasonable notice period is reflected in the new requirements, it is likely to lead to a cautious approach to staffing by many hospitality and retail businesses. This would mean restricting operating hours and/or staff numbers during periods of uncertain footfall, rather than offering shifts that may ultimately be surplus to operational needs on the day, thus incurring compensation costs for late cancellations.
Moreover, there is a notable asymmetry in the Bill as drafted, because there are no reciprocal requirements for employees to provide notice when they are unable to work at a scheduled shift. That gap will have significant implications. One of the biggest challenges for employers, particularly in retail, is managing last-minute cancellations by employees due to illness, childcare needs or other issues. When employers must find cover at short notice, how are they to meet the same reasonable notice requirements that they themselves are held to?
We need common sense in this legislation, so I urge the Government to accept my and other amendments, or to be honest about why they will not.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Leong) (Lab)
My Lords, before I address the amendments in this group, I take this opportunity to refer to the letter I wrote regarding the algebraic formula. There are existing formulae in employment rights legislation—for instance, in relation to the calculation of the amount payable to an agency worker as calculated in Section 57ZH of the Employment Rights Act 1996, so this is not something new. We will, however, publish full and comprehensive guidance in due course, which I am sure many noble Lords will find fascinating.
This has been a very useful debate, and I am very grateful for the contributions of all noble Lords. We have covered several areas in this debate related to the amendments tabled. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, in his Amendment 21A, is seeking to make changes to the period of notice deemed reasonable for cancellation of or change to a shift for agency workers. The noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, in Amendment 22, is seeking to make changes to the right to reasonable notice of shifts for directly engaged workers. The noble Lords, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, Lord Fox and Lord Goddard of Stockport, are seeking to make changes to the right to payment for short-notice shift cancellations, movements and curtailments in Amendments 24, 27, 28 and 29.
Before I address each of these amendments in turn, let me share some analysis that the Living Wage Foundation did in 2023. It suggested that 59% of workers whose hours vary from week to week, which includes zero-hours and low-hour workers, receive less than a week’s notice of shifts, with 13% receiving less than 24 hours’ notice. The vast majority of respondents—90%—stated that they do not receive full payment when their shifts are cancelled unexpectedly, 74% receive less than half, 51% receive less than a quarter and 26% receive no payment. Further analysis, from the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, suggests that approximately 33% of UK employers who use zero-hour contracts compensate workers for shifts that are cancelled with less than 24 hours’ notice, with 48% of employers responding that they do not.
I turn first to Amendment 21A. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, says in his explanatory statement that this amendment
“seeks to define a reasonable maximum period of temporary work for agency workers in primary legislation”,
which
“will help remove any uncertainty for businesses worried about genuine temp work being caught in the new zero-hours regulations”.
The noble Lord seeks to achieve this by providing that the period of what is presumed to be reasonable notice for agency workers must be no greater than 24 hours. This would mean that it would be presumed reasonable if an agency worker receives 24 hours’ notice, but unreasonable if they receive less, so only in those latter situations would the agency or hirer have to prove that the period of notice was still reasonable in the circumstances.
I am not clear how this amendment would achieve this. The amendment would be made to Clause 2, concerning rights to reasonable notice for directly engaged workers, and appears to prevent workers being given more than 24 hours’ notice of cancellation or change to a shift. I reassure the noble Lord that the Bill provides for periods of notice “presumed reasonable” to be set in regulations for directly engaged workers and agency workers, as well as the factors that should be taken into consideration in individual cases.
Following consultation, it may be that the “presumed reasonable” periods of notice and the factors that should be taken into consideration will be different for agency workers and directly engaged workers. We intend to consult on what period is presumed reasonable, because it varies from case to case. Setting a period of reasonable notice in primary legislation would thus pre-empt consultation and not allow us to take into account stakeholders’ views.
Lord Fox (LD)
These are probing amendments; they are designed not for us to tell the Government what we think, but for them to tell us what they think. Simply knocking our argument down does not really achieve that objective. Secondly, as I predicted in a sense, the Government have set up a consultation process, but they have already ruled out the offer of 24 hours from the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and disparaged 48 hours. What other things have they ruled out before the consultation has been completed?
Lord Leong (Lab)
To a certain extent, we are not ruling anything in or out. We are basically saying that we will be consulting with all stakeholders. I take the noble Lord’s point—yes, the amendment says that, and I am responding to the amendment by saying that we will be undertaking further consultation and bringing forward regulations in due course.
I believe the noble Lord wishes instead to provide that a right to short-notice payment will arise only where the worker has received formal confirmation that they will work the shift from their employer, or, in the case of agency workers, hirer or work-finding agency. The Government’s view is that it would be overly prescriptive to specify that the right to short-notice payments arises only in cases where formal confirmation has been provided. While in many cases, a reasonable belief will arise only where the worker has received confirmation in writing from the employer that they will work the shift, different businesses have different practices when arranging shifts, and it would not be appropriate to adopt a universal, one-size-fits-all approach.
For example, when a worker agrees to work the shift after being contacted individually to work it, they would likely reasonably believe that their agreement corresponds to them being needed to work the shift, if it is standard practice that they will be needed to work despite additional confirmation not being provided. So, it is fair that the worker in this scenario should receive a payment if the shift is then cancelled, as they expected to work it and may have incurred costs preparing to do so. It would also be overly burdensome for the employers to have to provide confirmation where this would not otherwise be needed in order to be confident that they will have staff for that particular shift.
The Government believe that, in most cases, it will be clear to both the worker and the employer, or the agency worker and the agency or hirer, whether the worker was expected to work a shift. The Government will also publish guidance to help with interpretation. As a last resort, where disputes cannot be settled, employment tribunals will be able to determine whether a worker had a reasonable belief that they were needed to work a shift with a result that is fair. We wish to retain this flexibility to allow for the broad range of circumstances that may arise.
Lord Fox (LD)
I apologise for intervening again. That is a really helpful response, because it confirms my fears. The less specific the supporting documentation is around what is reasonable, the more likely it is that this is going to go to a tribunal in order to define what is reasonable. We all know that this will take a great deal of time and a lot of money, and it will leave uncertainty probably for years before such time as a case is heard. Do the Government accept that, by being more specific in the first place, they can avoid this greater, costly uncertainty?
Lord Leong (Lab)
I am not sure about that. Basically, we do not want to be too prescriptive and define what reasonableness is, because it varies from case to case and company to company. There needs to be that flexibility there.
Amendment 29 is a probing amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Goddard of Stockport, which seeks to add a power into the Bill to make regulations setting out factors that determine whether a worker reasonably believed they would be needed to work the shift. The Government tabled an amendment during Commons Report stage to ensure that a worker will not be entitled to a payment for a short-notice cancellation, movement or curtailment of a shift unless at some point prior to that they reasonably believed they would be needed to work the shift. This is considered appropriate because it is only where a person reasonably believes that they will work a shift that it is reasonable for them to prepare to work and incur costs as a result.
This amendment was necessary to eliminate the risk of workers taking cases to tribunals and making claims for shifts they did not reasonably believe they needed to work. This is particularly important in situations where an employer offers a shift out to multiple people, for example if they organise shifts through a large WhatsApp group. In cases like this, we want to be clear that people should receive cancellation payments when they are told they are not needed at short notice only if they reasonably believed they would work the shift in the first place.
For example, as set out in the Explanatory Notes, if there is an established practice of “first come, first served”, and an individual says they will work a shift after they have seen that another individual has already done so, they should probably not expect to work that shift. Even where a shift is offered only to one worker, they should still reasonably believe they will work it in order to be eligible for a short-notice payment. For example, if an employer offered a shift four weeks in advance, and the worker accepted the shift only two hours before the shift, it seems less likely they should expect actually to work that shift.
These are the kind of scenarios the Government considered when making the amendment; however, there are other scenarios where issues about this may arise. The Government wish to avoid being overly prescriptive by setting out factors in regulations, given the range of scenarios where this may be relevant. Instead, the Government consider it more appropriate to leave it to tribunals to determine on a case-by-case basis and we want to ensure that tribunals maintain flexibility to do so as they consider appropriate.
Before I conclude, I will answer the questions from the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, and the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, about reasons outside of employers’ control. With better planning, employers need not cancel as many shifts, but it is not right that, when there is uncertainty, the entire financial risk rests with the workers. We really need to have a fair balance, and the Bill offers exemptions as a possibility for that. We will consult on that; however, any exemptions are likely to be narrow, as we do not believe that workers should take the whole financial hit.
I hope that I have been able to persuade all noble Lords and provide assurances on the Government’s wider commitment to consult with stakeholders and businesses. I therefore respectfully ask noble Lords not to press their amendments.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
Is the Minister really saying that the points that we were making are related only to employers’ bad planning? How on earth are they supposed to plan for natural disasters, floods and so on? Secondly, I apologise for using the wrong reference to the Bill, as the Minister helpfully pointed out. He also helpfully pointed out that much of the Bill is being written on the hoof, so I would be very grateful if he would commit to stop producing new iterations of the Bill, which are ever expanding.
Lord Leong (Lab)
I am sure that the noble Lord will be happy to hear that I will consult with everybody as widely as possible, including him. We can have further conversations to explain the purpose of the Bill and why we are doing it. We are not doing this in isolation. I believe that the Bill is pro-business and pro-worker, and we need to get that message across to him and other noble Lords.
Lord Fox (LD)
On a number of occasions, the Minister set out that the Government are consulting. What is the timetable for that consultation, and when can we expect the results from it?
Lord Leong (Lab)
Although the noble Lord expects me to give him a specific timeframe, I cannot do so now. I will consult with my officials and come back to him.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
On the first day in Committee, we already discussed the implementation plan of the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch. We then moved on to discuss the draft implementation plan, and the noble Baroness gave us a commitment. Can the the noble Lord, Lord Leong, update that commitment? By when will we see the draft implementation plan?
Lord Leong (Lab)
I give the noble Lord my commitment that it is very much a work in progress.
Lord Sentamu (CB)
I want the Minister to explain something. He has refused to set the definite hours in which this needs to be done. He said that that would be prescriptive and that the tribunal will determine whether the matter is reasonable. Is it not quite odd to rely on the tribunal to execute what noble Lords are trying to suggest in their amendments? Should not the Bill itself include those hours? If you do not want to be prescriptive, you can say, “Up to 24 hours”, or, “Up to 48 hours”, which means that they do not have to go all that way—that is slightly less prescriptive. I am baffled that the Minister wants the tribunals to enter into these matters. He and I know that they take a long time and cost a lot of money. Why is he legislating to open a door in this area to tribunals, which everybody should try to avoid?
Lord Leong (Lab)
I thank the noble and right reverend Lord for his intervention. I can say only that I thought we were all agreed that flexibility is a good thing, and I am sure we do not want anything in the Bill that would restrict either an employee or an employer from making a reasonable judgment on a case-by-case basis. On that, I rest my case.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his analysis of my amendment. I certainly do not intend to press it today, but I very much look forward to taking up the issues when we sit down with the team to discuss lumpiness.
On the noble Lord’s preference for keeping “reasonable” broad, I can see the attractiveness of that. If a business is wiped out by a flood, postponing employees’ work for the next day at zero notice but saying, “We’ll want you in the day afterwards so you can start the clean-up” would presumably be reasonable. At the same time, giving very little notice when it is obvious that more notice could have been given would obviously be unreasonable. But allowing the whole pattern of this to be developed slowly through individual cases in tribunals does not seem to be the right way of going about it.
Lord Leong
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is being made to bring the amended provision into line with other provisions in the Bill.
Lord Leong
(i) less than a specified amount of time before the earlier of when the shift would have started (if the shift had not been moved, or moved and curtailed) and when the shift is due to start (having been moved, or moved and curtailed);(ii) on or after the start of the shift;”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 3 that expands the meaning of the movement of a shift.
“(9) For the purposes of this Chapter, references to the movement of a shift (however expressed)—(a) are to any change to the time at which the shift is to start that is a change of more than a specified amount of time;(b) include—(i) where a shift is in two or more parts, a change of more than a specified amount of time to the time at which the second (or a subsequent) part is to start, and(ii) a division of a shift into two or more parts where the time between the parts is more than a specified amount of time,but only if the change or division (as the case may be) results in the shift ending later.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment expands the meaning of the movement of a shift for the purposes of the provisions inserted into the Employment Rights Act 1996 by clause 3 of the Bill so as to deal with changes to the start time of a part of a shift or the division of a shift into parts.
Lord Leong
“(6) The duty in subsection (2) is to be taken not to have applied if—(a) the employer pays to the worker an amount in relation to a number of hours that is at least equal to the amount of the payment that the employer would have been required to make to the worker under section 27BP(1) in relation to the same number of hours but for regulations made under subsection (1)(c), and(b) the payment is made on or before the day on which the payment under section 27BP(1) would have had to be made if the employer had been required to make it.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment changes the date by which a payment must be made in order for the duty to give a notice under proposed section 27BR(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 to be disapplied.
Lord Hunt of Wirral
“(2) Determining whether reasonable notice of a shift was given must include an consideration of—(a) whether the work-finding agency offered the shift to the agency worker as soon as reasonably practicable after receiving confirmed information about the shift from the hirer in accordance with Regulation 18 of the Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses Regulations 2003 (S. I. 3319/2003);(b) any time reasonably required by the agency to carry out suitability assessments in accordance with those Regulations.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies how “reasonable notice” should be assessed for agency workers. It ensures that the work-finding agency must offer the shift to the worker as soon as reasonably possible after receiving confirmed details from the hirer, and after the agency has conducted suitability assessments, in line with relevant regulations.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, as we now move to consider reasonable notice in agency work, I will speak to Amendments 33 and 36 to 38.
Unfortunately, and despite all their show of consultation, I believe the Government have failed to realise how agencies operate in the labour market, so once again the drafting of the Bill shows the failure of a one-size-fits-all approach. The challenge we face in the context of the Bill is clear. Work-finding agencies operate in a highly dynamic and often unpredictable environment, where the flow of information from hirers is essential in matching workers to available shifts.
This brings us to the core concern. Agencies often rely on information from hirers about the availability and cancellation of assignments. Without timely and sufficient details from hirers, agencies cannot predictably or properly fulfil their role. Therefore, any new obligation to provide reasonable notice for agency workers must consider the time taken for agencies to receive this confirmed information and make the necessary arrangements and assessments.
Regulation 18 of the Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses Regulations 2003 lays down that an agency cannot
“introduce or supply a work-seeker to a hirer unless the agency or employment business has obtained sufficient information”
to assess the suitability of the worker for the role in question. The issue here, therefore, is straightforward. Agency workers often find themselves without income as a consequence of cancellations initiated by hirers, yet agencies are held financially liable for those decisions, even though they have no control over the cancellations.
To illustrate the risk, let me provide a scenario. A work-finding agency places an agency worker with a hirer for a shift. However, due to unforeseen circumstances, the hirer cancels the shift at short notice. The agency, having no control over the cancellation, is still required to compensate the worker. The financial burden therefore falls on the agency, despite the cancellation being the decision of the hirer.
How will this amendment help to ensure that small and medium-sized agencies are not disproportionately impacted—that is what we seek to do here—bearing in mind the financial responsibility associated with hirer-induced cancellations, particularly when the business in question may already be financially vulnerable? Do the Government believe that it is justified to place the financial burden of a cancellation or curtailment on the agency when the failure to provide notice lies entirely with the hirer?
I believe that the Minister understands the complexities of the agency-worker relationship, but the Bill in its present form does not make proper allowance. How do the Government propose to monitor and enforce the full accountability of hirers for failures in notice arrangements? This is an issue that has to be faced, given the rigidity of the legislation we are required to consider under this Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)
My Lords, I am pleased to speak to this group of amendments, which seek to clarify the framework governing agency workers, and I have some sympathy with the views of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, on this matter. It seems to me that a third person looking into this process will see the Labour Party trying to protect employees and give them 100% rights and the Conservatives trying to ensure that small and other businesses have a level playing field to employ, create jobs and grow the economy, which I thought was the Government’s objective. I wonder why, with this employment Bill, we cannot get a little closer to dealing with the mechanics.
The answer that the Minister gave to my probing amendment baffled me. I wanted to get up to ask him to explain what he said to me. Millions of people who listened to it or who read Hansard tomorrow will not have a clue. As my lumpy noble friend has said in previous debates, we seek clarity before the Act comes into power. We need to know these things. I spent four years on the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. The watchword on that committee was quite clear: do not give Ministers unfettered powers. What is in the tin of a Bill is what it says on the front of the tin of a Bill. I wonder whether this tin will say “tomatoes” but when you open it, you will have carrots—a problem for somebody that does not eat carrots.
Running through this group of amendments, we on these Benches are trying to bring the parties together to understand that it is a two-way thing. I have been a committed trade unionist for 25 years. I have also run a business and employed 20 people. Those two things are compatible, but they are complicated, because you have different pressures from a different standpoint. As with all legislation, we try to move it through by being sensible and finding common ground for what the trade union movement wants, what the Government want and what employers want. I had guests in yesterday who were asking about the Bill. I roughly outlined it, and they could not believe it. They employ 30 people. They said, “We can’t afford HR, we can’t afford lawyers, we can’t afford for people to take us to tribunals. We just want to employ people, make a small profit and grow the business”. I cannot understand how this has become so complicated.
On Amendment 33, concerning the interpretation of “reasonable notice” when shifts are offered to agency workers, the aim appears to be to require agencies to make offers promptly once details are confirmed by the hirer and all the checks have been completed. While this may be an attempt to bring greater clarity, I question whether that proposal and that language fully address the practical realities of agency work. The intention may be sound, but there is a risk of replacing one form of ambiguity with another. That said, for agency workers some degree of predictability and transparency is important and long overdue.
Amendment 36 introduces the idea of joint liability between work-finding agencies and hirers when a shift is cancelled or curtailed at short notice. There is merit in exploring whether a shared responsibility could lead to fairer outcomes, particularly when neither party should be able to shift all risk on to the other. Equally, it is important to consider how such provision would work in practice and whether it risks disincentivising the use of agency labour altogether.
Amendment 37 proposes that compensation should be triggered only when a shift has been formally confirmed, rather than relying on the more subjective “reasonable belief” test. I appreciate the effort to bring objectivity to a murky area, but workers should not be left guessing whether an assurance from an agency amounts to a genuine commitment. We need to understand how this might interact with the fast-moving nature of some temporary staffing such as seasonal work or that connected with the weather. Ambiguity in the current framework serves no one, least of all the workers.
Finally, Amendment 38 provides that the agency would not be liable to pay compensation where the hirer fails to give appropriate cancellation notice. This is arguably a fairer allocation of risk, as agencies should not be penalised for the failure of others. However, it must be clear that such changes would not weaken the overall protections intended for the worker.
While these amendments raise important issues around the treatment of agency workers, I am not yet convinced that they strike the right balance in all aspects. There is a risk that in seeking to impose clearer structures, we introduce new complexities and unintended burdens. I think that this is what the Government are trying to say. Nevertheless, the underlying objectives—clarity, fairness and accountability—are ones that we should continue to pursue. Any changes to the framework must support clearer obligations and deliver fairer outcomes, for the workers and for the agencies and hirers. If these amendments highlight anything, it is the pressing need for the Government to offer clarity and consistency in this area.
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Hunt and Lord Goddard, for their contributions, and the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, for tabling the amendments in this group, covering Amendments 33 and 36 to 38.
Before I speak to these, I reassure all noble Lords, especially the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, that the Government respect and appreciate all the amendments tabled by noble Lords. The whole purpose of this is to address individual amendments and see where the Government are coming from and how we can find a way forward. There are some things in noble Lords’ amendments that may not be required because the Bill already covers them elsewhere. We are trying our very best to address every amendment and we welcome noble Lords’ scrutiny of the Bill. I reassure noble Lords that we are not being flippant about any of these amendments.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, this has been a helpful short debate. I join with the noble Lord, Lord Goddard of Stockport, in seeking clarity, fairness and consistency. The Minister has given us some answers to the questions we posed, but it is just another example of where it is so important to think through the issues, as they affect all those who are in any way covered by the Bill. We will need to return to this matter during the further passage of the Bill to ensure that my objective and that of the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, is fulfilled—namely, that the provisions offer a fair and workable solution for all the parties involved.
Lastly, in an unguarded moment, the Minister, in responding to the previous amendment, said that the draft implementation plan was “a work in progress” and that he was considering it with his colleagues. I make an offer on behalf of all in the Committee: we would be willing to help this work in progress by looking carefully through the first draft of the implementation plan, while accepting that it may not be the final draft. At least it would give us an idea of what is in the Government’s mind as to implementing rather complicated provisions in the Bill, which are currently shrouded in some degree of mystery as to what they will bring forward in secondary legislation.
I just repeat what we have said several times in the debate so far: when you amend primary legislation through secondary legislation, it is far better, in our view, to have those amendments in the Bill rather than being left to some further process—admittedly, consultation—that would then amend that primary legislation through secondary legislation. Like the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, I too have served on the other committees of this House, which find that Governments perhaps do not give secondary legislation the priority it needs but should never seek to amend primary legislation through secondary legislation. Many of our committees have said that time and again. If we could see the first draft of the implementation plan, we could assist the Minister and his colleagues to get this Bill right. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
(i) less than a specified amount of time before the earlier of when the shift would have started (if the shift had not been moved, or moved and curtailed) and when the shift is due to start (having been moved, or moved and curtailed); (ii) on or after the start of the shift;”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to Schedule 1 that expands the meaning of the movement of a shift.
“(5) For the purposes of this Part of this Schedule, references to the movement of a shift (however expressed)—(a) are to any change to the time at which the shift is to start that is a change of more than a specified amount of time;(b) include—(i) where a shift is in two or more parts, a change of more than a specified amount of time to the time at which the second (or a subsequent) part is to start, and(ii) a division of a shift into two or more parts where the time between the parts is more than a specified amount of time,but only if the change or division (as the case may be) results in the shift ending later.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment expands the meaning of the movement of a shift for the purposes of Part 3 of proposed Schedule A1 to the Employment Rights Act 1996 so as to deal with changes to the start time of a part of a shift or the division of a shift into parts.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment corrects a cross-reference, bringing paragraph 23(5) of proposed Schedule A1 to the Employment Rights Act 1996 into line with the equivalent provision (section 27BR(3)) inserted by clause 3.
“(8) The duty in sub-paragraph (4) is to be taken not to have applied if—(a) the work-finding agency or another person pays to the agency worker an amount in relation to a number of hours that is at least equal to the amount of the payment that the work-finding agency would have been required to make to the agency worker under paragraph 21(1) in relation to the same number of hours but for regulations made under sub-paragraph (1)(c), and(b) the payment is made on or before the day on which the payment under paragraph 21(1) would have had to be made if the work-finding agency had been required to make it.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment makes provision for agency workers that is equivalent to the provision made for non-agency workers by my amendment of clause 3 that leaves out lines 19 to 25 on page 26.
“(6) Where an employment tribunal finds as described in sub-paragraph (5)(c), the hirer is to be treated for the purposes of section 12A and Part 2A of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996 (financial penalties) as an employer and as having breached the right of the agency worker to which the complaint under paragraph 25(1)(c) relates.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides for provisions of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996 concerning financial penalties to apply in relation to a hirer who is added to proceedings under paragraph 25(7) of proposed Schedule A1 to the Employment Rights Act 1996 and who has a finding made against them in those proceedings.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
(ii) an employee representative body or staff association that—(A) has been formally established for the purpose of consultation or negotiation with the employer,(B) represents a defined group of the employer’s workers or the workforce generally, and(C) operates independently of the employer in its decision-making, andthe worker’s employer.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment expands the definition of an appropriate representative to include employee representative bodies or staff associations that are formally established, represent the workforce or defined groups of workers, and operate independently in decision-making. It ensures that workers can be represented by legitimate and independent collective structures beyond traditional trade unions.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendments 42, 43 and 44, which address a crucial gap in the Employment Rights Bill as currently drafted. The Bill, in its present form, assumes that collective agreements and the important rights that attach to them can be made only through trade unions. The assumption is problematic, as it fails to reflect the diverse and evolving landscape of employee representation in the United Kingdom.
Across a wide range of sectors, there are effective forms of employee representation that operate independently of trade unions. For example, many large employers across the UK have implemented formal employee forums, staff councils and other representative bodies that play a critical role in negotiating terms, improving working conditions and ensuring that workers have a voice. These bodies operate with transparency and independence; they often work closely with management but are not subject to the control of the employer. In sectors such as retail, hospitality and technology, companies have established these independent bodies to provide workers with a platform to express concerns, suggest improvements and engage with senior leadership on workplace issues. These bodies, although not unions, are trusted and valued by workers as genuine vehicles for consultation and negotiation.
Likewise, in industries such as financial services, employee representation often takes place through staff associations and other internal bodies that focus on consultation, transparency and communication between employers and employees. These bodies are instrumental in maintaining a constructive dialogue between workers and management, and they often handle issues such as pay, conditions and workplace policies without the need for union recognition.
The current draft of the Bill fails to accommodate these vital forms of representation. It risks excluding workers who are represented by such independent bodies from accessing the protections associated with collective agreements, including important provisions on guaranteed hours. This approach undermines existing employee engagement practices that have proven to be effective in fostering good relations between workers and employers. The Government have spoken repeatedly about the need to modernise our economy and bring employment rights into the 21st century. A key part of that modernisation must be acknowledging that trade unions are not the only legitimate means through which workers can be represented. Properly constituted employee forums and staff bodies can and do play a vital role in today’s diverse and evolving workplaces. By recognising this, the Government have an opportunity to align this legislation with the modern realities of work and deliver on their commitment to updating our employment framework.
Moreover, the Bill raises serious concerns about freedom of association. The principle of freedom of association is about not just the right to join a union but the right not to be compelled into union membership as a condition for accessing fair treatment at work.
If we want to strengthen the relationship between employers and employees, we must ensure that the Bill is inclusive of all legitimate and independent forms of worker representation. These amendments are designed to achieve that. They would extend the recognition of collective agreements to properly constituted employee representative bodies, such as staff forums or associations that operate independently from the employer in their decision-making. They would ensure that these bodies meet clear governance standards, including transparency, accountability and independence.
The Government’s aim is to promote better workplace relations, and these amendments support that aim. They would recognise the wide range of ways in which workers and employers engage with each other constructively. By recognising diverse forms of representation, we can build trust, enhance co-operation and create workplaces where both workers and employers can thrive. I urge the Government to support these amendments, which would reflect the realities of modern employee representation and strengthen the protections available to all workers, regardless of whether they belong to a traditional trade union. I beg to move.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
I totally oppose these amendments. This is the first time I have spoken in the progress of this Bill. I have amendments coming up later. I think the noble Lord’s amendments illustrate the complete difference in mental framework between those who support and work with the trade union movement and those who do not. I should be clear that, although I do not have any formal interest to declare, I have spent most of my working life working in or for the trade union movement. The trade union movement and what it has achieved is based on 150 years of struggle.
Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)
My Lords, I am very pleased to follow my noble friend Lord Davies because I absolutely agree with what he says. I would add, just from my own experience, that, early in my working life, I worked in a retail organisation where there was a staff forum and where I and colleagues were organising to establish a trade union. The difference is this: that staff forum was set up by the employer. It was not set up by workers. That staff forum was funded by the employer; it was not funded by workers. That staff forum was not democratic, whereas the whole point of a trade union is that it is a democratic organisation of working people. I would hope that one of the aims we could share across this House is to see an increase—an expansion—of genuine collective bargaining, because the evidence is very clear that, internationally, we see that the demise of collective bargaining has been associated with growing inequality, worse conditions at work, a poorer share of the wealth that workers help produce and no independent democratic voice.
I would hope that, in this country, we recognise that there are many, many working people who feel they have been denied a genuine voice—an independent voice—at work and in society, and they are rightly fed up about it. If we want to tackle that—if we want to tackle inequality and the sense of powerlessness that many people feel—it is collective bargaining through the route of independent, democratic trade unionism that we all need to see grow.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I was not intending to speak in this group and I am torn between both sides. I have some cynicism about the Opposition’s attempt at recognising non-trade unions and staff associations. I entirely understand the point that the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, has just made about employer-led staff clubs, which I have been, over the years, invited to join. While they have been very pleasurably good social forums, they are very different from trade unions.
However, I am afraid that there is a danger that we can romanticise what contemporary trade unionism is, based on the very fine history of 150 years of struggle. I do not actually think that trade unions at the moment should take for granted that workers will be loyal to them, because there have been far too many instances of trade unions not being fit for purpose. Indeed, there is often a huge gap between trade union leaders and trade union members. Many members are leaving unions or not joining them, and that is not always because of evil bosses in a kind of caricatured way.
At Second Reading, I made the point—and I am only repeating it here now—that, for example, the Darlington Nursing Union has been set up because the nursing unions have abandoned female members of staff who were nurses and who have been attacked by their HR departments and their employers for their political views in relation to gender and sex. As it happens, we now can appreciate that they were simply reiterating their right to privacy as biological women—something that the Supreme Court has now at least acknowledged is the law—but they have been harassed and bullied and so on, and the trade unions abandoned them.
I made a point about the Free Speech Union. I appreciate that it is not a trade union, and nobody, least of all me, is suggesting that the noble Lord, Lord Young, who is in his place, will become the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, of future negotiations. Despite the fact that that is an unlikely role for the noble Lord, Lord Young, the Free Speech Union has been forced into existence and has represented workers who have been done over by their employers when their trade unions have abandoned them. That is the point I am making.
The UCU is one example of a university union. I was a NATFHE rep for many years in the further education sector and I have watched in horror the way that that union has degenerated and sold out its members. So, for the record, I would prefer that we did not caricature each other in a way that does not represent the contemporary time. The trade unions today are not the trade unions of old. They could do with upping their game. Similarly, I do not think the trade unions are the evil enemy of employers, as is sometimes implied by people sitting closer to me on this side of the House.
Lord Moynihan of Chelsea (Con)
My Lords, I would like to add to what the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, said. We are having a good debate and I very much hope to keep it friendly. What the noble Lord, Lord Davies, and the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, said, was really rather flying pigs.
I, obviously not like most of the Committee, am old enough to remember the 1970s. I remember the destruction of the British automobile industry by the trade unions. London docks was destroyed by the trade unions. This led, through the 1970s, to the “winter of discontent”, which led to the necessary emergence of a Government under Margret Thatcher who sought to control the trade unions and do something about the destruction they were wreaking on the British economy. We all remember that; I am not fantasising about this. This 150-year story of the great things wrought by the trade unions is really difficult to let go by without saying something.
Right now, only 22% of workers in the UK belong to unions. Why is that? It is because of the destructive nature of those unions. Let us remember that, of that 22%, most are in the public sector. Public sector workers have a monopoly in the areas they occupy and in return are being rewarded by a Labour Government. We saw the sorts of rises, which were completely unjustifiable compared with what people in the private sector were earning, that the Labour Government awarded many public sector trade union workers when they came to power.
We saw how there is—I am not saying anything we do not all know—a wonderful relationship between the unions and the Labour Party. I saw a number—I do not stand here asserting it is true, but I saw it and it seems reasonable—that, since 2011 the trade unions have given £31 million to the Labour Party. Whether that is true or not, we know the figure is of that order. This is wonderful, but it increases the size of government, because of the deals the Labour Government have to make with these trade unions. It increases the cost and complexity of government, and it increases in general the cost of regulation to all employers.
All those things destroy the economic growth which, as the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, said earlier, we are all trying to achieve. I ask the Government please not to give us guff—I hope it is not unparliamentary to say that—about the positive effects of the trade unions. They are destructive.
Lord Deben (Con)
My Lords, I wonder whether we are having a discussion for 2025, or one that is deeply mired in history. I find myself in some difficulty listening to either side of this discussion. I say very strongly that trade unions have been, and are, very important, but I also hope that people who watched the annual conference of the National Education Union, all of whose officers have the support of the Socialist Workers Party, may ask why a union like that should have spent more time talking about Gaza than it did about school attendance. We cannot be entirely happy about the circumstances of all trade unions, and this Government are going to have to face those trade unions pressed from that way.
On the other hand, I deeply disagree with the attitude we have just heard about trade unions being destructive. Trade unions have been very constructive in many circumstances, and this is something we should recognise. My problem with the Bill, and my reason for coming to this debate to support my noble friend’s amendments, is related to what the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton—who opened the Back-Bench remarks—said about trade unions: that they were not forced on anyone. They were created by people coming together to work for better attitudes, better conditions and better pay for working in those circumstances.
If people want to do that but want to be independent and not subject to their employers—as the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, fears—and if they do not want to be called a trade union, then we ought, in 2025, to give them the powers to make the same kinds of arrangements with employers as a trade union. If we do not do that, this is going to be the one area where this Government will say there shall be no competition or opportunity for people to make a different decision about their future.
We ought to give people that opportunity, and we ought to protect those people by making sure that it is given to them only if they are independent, pay for it themselves and have chosen that particular mechanism. I say to the Labour party Front Bench that none of us who work—as I still do, happily—right across the board with all kinds of companies can think of today’s industry and commerce as if it were like yesterday’s. There are new circumstances and new ways of doing things, and the Bill ought to recognise that. If all it does is solidify the past, we will have missed a great opportunity.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
Before the noble Lord sits down, let me just explain that if an organisation meets the requirements to be free and independent, it is a trade union. Anyone can set up a trade union. If it does not meet the standards—many of which have been set by the party opposite—it is not a trade union and it is not capable of collectively representing its members. There is an illogicality in suggesting that an organisation that is not meeting the standards of a trade union can represent its members.
Lord Deben (Con)
If that is so, it is very simple: we can all agree to this amendment, with such alterations as are necessary, to make sure that they are independent. Then we can all feel that we have created an answer that suits today. Can we please get out of this yah-booing from both sides—and I mean both sides—about these issues? We have to find a way in which the whole of society can come more effectively together, without constantly determining that we have to do it like we did 100 years ago.
Lord Hendy (Lab)
I endorse what my noble friend Lord Davies said a moment ago. A trade union is defined by Section 1 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act, and it is an organisation of workers the primary purpose of which is to regulate relations between employers and workers. That is the only definition. Any body that does that is a trade union. So the sorts of organisations identified in these amendments will be trade unions. But, as trade unions, they have consequential obligations. For example, they have to elect their general secretary and their national executive committee by ballot every five years, and so on. So there are consequences to these amendments. By the way, a trade union defined by Section 1 is not necessarily independent. There are independent trade unions listed by the certification officer and non-independent trade unions. “Independence” has a specific meaning under the legislation.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
Phew—I do not know whether I want to join in this philosophical debate because, clearly, we have heard strong views on both sides, and they have strayed way beyond the amendments we are trying to moderate today. But I would say that the Bill overall seeks to find the right balance between workers, unions and businesses, recognising that each has an important role to play. Our aim in the Bill is to modernise those arrangements for the 21st century so that we are not playing “Yah-boo, you did that back in 1953” but are actually looking to the future. We hope that is what the Bill will deliver.
These amendments aim to broaden the provisions in the Bill to allow employee representative bodies or staff associations to collectively agree to modify or opt out of the zero-hours measures. The Bill already allows these collective agreements to be made, but only by trade unions. As we are allowing for modification of statutory employment rights, it is vital that the appropriate safeguards are in place. This includes that only trade unions that have a certificate of independence, and are therefore free from employer control, can agree with employers to modify or opt out of rights, and that rights are guaranteed in exchange and incorporated into a worker’s contract.
I make it clear that staff associations and employee representative bodies, some of which we have heard described this afternoon, can do really good work, and we welcome engagement between employers and workers in all forms. However, we do not think it is appropriate for these associations and bodies to be able to modify statutory employment rights. This is not least because they may not have sufficient independence from the employers—a point well made by my noble friend Lady O’Grady—unlike independent trade unions, which do have that independence and which offer high levels of protection to workers. Furthermore, there is a well-established framework for trade unions, including recognition, independence and incorporation of terms, and the provisions build off these provisions.
I can see that the noble Lord’s amendments suggest a framework of requirements that staff associations and employee representative bodies would need to meet in order to modify or exclude zero-hours rights. These include requirements around independence, recognition, elections and record-keeping.
However, as my noble friends Lord Hendy and Lord Davies have said, the more you incorporate those requirements, the more you add to a staff association or employee representative body, the more similar it appears to be to an independent trade union. Given that the trade union framework is well established, historically and legally, it is not clear to me that it makes sense to establish a similar but different structure just for the purposes of the zero-hours measures. I am grateful to my noble friends Lord Davies, Lady O’Grady and others for reminding us of the hard-won rights that we have achieved through organisations within the trade union movement. Trade unions already serve to protect and advance the interests of workers.
I felt that the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, presented a caricature of the unions. For every criticism he has, we could come back with all the advantages that trade unions have delivered for working people over the years in pay and conditions and in some of the fantastic campaigns—for example, around the environment, women’s rights, and so on. They have already contributed enormously to modernising workplace rights, so I do not feel that it would be appropriate or proportionate to try to recreate them. The trade unions already provide the constructive dialogue with employers to which the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, refers, and membership of trade unions remains voluntary for employees.
I say, too, to the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, that there is a technical issue around all this. If his amendment was accepted as drafted, it would not achieve the aims that he intends. Collective agreements have a specific definition in the Employment Rights Act 1996, which the zero-hours provisions are being inserted into. The definition, referring to the definition in the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, provides that collective agreements are ones between independent and certified trade unions and employers’ or employees’ associations, so there would not be scope in the way that the noble Lord has worded his amendment for a wider definition of employee representatives.
We have had a debate which I have a feeling we are going to return to on some of the other trade union issues, but, for the time being, with this set of amendments in mind, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, will consider withdrawing his amendment.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
That was a short but most interesting debate, and I am grateful to all noble Lords who participated. I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, and the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, for their comments. No one on this side is denying that trade unions often have a proud history. As my noble friend Lord Deben pointed out, they have a very strong history in securing workers’ rights which has been constructive for our country over many years—no one is denying that. However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, pointed out, not all modern trade unions support that history. I am sure that noble Lords would accept that.
The fact is that the world has evolved, and these amendments simply respect that evolution. My noble friend Lord Moynihan points out that only 22% of workers are currently unionised. The latest figure that I can find for the private sector is 12.3%. The other 88% have not been prevented from joining a trade union; they have exercised a choice not to, a democratic choice, so trying to argue that this proposal is somehow undemocratic makes no sense in the context of the rest of the Bill. Why, for example, does the Bill later on scrap the 40% turnout requirement for statutory recognition? That seems profoundly undemocratic.
Having said all that, I am obviously very grateful to the Minister for her response, and I accept that there are probably technical issues with my amendment. With that helpful hint, I shall improve them for the next time that we debate these measures. However, on the first day in Committee, we heard the Government argue that, in relation to guaranteed hours:
“Unions can make these deals based on their knowledge of the industry and with a holistic view on what is best for their workers”.—[Official Report, 29/4/25; col. 1203.]
If the Government are willing to accept that logic for trade unions, surely the same reasoning must be extended to independent staff bodies and employment forums, many of which are embedded deeply within the day-to-day life of a company and have even greater practical knowledge of their specific industries and workplaces. In some cases, those bodies are closer to the operational realities of individual businesses than remote union structures, and they are more trusted by the employees themselves.
The debate should ultimately be about respecting individual workers and their choices. The Government’s stance suggests a lack of trust in individual workers and the belief that, unless a worker is represented through a traditional trade union, their voice is somehow less valid or less informed. Fundamentally, it appears that the Government do not believe in the individual and do not trust workers to know what works best in their own context; instead, they insist on a one-size-fits-all approach, even when that model may be entirely foreign to a smaller business or industries where union involvement has never been the norm.
What about the many employees who are content with their current representation? Will they now be told that their structures are not good enough and that they have to change, bring in new frameworks, hire experts and prepare for union-led negotiations, whether they want them or not? Will industries that have long enjoyed stable relations be pushed into more adversarial models, creating the very tensions that this Bill should be seeking to avoid? Can the Minister perhaps enlighten us as to how smaller businesses and those that have never operated within a unionised environment will adapt to rigid models such as this, which assume that union involvement is the only valid route to collective agreement?
These amendments do not challenge the value of trade unions—very far from it. They simply recognise that unions are not the only route to fair and effective representation. If the Government are truly serious about modernising employment rights, we must begin by acknowledging the diversity of how workers organise today. For now, I am of course content to withdraw the amendment.
““work-finding agency” has the meaning given by section 27BV;”Member’s explanatory statement
The definition of “work-finding agency” in proposed section 27BV of the Employment Rights Act 1996 applies for the purposes of Part 2A of that Act. This amendment adds reference to the definition to the Part 2A interpretation provision in proposed section 27BZ2 of that Act.
“Insolvency Act 1986
A1 In the Insolvency Act 1986, in Schedule 6 (categories of preferential debts), in paragraph 13(2), before paragraph (a) insert—“(za) a payment under section 27BP(1) of, or paragraph 21(1) of Schedule A1 to, the Employment Rights Act 1996 (payment for a cancelled, moved or curtailed shift);”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment will make payments under proposed section 27BP(1) of, and paragraph 21(1) of Schedule A1 to, the Employment Rights Act 1996 (payments for cancelled, moved or curtailed shifts) preferential debts for the purposes of the Insolvency Act 1986.
“The Employment Tribunals Act 1996 is amended as follows.1A (1) Section 12A (financial penalties) is amended as follows.(2) In subsection (11), in the definition of “employer”, after paragraph (a) insert—“(aa) in relation to a right conferred by Chapter 3 or 4 of Part 2A, or section 47H, of the Employment Rights Act 1996, includes a person who is an employer by virtue of section 27BJ(7) or (as the case may be) 27BP(8) of that Act;(ab) in relation to a right conferred by Part 1 or 2 of Schedule A1 to the Employment Rights Act 1996, or Chapter 6 of Part 2A of that Act so far as relating to Part 1 of Schedule A1 to that Act, includes the hirer within the meaning of the relevant Part of that Schedule;(ac) in relation to a right conferred by Part 1, 2 or 3 of Schedule A1 to the Employment Rights Act 1996, includes (where it would not otherwise do so) the work-finding agency within the meaning of the relevant Part of that Schedule;(ad) in relation to a right conferred by section 47I of the Employment Rights Act 1996, includes (where it would not otherwise do so) a person who is a relevant person within the meaning of that section;”.(3) In that subsection, in the definition of “worker”, for the words from “includes” to the end of the definition substitute “—(a) includes an individual seeking to be employed by a person as a worker;(b) in relation to a right conferred by Chapter 3 or 4 of Part 2A, or section 47H, of the Employment Rights Act 1996, includes an individual who is a worker by virtue of section 27BJ(7) or (as the case may be) 27BP(8) of that Act;(c) in relation to a right conferred by—(i) Part 1, 2 or 3 of Schedule A1 to the Employment Rights Act 1996,(ii) Chapter 6 of Part 2A of that Act so far as relating to Part 1 of Schedule A1 to that Act, or(iii) section 47I of that Act,includes (where it would not otherwise do so) an agency worker within the meaning of Part 2A of that Act (see section 27BV of that Act).””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment inserts an amendment of section 12A of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996 that is consequential on provisions of the Employment Rights Act 1996 to be inserted by clauses 2, 3 and 5 of, and Schedules 1 and 2 to, the Bill.
“1B “(1) Section 16 (power to provide for recoupment of benefits) is amended as follows.(2) In subsection (1), after paragraph (d) insert—“(da) payments under section 27BP(1) of, or paragraph 21(1) of Schedule A1 to, the Employment Rights Act 1996,”.(3) At the end insert—“(7) In the application of this section to payments which are the subject of proceedings under Chapter 2, 3 or 4 of Part 2A of the Employment Rights Act 1996, or Chapter 6 of Part 2A of that Act so far as relating to Chapter 2 of that Part, and which are compensation for loss of wages (see subsection (1)(a))—(a) references to an employer are to be read as if they were references to an employer within the meaning of the relevant Chapter of that Part;(b) references to an employee are to be read as if they were references to a worker within the meaning of the relevant Chapter of that Part.(8) In the application of this section to payments which are the subject of proceedings under Part 1, 2 or 3 of Schedule A1 to the Employment Rights Act 1996, or Chapter 6 of Part 2A of that Act so far as relating to Part 1 of that Schedule, and which are compensation for loss of wages (see subsection (1)(a))—(a) references to an employer are to be read as if they were references to a hirer or (as the case may be) a work-finding agency within the meaning of the relevant Part of that Schedule;(b) references to an employee are to be read as if they were references to an agency worker within the meaning of Part 2A of that Act.(9) In the application of this section to payments under Part 5 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (see subsection (1)(c)(i)) by virtue of section 47H of that Act—(a) references to an employer are to be read as if they were references to an employer within the meaning of that section;(b) references to an employee are to be read as if they were references to a worker within the meaning of that section.(10) In the application of this section to payments under Part 5 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (see subsection (1)(c)(i)) by virtue of section 47I of that Act—(a) references to an employer are to be read as if they were references to a relevant person within the meaning of that section;(b) references to an employee are to be read as if they were references to an agency worker within the meaning of Part 2A of that Act.(11) In the application of this section to payments under section 27BP(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (see subsection (1)(da))—(a) references to an employer are to be read as if they were references to an employer within the meaning of Chapter 4 of Part 2A of that Act;(b) references to an employee are to be read as if they were references to a worker within the meaning of that Chapter.(12) In the application of this section to payments under paragraph 21(1) of Schedule A1 to the Employment Rights Act 1996 (see subsection (1)(da))—(a) references to an employer are to be read as if they were references to a work-finding agency within the meaning of Part 2A of that Act;(b) references to an employee are to be read as if they were references to an agency worker within the meaning of that Part.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment inserts an amendment of section 16 of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996 that is consequential on provisions of the Employment Rights Act 1996 to be inserted by clauses 1 to 3 and 5 of, and Schedules 1 and 2 to, the Bill.
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment to Schedule 2, page 180, leaving out lines 7 to 18.
“(3) It is immaterial for the purposes of subsection (1)(d) or (e) whether or not the proceedings were, or would have been, well-founded provided that the worker acted in good faith in bringing the proceedings or alleging the existence of the circumstance.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, together with my amendment to Schedule 2, page 180, line 3, replaces the current subsections (3) and (4) of proposed section 47H of the Employments Rights Act 1996 so that they work correctly for all categories of proceedings mentioned in subsection (1)(d) of that proposed section.
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment to Schedule 2, page 181, leaving out lines 30 to 44.
“(3) It is immaterial for the purposes of subsection (1)(d) or (e) whether or not the proceedings were, or would have been, well-founded provided that the agency worker acted in good faith in bringing the proceedings or alleging the existence of the circumstance.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, together with my amendment to Schedule 2, page 181, line 25, replaces the current subsections (3) and (4) of proposed section 47I of the Employment Rights Act 1996 so that they work correctly for all categories of proceedings mentioned in subsection (1)(d) of that proposed section.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment adds to the types of dismissal that are to be regarded as automatically unfair under proposed section 104BA of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to Schedule 2, page 184, line 26.
“(4) It is immaterial for the purposes of subsection (3) whether or not the proceedings were, or would have been, well-founded provided that the employee acted in good faith in bringing the proceedings or alleging the existence of the circumstance.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to Schedule 2, page 184, line 26 and, together with my amendment to Schedule 2, page 184, line 28, reflects the approach taken in other of my amendments to Schedule 2 by replacing the current subsections (4) and (5) with provision that works for all the categories of proceedings.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is for consistency with the change made by my amendment to Schedule 2, page 184, line 28.
“(4) It is immaterial for the purposes of subsection (3) whether or not the proceedings were, or would have been, well-founded provided that the employee acted in good faith in bringing the proceedings or alleging the existence of the circumstance.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is for consistency with the change made by my amendment to Schedule 2, page 184, leaving out lines 31 to 37.
“13A In section 184 (debts to which Part 12 of the Act (insolvency of employers) applies), in subsection (2), before paragraph (a) insert—“(za) a payment under section 27BP(1) or paragraph 21(1) of Schedule A1,”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment will make payments under proposed section 27BP(1) of, and paragraph 21(1) of Schedule A1 to, the Employment Rights Act 1996 (payments for cancelled, moved or curtailed shifts) subject to the provision in Part 12 of that Act about insolvent employers.
“13B “(1) Section 202 (national security restrictions on disclosure of information) is amended as follows.(2) In subsection (2), after paragraph (a) insert—“(aa) Chapters 2 to 6 of Part 2A (including Schedule A1),”.(3) In subsection (2)(b), for “and 47C” substitute “, 47C, 47H and 47I”.(4) In subsection (2)(g)(i)—(a) for “or 103” substitute “, 103, 104BA or 104BB”;(b) after “application” insert “in relation to rights conferred by Chapters 2 to 6 of Part 2A (including Schedule A1) or”.(5) In subsection (2)(g)(ii), for “or (6)” substitute “, (6), (7BZA) or (7BZB)”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment will prevent information from being disclosed under provisions inserted into the Employment Rights Act 1996 by clauses 1 to 3 and 5 of, and Schedules 1 and 2 to, the Bill, or in court or tribunal proceedings relating to those provisions, if its disclosure would, in the opinion of a Minister of the Crown, be contrary to the interests of national security.
“14A “(1) Section 206 (institution or continuance of tribunal proceedings) is amended as follows.(2) In subsection (2), after paragraph (a) insert—“(aa) Chapters 2 to 6 of Part 2A (including Schedule A1),”.(3) After subsection (9) insert—“(10) In the application of this section and section 207 in relation to Chapter 2, 3 or 4 of Part 2A, or Chapter 6 of Part 2A so far as relating to Chapter 2 of that Part, references to an employee are to be read as if they were references to a worker within the meaning of the relevant Chapter of that Part.(11) In the application of this section and section 207 in relation to Chapter 3 or 4 of Part 2A, references to an employer are to be read as if they were references to an employer within the meaning of the relevant Chapter of that Part.(12) In the application of this section and section 207 in relation to Chapter 5 of Part 2A (including Schedule A1), or Chapter 6 of Part 2A so far as relating to Part 1 of Schedule A1—(a) references to an employer are to be read as if they were references to— (i) a hirer, or(ii) a work-finding agency, and(b) references to an employee are to be read as if they were references to an agency worker,within the meaning of Chapter 5 of Part 2A (including Schedule A1).(13) In the application of this section and section 207 in relation to section 47H—(a) references to an employer are to be read as if they were references to an employer within the meaning of that section;(b) references to an employee are to be read as if they were references to a worker within the meaning of that section.(14) In the application of this section and section 207 in relation to section 47I—(a) references to an employer are to be read as if they were references to a relevant person within the meaning of that section;(b) references to an employee are to be read as if they were references to an agency worker within the meaning of Part 2A.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment amends section 206 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 so that that section, and section 207, apply with appropriate glosses in relation to proposed Chapters 2 to 6 of Part 2A, and proposed sections 47H and 47I, of that Act.
“Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 2016
19 In the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 2016, in Schedule 3 (preferred debts), in paragraph 10(2)—(a) before paragraph (a) insert—“(za) a payment under section 27BP(1) of, or paragraph 21(1) of Schedule A1 to, the Employment Rights Act 1996 (payment for a cancelled, moved or curtailed shift),”;(b) in paragraph (a), for “the Employment Rights Act 1996” substitute “that Act”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment will make payments under proposed section 27BP(1) of, and paragraph 21(1) of Schedule A1 to, the Employment Rights Act 1996 (payments for cancelled, moved or curtailed shifts) preferred debts for the purposes of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 2016.
Lord Hunt of Wirral
“Impact assessment: sections 1 to 8(1) The Secretary of State must conduct a review of—(a) the impact of sections 1 to 8 on the operation of employment tribunals, and(b) the ability of employment tribunals to manage any increase in applications resulting from those sections.(2) The Secretary of State must lay the review made under subsection (1) and the Government’s response to the review before Parliament.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to conduct a review of the impact on the employment tribunals of the Bill’s provisions on zero hours workers.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, we now move to consider the impact assessments, or lack of them. Amendment 62, which I will speak to first, considers the impact on employment tribunals of the zero-hour contract provisions. Amendment 63 would require an impact assessment within six months, specifically for the hospitality sector, the retail sector and the health and social care sector. I greatly welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, who has kindly given her name to that amendment, along with my noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom.
Earlier this week we heard, and it was reported in the Financial Times, that the UK employment tribunal backlog had hit record levels. Some 49,800 cases were waiting to be heard by an employment tribunal at the end of the final quarter of last year, up from 39,000 in the same period of 2023. That is according to data from HM Courts & Tribunals Service. Earlier this afternoon, the Government refused to accept Amendment 21, which I spoke to and which would allow businesses to make a dismissal in the case of genuine business needs. By rejecting this amendment, as well as any suggestion from businesses throughout their consultation, I think that the Government are risking overloading the employment tribunal system even more than is the case today.
Moreover, it is worth noting that the Government have previously tabled so-called technical amendments that would have required employers to make work available to zero-hour workers. This alone highlights how impractical the current zero-hour contract provisions are when viewed through the lens of tribunal risk. It is deeply concerning, in particular, that the Regulatory Policy Committee has given a red rating to the Government’s impact assessment on day-one rights over unfair dismissal.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, until my earlier rant on trade unions, I had not been available to speak consistently in the debates on Clauses 1 to 8, although I have been listening in or following them. I have not been able to be here because of the problems of contemporary work: a portfolio career running from one job to another and never having time to do everything I want to do.
One of the reasons I am very keen on an impact assessment on the impacts of Clauses 1 to 8 on these sectors—the subject of the amendment to which I added my name, looking at hospitality, retail and health and social care—is that I feel as though the modern employment landscape has changed so dramatically. Despite the fact that we have a Bill about modernising employment rights, I have sometimes felt that there has not been an adequate recognition of how things have changed. As I hinted at earlier, there is a rather caricatured view on a variety of sides of the Committee, as though we were stuck in the 1970s and every employee and every worker was a public sector worker with a nine-to-five job. That is just not what it is like. The contemporary workplace often needs flexibility, for the sake of the workers as much as anything. But it is an argument, and I am not going to go into the details.
I thank the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe of Epsom and Lord Hunt—of wherever—for allowing me to put my name to this amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, explained well the different issues that have been raised in the debates until now, as I understand them. On different Bills I have raised the problems in these sectors, so I will not repeat them. But I note that, in a debate on Martyn’s law—which has now become an Act of Parliament as the Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Act—I raised the real problems that the hospitality sector is facing at the moment because it is under the cosh and overregulated. People who work in that sector feel that it is not going to survive. There are the national insurance contributions and the regulations being brought in. The retail sector, such as convenience stores, will now face a whole barrage of assaults in the Tobacco and Vapes Bill; I talked about that at great length, so I will not repeat that.
I fear that the health and social care sector has exploited care workers via zero-hour contracts; I have talked about that in the past. A modernisation of the health and social care sector is required, and I am disappointed that the present Government have not brought that forward. The one thing that I would like a Bill on is the modernisation of the health and social care sector, instead of these other Bills, which I think do some damage. Despite that, all that the amendment I am supporting calls for is an impact assessment of Clauses 1 to 8.
Lord Londesborough (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 63. I agree that the impact of Clauses 1 to 8 will be especially felt by these three sectors: hospitality, retail and social care. But, to be frank, I would not stop there; I advocate expanding this impact assessment, not only to small businesses and micro-businesses—noble Lords would expect me to say that—but to all key sectors in the economy. There will be huge employment variations sector by sector, and they need to be analysed and understood. As we keep hearing, one size does not fit all—although the Bill has a different view on that—and we have the issue of “mind the gap”.
Two other industries that certainly deserve such assessments are the creative industries, which we will debate on another day, and the gig economy. Some very disturbing numbers are already coming out of membership surveys from bodies such as the Federation of Small Businesses and the Institute of Chartered Accountants. I will share two bits of data from the ICAEW’s latest quarterly business survey for the first quarter of this year. It says that 53% of its members expect that the Bill will
“reduce their plans to hire permanent staff”,
and that 40% anticipate greater use of outsourcing because of the Bill—that is a very significant number.
What does this mean? It means—it is already happening—that employees will be coming off payroll and going into freelance and self-employed roles. We have an amendment coming up in many days’ time, or probably weeks; I will not read out the names of my noble friends who are behind it, but it is Cross-Bench and Liberal Democrat-sponsored and relates to the establishment of a freelance commissioner office. I think the Government may have very little choice on this, because the demands for the services of that office are going to go up exponentially, partly because of this Bill and also because of the national insurance contributions Bill. I will not repeat all those arguments.
I come to the second unforeseen consequence—although, frankly, these are not unforeseen, are they? They are foreseen. We can actually say with some certainty that the Government are encouraging the offshoring of jobs from the UK. This trend has been going on for decades, but is it really the objective of the Government, particularly for lower-paid and entry-level roles, to see a percentage of those jobs going off to countries such as India, Vietnam, the Philippines, Romania or Moldova? I am not against offshoring, but I think you have to be very careful about being seen to be encouraging it, and I believe the Bill is guilty of that.
On the assessment, which we hope will happen, the area that should be looked at in greatest detail is the impact on part-time jobs. We have heard already about the young graduates and students, but I will speak up also for older workers. Those of us here who sit on the Economic Affairs Committee—I see the noble Lord, Lord Davies, here—will be aware that we are conducting an inquiry on the economics of an ageing society. If the Government are to achieve their noble objective of raising the economic activity rate from 75% to 80% across all age groups, they will have to tackle the 50 to 70 year-old cohort.
In order to get people back into work, not just those who took premature retirement but those who have been on benefits for a long time, we will have to be far more flexible about creating part-time work, and I am afraid that the Bill is likely to deter the creation of part-time roles. So that is another area that I believe the impact assessment should be looking at, which is not just by sector but by type of job.
I am told by my friends in the recruitment industry, if I can call them that, that there is already a shift in hiring from permanent to interim, and that trend started at the beginning of this year and is accelerating. Again, national insurance contributions have pushed employment in that direction and the Bill threatens to do the same.
My final point, talking about assessments, is that HMRC may well want to conduct one to discover that its projected national insurance contribution tax revenues will, as a result of the Bill, take a significant hit as employees start being taken off payroll and moved into self-employed, part-time or even offshored roles.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)
Perhaps I might intervene briefly on this group. I support Amendment 63 but, like the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, I wonder whether it is too modest in scope. As I said when I spoke on the last day in Committee, I am sympathetic to the kinds of effects that zero-hours contracts or some of the different kinds of practices that we see now have on employees in these businesses, which are often at the lower end of the pay scale.
However, I am very struck, by listening not just to this debate but to the debates on the various different things that we have been discussing this afternoon, that what we do not seem to be taking account of—or rather, to be more specific, what the Government do not seem to have taken account of in bringing forward this legislation—is that a lot of the practices that they are trying to remove or mitigate are the consequence of other things that have been introduced in the past which have been well intentioned in support of low-paid workers but are now creating other things. For instance, although it is going back some time now and various other things have happened since, I think about the arrival of tax credits when Gordon Brown was Chancellor. That led to people wanting to reduce their contracted hours because of the impact on their various benefits.
So when I hear people say that some of these measures—or, rather, the removal of some of these practices and various other things in the Bill—start to disincentivise people either being offered more hours or whatever, I worry that, given the way in which the Bill has been introduced and what feels like inadequate assessment through the proper stages—Green Paper, and all that sort of thing—we are creating yet more problems, which will then lead to the need for yet more legislation, which will never get to the heart of what we are trying to do here, which is to create an employment economy that is fair for employees and people do not feel that they are being exploited but have the flexibility that they need, and where employers, too, have the freedom and independence that they absolutely need to be able to employ workers and grow their businesses to contribute to the fundamental agenda, which is a growing economy that is fair to everybody concerned.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, this is another one of those divided-off groups. I am going to speak to impact assessments and reserve what I say on tribunals for the next group. There is a danger when talking about the existence of and the need for impact assessments that we start providing our own impact assessments. I am afraid that many of your Lordships fell into that trap. I will try to avoid it, so I will not be commenting on what should be in an impact assessment; I will be commenting on why we need improved impact assessments. Some of the Government’s amendments have already been debated. I was not able to be here during that part of the process, but, on reading the debate, I saw that it further illustrated that, with each layer of new amendments, changes are coming to the Bill and complications and reflections are being added.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, before he gave us his impact assessment, made I think his most important point, which was to bring up the findings of the RPC on the existing impact assessment. That is before all the changes that have come and before the Bill changed substantially between the Commons and your Lordships’ House, and therefore, unscrutinised to this point. I am very much in the camp of the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough: if we are going to redo an impact assessment, we should do it properly. We should go back and produce one that is meaningful, that the RPC can endorse and that we can use meaningfully in the next stages of this Bill.
I am not sure how many of your Lordships worked on the then Professional Qualifications Bill. I suspect that the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, may at least be one. Sometimes the then public procurement Bill is used as an example of Bills that come half-baked—or, in that case, not even in the cooker—but actually the best example is the Professional Qualifications Bill. That Bill differed from this one in that it started in your Lordships’ House, but it came to your Lordships’ House full of things that needed to change, full of drafting points and full of extensions and amendments, and the noble Lord, Lord Grimstone, who was the Minister, stood where the Minister is today and said, when we came to the end of Committee, “Well, my Lords, it is clear that we have to take this Bill on a holiday”. And that is what he did. He took it away for four months and came back with a Bill that was properly drafted. The “i”s had been dotted and the “t”s crossed and we were able to make a reasonable piece of legislation to pass to the Commons for its work.
We have some time. This is a flagship Bill. It had to be introduced within 100 days because that is what the Government told the world. I understand that. But it is very important that we get this right. The Minister should start thinking about vacation plans for the Bill between Committee and Report, so that things such as the impact assessment can be delivered to your Lordships’ House. Those of us who want the Bill to succeed will then be sure that it has a chance to succeed.
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Hunt, Lord Fox and Lord Londesborough, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Fox and Lady Stowell, for their contributions, and thank the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, for tabling Amendments 62 and 63. These amendments cover the impact of the Bill’s zero-hour contracts provisions on the employment tribunal system and on specific sectors.
Let me place on record that the Government recognise the vast contribution that the hospitality, retail and health and social care sectors make to the nation’s economy, and that they employ millions of people. I will give some examples. The hospitality sector currently employs 330,000 people on zero-hours contracts, which makes up 28.9% of the workforce. The retail and wholesale sector employs close to 90,000 people, equating to 7.8% of the workforce. The health and social care sector employs 190,000 people, contributing 16.5% of the workforce.
Zero-hours contracts offer flexibility for some workers, but evidence indicates that they have been exploited by certain UK companies, leading to job insecurity and limited work rights. This pro-business, pro-worker Bill aims to address these issues by effective enforcement and by closing the loopholes, to ensure fair treatment for all workers so that we can grow our economy.
Amendment 63 seeks to insert a new clause requiring the Secretary of State to publish an assessment of the impact of the zero-hours provisions in the Bill on specific sectors of the economy within six months of the passage of the Bill. As the Committee will know, the Government have already published a very comprehensive set of 27 impact assessments, spanning close to 1,000 pages. These are based on the best available evidence of the sectors likely to be affected by these measures. As mentioned by the noble Lords, Lord Hunt and Lord Fox, the RPC’s opinions refer to the evidence and analysis presented in the impact assessment and not to the policy itself. Our impact assessments provide initial analysis of the impacts that could follow. We will therefore be updating and refining them as we further develop the policy and continue consultation and engagement.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
Can the noble Lord respond to the red rating which the RPC has given the Government’s impact assessment? Are the Government continuing discussions with the Regulatory Policy Committee to try to reverse that red rating, to meet the necessary requirements that the Regulatory Policy Committee imposes on all Governments? When will we see an end to the red rating and an acceptance that the Government have learned from the experience and judgment of the RPC?
Lord Leong (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord. This impact assessment will continue. I will be mentioning later in my speech that there will be further impact assessments. Regarding his specific point about the RPC’s rating, I will write to him.
We recognise the importance of ensuring that the impacts of these policies on workers, businesses and the economy are considered, and that analysis is published outlining this. We already intend to publish further analysis, both in the form of an enactment impact assessment when the Bill secures Royal Assent and further assessments when we consult on proposed regulations, to meet our Better Regulation requirements. In addition, we are committed to consulting with businesses and workers ahead of setting out secondary legislation, as we have said on previous groups, including those from the sectors listed in the amendment.
Amendment 62 would insert a new clause to require the Secretary of State to undertake and publish a review of the impact on employment tribunals of the zero-hours provisions in the Bill. The detailed package of analysis, to which I referred a moment ago, also includes an illustrative impact assessment of the Bill’s measures on employment tribunal cases. We intend to refine this over time by working closely with the Ministry of Justice, His Majesty’s Courts & Tribunals Service, ACAS and wider stakeholders. We recognise the importance of assessing the impact of these policies on the enforcement system and have worked in partnership with these organisations throughout policy development.
We already intend to publish further analysis, both in the form of an enactment impact assessment when the Bill secures Royal Assent and further assessments when we consult on proposed regulations, as I mentioned earlier. In the meantime, the Government are taking various steps to increase capacity within the employment tribunal system. For example, ACAS currently provides information to employees and employers on employment law, and early conciliation for potential employment tribunal claims. It also offers post-claim conciliation. The Government have taken various steps to increase capacity, such as the deployment of legal caseworkers and recruitment of additional judges.
HMCTS continues to invest in improving tribunal productivity through the deployment of legal officers to actively manage cases, the development of modern case management systems and the use of remote hearing technology. We are committed to looking at what more we can do in this area, working with the Ministry of Justice and wider stakeholders such as ACAS, as I just mentioned. We are already helping many employers and workers to reach settlement before they need to go on to a further hearing.
Our work will also include looking at opportunities for the fair work agency to take on enforcement, where that would help both workers and businesses reach resolution more quickly without needing to go to an employment tribunal.
I refer to the point from the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, about gaps in the Bill. The Bill does not have any gaps. Some elements of the Bill await engagement or future engagement and consultation with stakeholders, so that we can ensure that the policies work for all involved.
I hope I have reassured your Lordships and that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, will withdraw his amendment.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
I am delighted that consultations are occurring but, as legislators, we are asked to vote on a Bill without having seen the consultations. The Minister can tell me that there are no gaps because it will all be done for us. I do not know why we do not sack ourselves; what are we doing, sitting here, reading through line by line in Committee and discussing a Bill that we are told not to worry our little heads about? Those are the gaps.
Lord Leong (Lab)
First, I did not say “little heads”. It is important that we continue to have conversations with stakeholders. Most noble Lords know, and I am sure the noble Baroness knows, that employment law includes a lot of regulations. Previous employment legislation puts further regulations in place. It is important and right that we speak to a wide group of stakeholders, businesses, workers, trade unions and everybody involved in this, so that we get it right.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
One last thing: to be frank, I want the Government to speak to wider groups of stakeholders than the official bodies that represent people. It is simply that it should have been done before the Bill was brought to us. I want it to be noted on the record that wide consultation work should have been done, but the Government should not have brought legislation that could have unintended consequences that damage workers’ rights, while they proclaim that it will save workers’ rights. If they had not done the consultations, they should never have brought it to Parliament to be discussed.
Lord Leong (Lab)
I hear what the noble Baroness has said. The Bill has gone through the other House and been scrutinised line by line. We have also taken the point on board here and we will continue with further consultation.
Lord Fox (LD)
When I talked about taking the Bill on a holiday, I was not joking; I was serious, and it would be quite nice if the Minister would take it seriously and respond.
Lord Leong (Lab)
I take the noble Lord’s point. At the rate the Bill is going, we may reach recess before we come back again to discuss it further.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, that was a very significant admission by the Minister, for which we thank him. We will need the recess to rethink quite a lot of the Bill.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, that this is a gap-filled Bill. I know that the Minister is told in his brief to say there are no gaps, but there are gaps. Wherever you look in the Bill, there is further work to be done before the Government will say what they will do. It takes huge powers—Henry VIII powers—to amend primary legislation through statutory instruments. That is a hugely significant step, and we as a reasonably sensible Chamber cannot possibly allow the Government to get away with that.
You cannot get away with saying to Parliament, “We’re not going to give you the detail of what we’re going to do. Indeed, we’re not going to tell you what we’re going to do, because we’re going to consult and then we will do it by statutory instrument”. That is not the way to legislate. The contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, has been very helpful. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, for reminding us about the creative industry—the gig industry.
As the noble Baroness reminded us, we have to have a relevant impact assessment so that Parliament can see what effect the Bill will have on a rapidly changing workforce. The workforce has changed dramatically over the last 15 to 20 years and the modern landscape has changed substantially.
Lord Leong (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for giving way. I appreciate what he has said. We are all for parliamentary scrutiny of the Bill—we welcome it. We welcome every single amendment and clause being scrutinised. The Government believe that the delegated powers in the Bill are necessary. I am pleased, as the noble Lord will have noted, that the DPRRC found it
“heartening that in a Bill with so many … powers it has only found four on which to raise concerns”.
The Government will respond formally in due course to the DPRRC.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
I just happen to have the report of the DPRRC here, and it does raise serious concerns. One of the concerns it has constantly raised about all Governments is that they should not amend primary legislation by secondary legislation. They should be upfront about what they are going to do, and change.
It may well be that the Minister will take great comfort in the fact that there are only 18 black lines of criticism—18. I hope that he will take the advantage that has been given to him on all sides to take the Bill away and try to find a better solution.
We must not forget that the Bill I originally saw at Second Reading in the House of Commons has changed substantially: 160 amendments were tabled on Report in the Commons. They were not scrutinised line by line—they could not be, because they were produced at the last moment.
The Government have to recognise that, as my noble friend Lady Stowell said, it may well be that the Bill is going to disincentivise a whole range of employment situations, which is going to have a massive impact on the whole employment scene. It may well be that my noble friend is right that it is going to create more problems. I recognise that the noble Lord, Lord Fox, has already got a major concession concerning the utilisation of the recess, but we need to pause and say to the Government, can we now see the overall impact assessment and, in particular, have an undertaking that they will continue to scrutinise carefully the effect of all this legislation on the employment market before it is too late?
Lord Leong (Lab)
I just want to clarify that we are still sticking to seven days, and the recess I mean is the Whitsun Recess at the end of this month. It will come back.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
I was looking to a longer holiday for us all to scrutinise the Bill. There is no need for the Minister to keep clarifying his comments. I just take them at face value, and it is an undertaking on his part to reflect on all the issues that have been raised, particularly the impact assessment. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Penn
“(1A) In section 80F, for subsection (8)(a)(i) substitute—“(i) has received a job offer, and”.”
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, I rise to move Amendment 64 in my name. This amendment makes a simple change to the right to request flexible working. In 2023, the Employment Relations (Flexible Working) Act amended the right to request flexible working so that it applied from the first day of employment. Previously, employees needed to wait for 26 weeks as a qualifying period before making a request. That was a good move forwards, but in practice, this still means that when finding and taking a new job, an employee might need to leave a role that offers them the flexibility they need without knowing whether their new employer can accommodate their responsibilities outside work. If that request is then denied, the employee may find themselves in an impossible situation, forced to choose between their work and their responsibilities outside work. Employers might also find themselves having gone through a whole recruitment process, having waited for their new recruit to work a notice period for their previous employer, only to find that they cannot accommodate their new employee’s request and potentially having to start the recruitment process again. To me, that is a lose-lose situation, leaving both the employee and the employer worse off.
TUC research shows that two in five mothers do not feel comfortable asking for the flexible working they need during a job interview, for fear that they will face discrimination or have their offer withdrawn. Changing the law to allow flexible working requests from the job offer stage would give candidates vital protection. As I have said, the change would also benefit employers. It would create a legal framework for an open, honest conversation about working patterns before contracts are signed, ensuring that both parties can agree on arrangements that genuinely work for them. It does not change employers’ need to consider a flexible working request, nor their right, having given it proper consideration, to say that it does not fit with their business needs. Such a change would and could support fairer hiring, greater inclusion and better long-term retention.
Flexible working can unlock economic opportunities for growth. Indeed, the post-implementation review of the Flexible Working Regulations 2014, which extended the right to request flexible working to all employees, not just those with caring responsibilities, showed that flexible working can reduce vacancy costs, increase skills retention, enhance business performance and reduce staff absenteeism rates. It has the potential to bring people back into economic activity who would otherwise have left the labour market.
The noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, spoke about the importance of bringing older people back into work, along with people with disabilities and those who have been on benefits for a period of time. These are people whom the Government are spending a lot of time and effort trying to re-engage into the workforce for their own good and for the good of economic growth. This change could help do that.
On these Benches, we have emphasised the benefits of having a flexible labour market, and, in my view, that means one where people are able to move easily between employers. I think this amendment would support that, so I would be interested to know what the Minister thinks of this proposal. I beg to move.
Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Penn. I shall speak to Amendment 66 in the name of my noble friend Lord Watson, who is unable to be in his place today due to a long-standing family commitment.
Clause 9, on flexible working, will make a huge difference to working people, including those with caring responsibilities. Many of us know all too well and very personally the daily juggling-act miracle that working mums especially are expected to perform. Anything that makes their lives easier has to be welcome. Flexible working has the added benefit to business and for the wider economy of making it easier for carers to both enter the workforce and stay there. This will help close the gender pay gap, reduce child poverty and help keep mothers and babies healthier.
Amendment 66 seeks to address the concern that, to be effective, those new rights must have teeth. I know that my noble friend Lord Watson would want to acknowledge the support of Maternity Action and the National Education Union in preparing this amendment. Amendment 66 would require the Business and Trade Secretary to review and publish a statement on the adequacy of the maximum compensation which an employment tribunal can award where an employer has not followed its obligations in dealing with an employee’s flexible-working request.
Currently, employees have the right to request flexible working, but employers can refuse on a wide range of listed grounds. Clause 9 boosts employees’ rights by introducing a reasonableness requirement, meaning that employers will be permitted to refuse a statutory flexible-working request only if it is reasonable to do so on one or more of the listed grounds. This new requirement is a positive step towards making flexible working the default. The problem is about the maximum compensation which an employment tribunal can award when it upholds an employee’s complaint about how an employer has treated their flexible-working application.
Currently, the maximum compensation that an employment tribunal can award is eight weeks’ pay, capped at £719 per week, which is a total of £5,752. This low compensation cap does not reflect the devastating cost to a worker where that flexible working has been unreasonably refused. Maternity Action and trade unions have documented how unreasonable refusals effectively force employees—particularly many new mothers and other carers—out of their job, often into lower-paid and less secure work or out of work altogether.
Flexibility should be a two-way street for the employer and worker, but in the real world too often it is mothers who are paying a high price. Set against the expense of legal representation, the low level of compensation available deters mothers from pursuing a flexible-working complaint through an employment tribunal. Their only meaningful recourse may be an indirect sex-discrimination claim against their former employer for which compensation is not capped. However, such claims are often long, complicated and extremely stressful. It is much better to send a signal that the Government are serious about enforcing flexible working rights so that employers are encouraged to do the right thing in the first place.
In the Bill’s impact assessment, it is stated that an aim of the changes in Clause 9 is to allow an employment tribunal to scrutinise whether the decision to reject a flexible working request was reasonable. For that to be effective, penalties should be introduced that reflect a substantive failure to act in accordance with a new reasonableness requirement. The Government’s aim of making flexible working the default is very welcome, but I hope my noble friend the Minister will consider bringing forward an amendment on Report or provide reassurance that other routes will be taken to ensure that the new right to flexible working is one that will be enforced in practice and that workers who are unreasonably refused such arrangements get adequate compensation.
Lord Ashcombe (Con)
My Lords, I support my noble friend Lady Penn. I declare an interest that I work for Marsh, a very large insurance broker in this country and around the world. I run a team of between 30 and 40 people. Within that team, I have all sorts, sizes and cultures—you name it. Of that team, all the married women—I should say, the women with children—have some sort of flexible way that they work with us. I can tell noble Lords from my own experience that unhappy staff do not do good work; it is 101. Happy staff are very likely to do very good work. One of my main jobs is to keep my team happy, and I am given immense flexibility to do it. Without this amendment, it is less easy. I rest my case.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, I rise to oppose the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Watson of Invergowrie, which was so ably enunciated by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady. I think that the amendment is neither fish nor fowl really. It is perfectly possible, as I understand it, for the Government to have already addressed this issue and, by statutory instrument, to set differential rates for compensation at employment tribunal. It seems rather a waste of time, and not necessarily a good use of ministerial time, to put in primary legislation another review.
My substantial issue is also that this, again, tips the balance are much more towards the worker, unreasonably, and away from the employer. I think that is to be deprecated, because that is what we have seen in so many aspects of this Bill. This leads me to conclude something else as well. On a risk-based assessment of whether you would wish to employ a person, an employer may very well conclude—it may, unfortunately, be an encumbrance of being a female employee or potential employee—that “We do not wish to employ that person because she may apply for flexible working, and it is better to employ someone else”. This is particularly because of the risk that, in going to an employment tribunal, after already having believed they had behaved in a reasonable way, they would be subject to a potential substantial monetary fine, which will impact on their bottom line. That is not good for those workers. It is not for the women who wish to work and have flexibility.
I broadly agree with the idea of reasonableness in applying for flexible working. That is how our jobs market and employment regime works now. Many women do want flexible working, and it is absolutely right that employers reasonably consider that. But I think this amendment is a step too far, because it will have the unintended consequence of making it more likely that women will not be employed because they may ask for flexible working. I think it is otiose: it is unnecessary, and it will not add to the efficacy of the Bill.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, just when I was getting worried that everybody was going to agree, the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, popped up to rescue us. In his objection, it seems that the noble Lord has second-guessed the findings of the impact assessment that we have not had yet, which will add to the level of fines if his point that it will help workers more than employers is correct. On that basis, he was admitting that the fine is already too low, so I am not sure where he was going on that. He then drifted into a critique of the principle of flexible working.
Lord Fox (LD)
I will not give way. I apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Penn. Had I been a little more organised, I would have signed her amendment.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
Will the noble Lord give way very briefly at this juncture?
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)
Order. It is clear that the noble Lord, Lord Fox, is not going to give way, and that is his prerogative.
Lord Fox (LD)
If I get to a point where I feel like it, I will. At the moment, I would like to develop my point.
The issue in Amendment 64 was dealt with very well by the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, and then picked up subsequently by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady. This is commonly thought of as a soft policy—a one-sided policy about giving people things—but both speakers touched on the harder edge to this, and I would like to emphasise it too. This is good for the economy. It is an economic hard edge. We have millions of people who are not working and not able to work. Some of them will never work, but many, with more flexibility and the right amount of help, will be able to work. It is, quite rightly, the Government’s objective to bring as many of those people into the workforce as possible, and flexible working is one of the important tools that will enable us to do that.
I am broadly sympathetic to the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Watson; there is no problem in assessing the impact of tribunals. But during the debate on the last group I promised to bring in a wider point on tribunals: unless we clear up the tribunal system, it will not matter what the level of sanction is, because it is going to be years before that sanction is brought. It becomes a meaningless activity, particularly for the employee but also for the employer. As I have said before, every time we go into a tribunal, both sides lose. We have to find ways of moving the system faster and eliminating issues within the system that are clogging it. That is why I asked the Minister for a proper meeting to go through the whole issue of what the Government are planning to do with tribunals—not on just what the Bill does but on how they are going to flush the system through and get it working properly.
If the Government do not do that, a huge lump of the Bill will fail, because it will be years and years before any of the sanctions are brought and before—as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Leong—case law becomes an important element of how we define what “reasonable” means. If we have to wait two or three years before we get that ruling, how many more unreasonable things are going to happen in the meantime? This is a vital point, and I very much hope that the Minister responds to it. I will now give way to the noble Lord, Lord Jackson.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
I thank the noble Lord. Not for the first time, he has mischaracterised what I said. It is very clear, and I was quite emphatic, that I support reasonable requests for flexible working. So I would be obliged if the noble Lord did not wilfully misrepresent what I said barely five minutes ago, although I know that, being a Liberal Democrat, he is not always acquainted with the actuality.
Lord Fox (LD)
I was about to, but I clearly will not now, so the noble Lord can fly for that one.
Flexible working is an important tool for getting people back in the workplace and keeping them there. We should be grateful for the amendment that the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, tabled, and I hope the Government are sensible enough to adopt their version of it at the next stage of the Bill.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I join the general praise and congratulations for my noble friend Lady Penn for her Amendment 64. There is not much more for me to say, other than that I echo the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Fox. I hope the Government are listening and will address the issue raised by my noble friend as we get to the next stage. If they do not, I would be more than happy to support my noble friend in her future endeavours.
Amendment 66 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Watson, was expertly spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady. I was going to echo very much the same points about the employment tribunals. An awful lot will be expected of them but, as we know, the simple fact is that the backlog is increasing, there is a shortage of funds and the waiting times are increasing—they are up to two years. It does not seem very plausible to expect that employment tribunals will be able to cope with the amount of work that is coming their way—I am afraid that will probably include work with regard to that amendment. I look forward to hearing the noble Baroness’s comments.
Lord Katz (Lab)
I am afraid the noble Lord will not; he will hear from me. I thank my noble friend Lord Watson of Invergowrie in absentia for tabling Amendment 66 and my noble friend Lady O’Grady of Upper Holloway for so ably speaking to it. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, for tabling Amendment 64. This has been a broadly helpful debate, if somewhat spicier than expected, on flexible working.
This group and the next deal with flexible working. I agree with many of the comments that noble Lords across the Committee made in highlighting how important flexible working is in helping people to balance work with responsibilities in their personal lives, particularly caring responsibilities. As the noble Lord, Lord Ashcombe, pointed out, flexibility can lead to happier, healthier and more productive employees. He is absolutely right on this point. It is good for employees, good for businesses and, in turn, good for the economy.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, outlined in some detail, along with the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, a primary benefit of flexible working for families is that being able to work part-time, or having flexible start and finish times, can make it easier for parents to balance work and childcare needs. Similarly, for those caring for a vulnerable adult or a child with a disability, flexible working can help people to manage their caring responsibilities while remaining in work.
I echo some of the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Fox, about how we regard flexible working. To be clear, flexible working is not solely about working from home—something on which, post pandemic, we have become somewhat focused. Indeed, the ACAS guidance sets out eight examples of flexible working, and working from home is only one of those eight. It talks about compressed hours, staggered hours, remote working, job sharing and part-time hours as well as working from home.
According to the 2023 flexible jobs index, although nine in 10 want to work flexibly, only six in 10 employees are currently working flexibly and only three in 10 jobs are advertised with flexible working. Equally, the Government recognise that business needs vary and that not all flexible working arrangements are possible in all circumstances. That is why the Government are increasing access to flexible working by making it the default, except where not reasonably feasible. I concur with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Fox: this is not a soft policy but an important economic and human management tool, and we should regard it as such.
Amendment 66 in the name of my noble friend Lord Watson would require the Secretary of State to review and publish a statement on the adequacy of the maximum compensation that an employment tribunal may award to an employee with a successful claim related to flexible working. The maximum compensation award is currently set at eight weeks’ pay for an employee bringing a claim to a tribunal.
Section 80I of the Employment Rights Act 1996 already means that the Government may review the maximum number of weeks’ pay that can be awarded to an employee. If they consider it appropriate to do so, they can then use this power to change the specified number of weeks’ pay by which the maximum amount of an award of compensation is set. It is therefore not necessary to include anything further in the Bill. It is worth pointing out to noble Lords that the maximum has risen every year since its introduction, from £250 in 2002 to £719 now—so this is not something that is caught in aspic. Therefore, we would argue that a statutory review on the maximum compensation award within six months of Royal Assent could create uncertainty across the board and detract from some of the other important reforms that employees, employers, trade unions and the wider economic and business community will need to prepare for.
Before leaving this, it might be helpful to speak to the wider points from the noble Lord, Lord Fox, on tribunals. I cannot speak in any great detail on this issue, but I understand that the Ministry of Justice is undertaking a review of the employment tribunal system. I would hazard that it has not been sufficiently invested in in recent years, and the slowness of that system is certainly something that we should seek to address.
Before leaving Amendment 66, it is worth pointing out that there is a risk in creating uncertainty for both businesses and workers alike by creating the possibility of differing awards for different types of claims. As things stand, a number of types of claims—for example, relating to redundancy and unfair dismissal—face the same maximum award as those relating to flexible working. It might be undesirable to create confusion and undue complexity through in effect having a two-tier system.
I turn to the amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, Amendment 64, which would extend the right to request flexible working to candidates with a job offer. In practice, the Government believe that this is already the case. The right to request flexible working, which is being strengthened in this Bill, is already a day one right. This means that employees can request flexible working from their first day in a role. We know that, in practice, many employers and employees will begin discussions about working arrangements before the candidate starts work.
As the noble Baroness said, before joining an organisation, informal and constructive discussions can offer a more effective way in which to identify working arrangements that work for employees and employers than a one-off formalised request and response might otherwise achieve. Mandating through legislation a right to request flexible working prior to appointment would not account for the fact that not all job offers come to fruition, for a number of reasons. However, candidates with a job offer have some limited rights. Discrimination and contractual rights are among those. The hypothetical example that the noble Baroness cited in her contribution would indeed be taken care of; discrimination based on protected characteristics is currently outlawed during the recruitment process. However, we would contend that it is not a status that we would want to overformalise at this point.
Additionally, under this proposal, employers would still have up to two months to consider and respond to a request. If the intention of this amendment is to significantly bring forward in time people’s ability to have a flexible working request accepted, it would not succeed in this respect. While the Government encourage employers to start conversations about flexible working with new starters at an early stage, it would not be appropriate to extend the legal framework for flexible working to all candidates under offer.
Lastly, to respond to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, on sex discrimination, I contend that this form of discrimination would actually carry a higher risk of penalty and payout than unreasonable refusal of flexible working, so it is probably a little out of place in the debate on this amendment.
To close, I therefore seek that noble Lords do not press their amendments in this group.
Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)
My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right that the maximum cap applies to a number of areas, and many people believe that it is too low on those areas as well. Is he at least able to write to me or to the noble Lord, Lord Watson, and explain when the next review of the cap will take place, and the opportunities there will be for organisations such as Maternity Action and trade unions to make their case that the maximum cap should be higher?
Lord Katz (Lab)
I thank my noble friend Lady O’Grady for that; I would of course be very happy to write to her and my noble friend Lord Watson on this. The point that we are making is that there is already a mechanism in place to upgrade. That does not mean that it is not something that organisations concerned about the limit of compensation can lobby on, but the amendment as tabled is superfluous; it would not add any powers that are not already in law or in the Bill already.
Lord Hendy (Lab)
Perhaps I could add something on that subject. I think that my noble friend suggested that there was one overall cap and that consistency was required, which is the point that my noble friend Lady O’Grady has developed. In fact, there is a range. Unfair dismissal is subject to a maximum per week for two years. Redundancy, which the Minister mentioned, is on a different basis; it is, essentially, one week’s pay for each year of employment up to a maximum of 20. Discrimination is dealt with on a different basis altogether, with no cap at all—it is the amount of compensation. So I do not think that consistency is really an answer. A general review would be very helpful, though.
Lord Katz (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for that. I certainly will not try to better his knowledge of employment law and, indeed, compensation for penalties in employment law. What I will say is that the basic principle that this amendment is calling for is not necessary. We have the powers to do what is behind the amendment already in the Bill. Indeed, it is up to individual organisations to engage if they think that that power needs to be used more frequently or to a greater extent.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their participation and support and my noble friend Lord Ashcombe in particular for his comments, which demonstrated very practically the benefits of flexible working to businesses and in running teams effectively. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Fox.
Just to emphasise further the potential benefits of flexible working for businesses and in terms of getting people re-engaged in the workplace, research conducted by the Behavioural Insights Team has shown that offering flexible working can attract up to 30% more applicants to job vacancies, and work by the ONS revealed that older workers working flexibly would be more likely to plan to retire later. Those are just two further specific examples.
I will speak just briefly to the other amendment in this group. I heard how well put the noble Baroness’s argument on behalf of her noble friend was, but I also hear the nervousness around increasing the number of issues that go to employment tribunals and then, across this Bill, the burden that will be placed on tribunals and the delays for both employers and employees caught in that system. The Minister said that perhaps it had, in recent years, been underinvested in, and that that was something the Government would seek to address. I would therefore be interested to know from Minister whether that is something that the Government will seek to address, whether he can say what additional investment will go into the employment tribunal system to prepare for the Bill and whether he will also commit to that investment going in ahead of the commencement of the Bill, so that we have the system in place to deal with some of the changes that we have heard about. He may wish to return to that point at a later point in the debate—he is not leaping to his feet right now.
I acknowledge that, although my amendment would change the legislative framework for flexible working, it is really about changing the culture to one where you can have the conversations as early and openly as possible. However, in how we have approached flexible working in legislation, we have underpinned those changes with legislative rights, so that people have rights to come back to.
I was slightly confused by the noble Lord’s response to my amendment. He said that, in practice, it is what happens anyway, but it would not be appropriate to underpin it with legislation. I was not totally clear why not, when we underpin the rest of the system of the right to request flexible working with legislation. He also said that if someone had their job offer withdrawn because they had made a request for flexible working, that would be covered by existing discrimination legislation. I do not believe that would be the case. It would be the case if their job offer had been withdrawn because they had a protected characteristic.
Actually, I think that one of the important things about the shift in flexible working that we have seen in recent years, and the 2014 move to extend that right to request to everyone, not just mums, dads or carers, is the changing of the culture around what flexible working means. It is really important for those people with caring responsibilities and other responsibilities in their lives, but it is really important for a whole host of other reasons, and we cannot second-guess people’s individual circumstances when they request flexible working. If someone has been made a job offer and they request flexible working, I do not think that current legislation will protect them if that job offer is withdrawn on that basis.
Lord Katz (Lab)
I would be very happy to write to the noble Baroness to clarify our understanding of the way that the discrimination order would operate in that scenario. Perhaps the way that I was explaining it was not clear enough, but we think that it is the case that a lot of what she is asking for in the amendment will be covered.
Baroness Penn (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for that offer; I really appreciate it. Just to touch on the points made by my noble friend Lord Jackson, I absolutely heard his support for flexible working. In fact, one of the points I just made is that I am really keen, as noble Lords will hear from me on later amendments on paternity leave, that we shift some of the assumptions around who might need and use flexible working and other kinds of flexibility in the workplace, so that we do not assume that it is just the women or the mums. Then they might actually face less discrimination, because an employer cannot look at someone and say, “I think this person’s going to make a particular request of me and I’m a bit nervous about that: how’s that going to work?”
The whole basis of this, and the whole success behind it, will be in having the support of employers. This is an area where culture has shifted. There is further to go among some employers, but they really see the benefits of this in their workplaces, so although I have tabled an amendment to provide a legislative underpinning to things, I think it is about changing culture and having a more open conversation. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
“(1AZA) But where the employer is— (a) the Security Service,(b) the Secret Intelligence Service, or(c) the Government Communication Headquarters,subsection (2)(b) does not apply, and the notification under subsection (1)(aa) need not explain why the employer considers that it is reasonable to refuse the application on the ground or those grounds.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would exclude the security services from the Bill’s provisions on flexible working.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 65 I shall speak also to Amendments 65A and 67. Amendment 65 is necessary because it lies at the very heart of the nature of the work that is performed by these agencies. The Security Service, the Secret Intelligence Service and the Government Communications Headquarters, collectively known as the intelligence agencies, are at the heart of the United Kingdom’s national security apparatus. Their roles involve highly sensitive operations, often conducted in real time and under exceptionally stringent conditions. They work to protect the nation from terrorism, espionage and cyberattacks, among other threats. The national security landscape is dynamic and fast-moving, and it requires the utmost flexibility, discretion and responsiveness from their employees.
In this context, the introduction of provisions for flexible working could unintentionally create significant risks to national security. The need for immediate action, tight schedules and often secretive operations simply cannot be fully compatible with the predictability that flexible working arrangements might demand. We think it is essential that we avoid the unintended consequences of applying the Bill’s flexible working provisions to the intelligence services. Arguably, this list of services could be expanded, of course, to other operations that have implications for national security. As I said, these services operate in highly confidential environments and their work often involves time-sensitive operations that demand secrecy and agility.
This is obviously a probing amendment: I want to ask the Minister what conversations the Government have had with the Security Service, the Secret Intelligence Service and the Government Communications Headquarters regarding the potential impact of the flexible working provisions on their operations.
On Amendment 67, again I join in the broad support for flexible working that we have just heard in the last group, but this amendment presents an important opportunity to better understand the implications of introducing such a right. We think we ought to approach it with a slightly critical eye: specifically, we need to consider the Regulatory Policy Committee’s feedback on the clause, which has raised several concerns that cannot be overlooked. The RPC rating for this clause was red across all three core areas of rationale for intervention, identification of options, and justification of preferred way forward.
The RPC has stated that there is a lack of sufficient evidence presented to justify the need for this intervention. In particular, it highlighted that there is little evidence to suggest that employers are rejecting flexible working requests unreasonably. This is a key point that must be addressed. The committee’s wider concerns suggest that, without strong evidence of a widespread issue with employers rejecting requests, the Government are introducing a policy that is based on assumptions rather than concrete data. What problem are the Government trying to solve by introducing the right to request flexible working if the case is as the committee has described? Do they in effect believe that the RPC’s assessment is incorrect? What data or evidence do they have to demonstrate that employers are systematically denying such requests in a way that harms workers?
One of the most important questions that this clause raises is whether the intervention is justified. The RPC has pointed out that the rationale for introducing the right to request flexible working has not been sufficiently established, so the purpose of tabling this amendment is to find out what the Government have done in this area and to suggest that the overall environment around this debate would be enhanced by a broader understanding of the situation under consideration.
Amendment 65A seeks to provide clarity and fairness regarding the refusal of flexible working applications in roles where such flexibility would fundamentally alter the nature of the job or undermine critical operational needs. Clause 9, as drafted, is obviously well intentioned but is ultimately a blunt instrument. New subsection (1ZA) sets out a list of what are deemed reasonable grounds to refuse a flexible working request, but they are largely subjective and difficult to quantify in practice. For example, how can an editor reasonably be expected to prove that a journalist’s writing has deteriorated because they are working from home? How does one assess the decline in creative spontaneity that often arises when collaboration in the newsroom is replaced by isolated remote working? This ambiguity could create a climate of uncertainty for employers. Rather than making legally risky judgments, many may simply acquiesce to requests even where remote work may compromise essential aspects of the role. I go back to the example of journalism: this could disrupt the delicate balance of the newsroom and undermine quality, editorial cohesion and the development of junior reporters through in-person mentoring, and so on.
This is precisely why we think that sector-specific exemptions are needed. A one-size-fits-all approach, as is implied in the current drafting, is simply not adequate. This amendment provides a clearer and more realistic framework, recognising that in certain sectors and occupations physical presence is not optional but essential. To expect employers in some of these sectors to navigate the current subjective standards is both unfair and, we think, unworkable. This amendment seeks to offer a constructive alternative by allowing a reasonable refusal where the core nature of the role would be compromised, and by specifying sectors where that risk is most acute.
As I have said, we support flexible working in principle, but flexibility must be implemented with common sense and a clear-eyed understanding of operational realities. We do not believe that the current drafting provides that assurance. We urge the Government to take serious note of these amendments, because we may have to return to them on Report. I beg to move.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, I support the amendments in the names of my noble friends Lord Sharpe and Lord Hunt. I notice that Clause 9(3) inserts a subsection into the Employment Rights Act which allows for the refusal of a flexible working application in conditional circumstances under two criteria:
“only if … the employer considers that the application should be refused on a ground or grounds listed in subsection (1ZA), and … it is reasonable for the employer to refuse the application on that ground or those grounds”.
A double test is being applied for the decision to refuse an application for flexible working.
Then, the list that the Government have provided in the Bill, at subsection (1ZA) lists grounds from (a) to (i). One might think that this list had been prepared by the unions, because it sets out perhaps a very one-sided view of what the flexible working application might apply. It is indeed pretty abstruse in its expression. It sets out that the grounds mentioned are
“the burden of additional costs”,
the
“detrimental effect on ability to meet customer demand; … inability to re-organise work among … staff; … inability to recruit additional staff”.
All of this is going to be the subject of considerable debate, one would anticipate, in any future employment tribunal claim, and has an air of unreality about it.
Baroness Bousted (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 65A refers to
“any other sector where the core duties require in-person collaboration, physical presence, or real-time operational responsiveness”.
That could well be argued to be teaching, of course.
As my noble friend Lord Katz said, flexible working is not just working at home—it has a whole range of other alternatives and ways of doing it. The lack of the ability to work flexibly has real consequences for the delivery of a profession that I know a lot about, which is teaching. Some 76% of teachers are women. The biggest proportion of teachers who leave the profession every year are women in their 30s.
I declare an interest in that I am chairing the commission on teaching. We have commissioned some independent research on this issue from the Key foundation, which finds that women in their 30s with children leave teaching in huge numbers. It was 9,000 last year, the biggest number on record of women leaving the profession. They leave when they have children because their requests to work part-time or flexibly are denied.
The noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, asked whether employers were just routinely refusing flexible working. Well, in education, yes, they are. The rate of flexible working among graduate professions is about 46%. In teaching, 2% of teachers last year asked whether they could work flexibly. Those requests are routinely denied by employers who have a very poor understanding of what flexible working involves and, frankly, by employers who refuse flexible working because of a one-size-fits-all policy and then find that the teachers who are so precious to them leave the profession.
Last week I spoke to a young teacher with two children who asked whether she could have two registration periods off a week—she would make up the time in other ways—because her youngest child, who is three, was finding it difficult to settle at nursery. That was refused and she has now given in her resignation.
Work on this has been done by the Key foundation and by the Missing Mothers report from the New Britain Project, authored by Anna McShane. When she looked at the reasons for women leaving the profession in their 30s, she found that overwhelmingly they leave because they do not feel that they can manage the demands of the job full time and the demands of bringing up a family. The main recommendation in that report was that flexible working should be supported and encouraged. So, if an amendment that refers to
“any other sector where the core duties require in-person collaboration, physical presence, or real-time operational responsiveness”
were to be included in the Bill, it would be used up and down the land by education employers as a “get out of jail free card” for flexible working requests. As the Minister said, that means all sorts of things, including the right to flexible working—and the DfE defines flexible working as flexible and part-time.
We have to get out of the idea that there are whole swathes of the economy—education being the one I know most about—where flexible working is just not possible. We have to start thinking differently about this. If this amendment were agreed, it would make doubly difficult the right to request and to engage in flexible working, which would have such an effect on retaining teachers in the profession and on raising educational standards in our schools. So I think it is a very poor amendment.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I will ask one simple question: what is flexible working? Perhaps the Minister could reply to that. I have a lot of sympathy with what has been said; I have always encouraged people who want to work part time, dual workers and so on. I have worked at a senior level in business and in government, both as a civil servant and as a Minister, and the truth is that you have to show some flexibility when things are difficult. That is what my noble friends are trying to capture in the amendment they have put forward.
We need to try to find a way through on this, to encourage flexible working. However, we also have to consider the needs of the employer. That will be true in the business sector—which I know—in the enterprise sector, in the charities sector and of course in government. It is a very important debate and any light that can be thrown on it by either the Minister or my noble friend Lord Murray, with his legal hat on, would be very helpful.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, this debate has been more interesting than I expected. In looking at Amendment 65, we should acknowledge that the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, with his former ministerial responsibilities, had considerable interaction with the services that he described, so we should take him seriously.
In Amendment 65A, he sets out certain sectors. However, in seeking to deliver unambiguity, I think he has introduced new ambiguity. Sector-specific exemptions are bringing their own problems. I asked the noble Lord, Lord Murray, what a journalist is. Is it a card-carrying member of the NUJ or is it someone who blogs and calls themselves a journalist, or a group of people? That is just one example of the ambiguity that a sector system brings in. So I am drawn to the idea that we have something like subsection (1ZA) in Clause 9(3).
If noble Lords are worried about the wooliness of it—I am not sure that was the word that the noble Lord, Lord Murray, used—we can work to firm that language up. But to describe the job, rather than try to think of every single job title we want to include in primary legislation, is a better way of going about it. If the description is too difficult to nail, I am sure it is not beyond the wit of us all to find a better way of describing it.
Had the noble Lord, Lord Murray, been here a little earlier, he would have heard the shortcomings of the tribunal system being well exercised, and some comments from the noble Lord to the effect that the MoJ is looking at it. To return to that point, in my speech on the last group I asked for a meeting, so perhaps the Ministers could facilitate a meeting with interested parties on the Bill and the MoJ to find out how it is moving forward on tribunals; we need some line of sight on that. It is something of a capitulation if we say, “The tribunals are no good, so we’re not going to make the right legislation because they won’t be there to uphold it”. We have a duty to make the right legislation, to put it in place and to make sure that the tribunals can deliver.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I share much of what the noble Lord, Lord Fox, says. But the point I was making was that the answer from the Government is, “We’re going to provide imprecision in this legislation, and we’re going to let the employment tribunal sort it out and tell us what it means”. My point was twofold. First, that will take far too long because of the chaos in the tribunal system, and secondly, structurally, the employment tribunal cannot give an answer to that at first instance because it is not a court of record.
Lord Fox (LD)
Those are good points. Again, had the noble Lord seen an earlier episode of the soap opera of this Committee, he would have heard noble Lords from all around talk about firming up imprecision, which is why I talked about firming up the imprecision of that list of attributes rather than trying to produce a list of businesses and activities that somehow should come into this—an impossible job, frankly. Of course we should have a war on imprecision but, in the end, there are going to be some things that tribunals rule on that will be important, and we need to have the tribunals active and quick to do so.
To some extent, there is an element of creativity around the fungibility of some of these criteria—I think the noble Baroness, Lady Bousted, made that point. If we have some flexibility of interpretation, schools and other organisations that want to hang on to valued colleagues will find a way of using it in order to do that. If we start to rule out professions or rule in very hard and fast rules, we lose the opportunity to retain and attract certain groups of people. I understand the point made, that the more of that fungibility there is, the more so-called imprecision, and there is a balance between the two. That is why I still think that if we have ideas around new subsection (1ZA), that is the way forward on this rather than a list of jobs.
Lord Katz (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, for tabling this group of amendments related to flexible working.
Amendment 65 would exempt security services from the flexible working measures we are introducing through the Bill. These measures include ensuring that employers refuse a flexible working request only where it is reasonable to do so, on the basis of one of the business grounds set out in legislation and requiring that they explain the basis for that decision to their employee. I draw the noble Lord’s attention to the existing provision the Government have made to safeguard national security in relation to flexible working.
I will explain the measure taken in the Bill. Clause 9(7) brings the flexible working provisions into the scope of Section 202 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. Section 202 states that if in the opinion of a Minister the disclosure of information would be contrary to national security,
“nothing in any of the provisions to which this section applies requires any person to disclose the information, and … no person shall disclose the information in any proceedings in any court or tribunal relating to any of those provisions”.
By bringing the flexible working provisions under the scope of Section 202 of the 1996 Act, the Government have already taken the necessary and proportionate steps to protect national security. To respond directly to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, we have indeed engaged with, discussed and agreed this approach with the intelligence services.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I thank all noble Lords who participated in this very interesting debate and I thank the Minister for his detailed answer. I accept and am somewhat reassured by his answer on Amendment 65; it is good to know that the security services employers have been properly consulted and are content with this legislation. That is to be welcomed, and I thank the noble Lord for it.
I was most interested in the comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Bousted. I believe she said—I apologise if I am misquoting—that employers have a poor understanding of what flexible working involves in education. I am sure they do, and that a lot of parents and people who are involved in education do. It rather makes the case for why Amendment 67 is necessary. The RPC’s opinion may not have related to the policy, but it still remains red: the fact is that the impact assessment was not good enough.
My noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe raised a very good point about what flexible working is. We agree that flexibility is to be encouraged, but I noticed that the noble Lord has now relied twice on the eight types of flexible working identified by ACAS. I suspect that that is not widely understood in the public domain. The proposed impact assessment would go a long way to make it much clearer what people could and should be asking for, what employers should be thinking about, the likely economic impacts and the more societal impacts from the right to request flexible working.
This would help the noble Baroness, Lady Bousted, as well, because people would have a much broader understanding of what it means in teaching. Obviously, 100% of teachers cannot work from home—that goes without saying—so what does this actually mean in practice? I do not think that anybody has much clarity about that, including, by the sounds of it, employees and many teachers themselves.
Baroness Bousted (Lab)
I am chairing a commission that will be very clear about what it means and how it can be employed in schools. I hope that will enlighten lots of people.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I look forward to being enlightened.
The noble Lord, Lord Fox, again made some very good points about the need to describe the job; I accept that that was an imperfect way of tabling that amendment. However, I leap into the defence of my noble friend Lord Murray of Blidworth from his attacks by the Fox. As I heard it, my noble friend was not saying that employment tribunals are no good; he was saying that there is a backlog, that they are probably underresourced and underfunded and that, because of their structural nature, they do not necessarily resolve things. An increasing reliance on them to resolve things will not necessarily have the desired effect. That is an incredibly important point that we should return to in the discussion that the Minister offered the Committee because, as I said in my last summary, we are placing an increasing reliance on employment tribunals to resolve an awful lot of the unanswered questions that are being discussed as a result of the Bill. For things not to be resolved even after they have got to an employment tribunal, after a long delay, seems a little short-sighted.
For now, as I say, I am somewhat reassured on Amendment 65, and I am grateful to the Minister for his answers. We should return to the idea of Amendment 67 and a much broader impact assessment, but for now I am content to withdraw Amendment 65.
Lord Hunt of Wirral
“(b) in subsection (2), for “four” substitute “two”.”
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 68, 69, 70 and 71 standing in my name. I will speak to Amendment 68 first. It concerns the removal of the three-day waiting period for statutory sick pay. While we recognise the principle of supporting workers during periods of ill health, we also have to acknowledge the pressures that this places on employers, particularly small businesses which, unlike the state, bear the direct cost of statutory sick pay.
The original waiting period served as a guard-rail, ensuring that statutory sick pay was reserved for genuine and sustained periods of incapacity. Its removal would risk increasing claims for short-term absences, many of which might previously have gone unclaimed or been resolved informally.
The proposal in the Bill to abolish waiting days for statutory sick pay for all workers, including those on temporary contracts and working via employment agencies, introduces an additional cost burden for many small and medium-sized recruitment firms in particular, especially in a period of stagnant growth.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, the minute hand of legislation is approaching the blessed relief of adjournment, so I am going to reserve what I have to say about statutory sick pay to when I speak to Amendments 73 and 74 in the next group, in which I think some issues of the costs are addressed. I know the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, and I have come up with amendments that are broadly similar, and I think it would be more appropriate to speak there.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I am pleased that we have moved on and that we are now debating the Bill’s important provisions to improve the provision of statutory sick pay for millions of people across the country. I therefore thank the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe and Lord Hunt, for tabling Amendments 68, 69, 70 and 71 on this topic and speaking to them. These amendments would significantly change the statutory sick pay measures in the Bill.
The pandemic exposed just how precarious work and life are for those on low incomes, with many forced to choose between their health and financial hardship. Strengthening statutory sick pay is part of the Government’s manifesto commitment to implement our plan to make work pay, ensuring that the statutory net of sick pay is available to those who need it most. These changes are important. Estimates indicate that up to 33% of influenza-like illnesses are acquired in the workplace. One sick employee coming into work can lead to 12% of the workforce becoming sick, according to WPI Economics’ modelling.
The changes to remove the waiting period and lower earnings limit from the SSP system will therefore benefit employers by reducing presenteeism, which in turn can lead to overall productivity increases and can contribute to a positive work culture that better helps recruit and retain staff. This can help to reduce the overall rate and cost of sickness absence to businesses, and also contribute to reducing the flow of employees into economic inactivity.
I will turn first to Amendments 68 and 70. Removing the waiting period is essential to ensure that all eligible employees can take the time off work they need to recover from being sick, regardless of whether they are an agency worker. Removing the waiting period will also better enable phased returns to work, which evidence shows can be an effective tool in supporting people with long-term health conditions to return to and stay in work. This change should help to reduce the overall rate and cost of sickness absence to businesses, contributing to reducing the flow of employees into economic inactivity.
I regret that the noble Lord’s amendment would make this more challenging, as it would mean that employees would have to take two consecutive days off to be eligible for statutory sick pay. I do, however, understand the noble Lord’s concerns about the impact of the waiting period removal on businesses, but if employers have the right policies and practices in place—and most good employers do—the risks of inappropriate absenteeism can, of course, be mitigated. Crucially, the additional cost to business of the SSP reforms is around a relatively modest £15 per employee. We have been lobbied from both directions on these provisions because, for example, many on our own Benches would say that the rates we are proposing here should be much higher. I am sure they will make their concerns heard at some point during the passage of the Bill. It is not a great deal of money—as I say, it is £15 per employee—and it is certainly aimed at the lower rate that could be available.
On Amendment 69 regarding agency workers, one of the fundamental principles of the Bill is to ensure that people who work through employment agencies and employment businesses have comparable rights and protections to their counterparts who are directly employed. Amendments that limit the entitlement of agency workers would undermine this objective and have no reasonable justification. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said that employment agencies have more of an arm’s-length arrangement with their agency workers, but I would say the opposite: in fact, employment agencies are in a powerful relationship over their agency workers, meaning that those workers are less likely to abuse such a scheme.
Amendment 71 seeks to limit the maximum entitlement of SSP for employees with multiple employers so that they would receive no more statutory sick pay than they would be entitled to if they worked for only one employer. However, this would be administratively very complicated to deliver for businesses, particularly SMEs, and carries a high risk of SSP being miscalculated and employees being underpaid. It would particularly harm the very lowest-paid people who are working a limited number of hours. I also question the necessity of such an amendment. As it stands, employees with more than one job can already receive SSP from their employers if they earn above the lower earnings limit. The measures in the Bill will not change that, and I regret that this amendment would impact only the lowest-paid employees.
That is all I have to say on this issue at this stage, and I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment on the basis of the assurance I have given.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, I recognise that the Minister says that she understands the concern that has been expressed. We are aware too that many agencies have raised with the Government the serious impact on small businesses and the risk of increased absenteeism. I believe their concerns are valid and I hope the Minister will continue to keep an open door for those agencies to perhaps respond in more detail directly to the Minister.
Baroness O’Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)
Before the noble Lord sits down, it would be very helpful if he could confirm and clarify that, in expressing a concern that removing the waiting days would lead to more and sporadic absenteeism, it is not being implied that workers are swinging the lead. If it was being implied, where is the evidence?
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
Of course it is not being implied. It is outrageous that the noble Baroness should think so and voice so in this debate, which has seen a very calm and careful consideration by the Minister, who sets a good example for us all. I hope the noble Baroness will follow it. I beg leave to withdraw.
Employment Rights Bill
Tuesday 13th May 2025
(10 months, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Employment Rights Act 2025 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 81-III(a) Amendments for Committee (Supplementary to the Third Marshalled List) - (13 May 2025)
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
“(1) Statutory sick pay is payable by an employer to an employee—(a) at a rate of 60% of the employee’s normal weekly earnings for the first three qualifying days of any period of incapacity for work,(b) at a rate of 80% of the employee’s normal weekly earnings for subsequent qualifying days,subject to a maximum of £116.75 per week.(2) Subsection (1) applies regardless of whether the employee earns above or below any lower earnings limits that were previously set.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment adjusts the rates of Statutory Sick Pay (SSP), providing 60% of normal weekly earnings for the first three qualifying days and 80% for subsequent qualifying days.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments 71B and 75 standing in my name.
According to the latest figures from the Office for National Statistics this morning, the number of payrolled employees fell by 33,000 in April, or 106,000 on the year, and the number of job vacancies also fell. Wage growth has slowed. This evidence suggests that the OBR was right and the provisions in the Bill are already creating a net negative impact. The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development’s latest survey was widely cited at the weekend. It confirms that employers’ confidence is at the lowest level since the pandemic and that a quarter of employers are planning to make redundancies in the next quarter. The CIPD’s economist, Mr James Cockett, was quoted as saying:
“The Employment Rights Bill is landing in a fundamentally different landscape to the one expected when it formed part of the Labour manifesto in summer of last year”.
This picture was confirmed in KPMG’s and the Recruitment and Employment Confederation’s reports. Recruitment activity across the UK continued to weaken at the start of the second quarter. The chief executive of the REC, Neil Carberry, has said that
“it is time for real changes to address employers’ fears and boost hiring. A sensible timetable and practical changes that reduce the red tape for firms in complying with the Bill will go a long way to calming nerves about taking a chance on someone”.
Last week the noble Lord, Lord Fox, called for the Bill to go on vacation because we need to get it right. This raft of new statistics proves his prescience, and perhaps the vacation ought to be permanent. Instead, we are now being asked to consider further obligations on employers through changes to statutory sick pay. A number of businesses across sectors have made it very clear that, while they support the principle of statutory sick pay, they are concerned about the rate and structure being proposed. Many have called for the rate of statutory sick pay to be set at 60% rather than 80%, as a more sustainable and proportional figure. The Government claim to have consulted widely with businesses, trade unions and various stakeholder groups to try to strike a fair balance, but, based on the data and the concerns raised, we believe that the right answer, particularly for the initial days of absence, is 60%.
Let us look at some of the other evidence. In the British Chambers of Commerce 2024 workforce survey, a full 50% of respondents stated that they would be negatively impacted by the proposal for statutory sick pay entitlement from day one. That is a clear warning sign that the proposed structure may have unintended consequences. Further, in a survey by the London Chamber of Commerce, 38% of firms predicted that they would need to freeze hiring as a direct result of the statutory sick pay changes; 30% expected a reduction in profits; and 33% anticipated lower wage increases for their existing staff.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lady O’Grady and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Llanfaes, for their support for Amendment 72, and to the Safe Sick Pay campaign and the Health Foundation for their help. The amendment is a probing one, aimed at facilitating a debate about the future of statutory sick pay—from a rather different perspective than that of the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom—to which the Bill makes very welcome improvements.
Nevertheless, the scheme will still fail to provide adequate protection in sickness, especially for workers on lower incomes and who belong to marginalised groups. The amendment would require the Secretary of State to review the rate of SSP prior to this year’s Budget and to ensure that no one is worse off as a result of the otherwise positive changes made in the Bill.
Starting with the latter, I very much appreciate the time that my noble friend the Minister gave me and my noble friend Lady O’Grady to discuss the unintended consequences of the Bill’s welcome removal of the lower earnings limit and its replacement by the rule that employees will receive 80% of their average weekly earnings or the flat rate SSP, whichever is lower. The problem is that this new rule means that a small number of low-paid employees will be worse off than now.
Because of the also welcome removal of the waiting period, the loss will be limited to those who have been off work sick for more than three weeks. According to the DWP, we are talking about 13% of all sickness absences. I accept that this is a small proportion, but, by definition, we are talking about people with more serious illnesses. In its fact sheet, the DWP itself gives the example of a cleaner, working 11 hours across 5 days at the national living wage, who takes three months off for cancer treatment and who would lose £65 in total in SSP. The DWP assumes that the cleaner could potentially make up some of that in universal credit, but what if the cleaner were married to someone whose wages are not low enough to qualify for UC? She will lose some of her independent income. While £65 may not sound like that much to those on decent incomes, it could make a real difference to someone on a low income, particularly where a worker’s earnings are not shared fairly within the family. It is women in particular who are likely to lose out as a result of this unintended consequence.
I understand why the Government have rejected the alternative that has been put forward hitherto, but I would ask them to look again at the proposal made by a number of trade unions and charities that the formula use a 95 % rather than 80% replacement rate, which seems to be the most straightforward way of dealing with this. I believe that it is incumbent on the Government to come up with a solution to ensure that no one is made worse off due to the unintended consequence of the otherwise positive change made by the Bill. After all, Labour’s plan to make work pay promised that:
“We will ensure the new system provides fair earnings replacement for people earning below the current rate of statutory sick pay”.
On the rate of SSP, the final report of the Health Foundation’s Commission for Healthier Lives noted that the expansion of SSP under the Bill
“does not address a fundamental issue: statutory sick pay remains too low to provide meaningful financial security during illness”.
Last year, the Work and Pensions Committee similarly concluded that SSP
“does not currently provide adequate protection for those who most need protecting from financial hardship during periods of sickness absence. It consequently fails to perform its primary function of providing a basic level of income protection”.
At £118.75, it represents an earnings replacement rate of only 19% for an employee on average earnings, or 28% for an employee on a full-time minimum wage salary, one of the lowest rates in the OECD. The interim report of the Mayfield Keep Britain Working Review pointed out that our European counterparts typically pay around 70% to 80% of an employee’s wage when they are sick. The low rate of SSP in the UK all too often spells real hardship and financial insecurity, especially for lower-paid workers, including women, disabled workers and members of racially minoritised communities.
Analysis by Citizens Advice shows that four out of five households in the bottom three deciles would not be able to afford essentials such as bills and food after four weeks on SSP. The Work and Pensions Committee noted that there was
“almost complete agreement among witnesses that it was too low and not enough to live on”.
This included 90% of members surveyed by the Chartered Institute of Payroll Professionals.
Cancer charities have pointed to how far cancer patients fall below the minimum standard needed to live a dignified life at a socially acceptable standard as measured by my colleagues at Loughborough University. In a briefing, the charities quote a patient with leukaemia who says:
“What people don’t realise is that your costs also go up when you get cancer”.
Going on to SSP meant a “ huge drop” in his income that he was not able to replace with benefits. The result was, he wrote:
“I was an emotional wreck and it was a very, very bad time”.
Mind found that two in three people with a mental health problem surveyed who received SSP faced financial difficulties and that over one-quarter specifically mentioned that relying on SSP had affected their ability to pay bills and buy food, which hardly helps their recovery. Indeed, three-fifths of respondents believed that the reduction in their income as a result of receipt of SSP had had a negative impact on their mental health. This is illustrated by a research respondent quoted by the Health Foundation:
“If sick pay had been enough, I think I would’ve been able to return to work, but instead my condition worsened drastically ... and I ended up in the worst state, mental health-wise, that I have ever been in, forcing me to claim PIP … and be unemployed for the past year and a half”.
The hardship associated with receipt of SSP, particularly for those on lower incomes, can result in presenteeism—people coming into work when sick and, where it is contagious, potentially spreading sickness. This is bad for them, bad for their fellow workers and bad for employers. According to government analysis, presenteeism costs businesses 44 days of lost productivity per year. Poor sick pay undermines the Government’s overriding objective of economic growth. Analysis by WPI Economics suggests that improved SSP could boost the economy by over £4 billion a year and would reduce the pressure on the NHS.
The Health Foundation warns that inadequate SSP can create an incentive for some workers to move quickly into the social security system without a clear route back into work, the very opposite of what government policies are trying to achieve. It points out:
“When workers are financially supported during sickness absence, they are more able to recover, take part in rehabilitation and return to work safely and sustainably”.
The implications of presenteeism became horribly visible during the pandemic, which, as my noble friend the Minister told the Committee only last week,
“exposed just how precarious work and life are for those on low incomes, with many forced to choose between their health and financial hardship”.—[Official Report, 8/5/25; col. 1789.]
Far too many people felt that they simply could not afford to stay at home when they were infectious. Countries with more generous sick pay saw higher isolation compliance and better health outcomes. We are told by the experts that it is only a matter of time until the next pandemic. One way we can prepare is by ensuring that SSP is adequate now.
This amendment merely asks the Government to look again at how to ensure that no one loses out as a result of the Bill’s welcome improvements to SSP, and to undertake a quick review of its level. I am sure this would be welcomed by a wide range of charities, the TUC and major trade unions, as well as the more than 185 parliamentarians who support the Safe Sick Pay campaign.
A New Deal for Working People stated unequivocally:
“Labour will raise Statutory Sick Pay”.
The amendment builds on the much weaker assurance in the Commons from the Minister for Social Security and Disability that the Government would monitor how effectively the Bill’s SSP reforms will support employees. We do not need monitoring to tell us that SSP is simply too low, especially in view of the recent Work and Pensions Committee inquiry. The Commission for Healthier Working Lives calls for a review that will result in an increase in SSP
“to a fairer level while giving businesses the time and support they need to adapt”.
I hope my noble friend the Minister will at least be able to provide some assurances on both issues.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 73 in my name regarding SMEs and an SSP rebate scheme. I have made a drafting error by calling it four days when it should have been three days, in compliance with the law today.
Occupational health is a key factor in both helping people to stay in work, to try to prevent some of the illnesses, and to get back into work quickly, and for some time it has been a key part of the strategy of a successful business to do that. But I am also very conscious that SMEs in particular are not always well displaced currently to access, which is why expanding that capability has been a key part of DWP’s more recent strategies, which the present Administration have continued.
Sickness rates are significantly lower in the private sector than in the public sector, but what is common to both is that there is an increasing prevalence of the primary reason for sickness pay: people being off sick due to mental well-being. I am conscious that this is often not an easy situation to challenge or interact with if you do not have the experience to do so, and that is why increasing occupational health is needed.
Why is occupational health so relevant to this? It used to be the case that with statutory sick pay you could reclaim from the Government the amount of money that you had paid out. You might have paid out a lot more—100% of earnings or similar—but all businesses used to be able to get a rebate for the statutory sick pay element. I know that because I used to fill out the claims myself when I was working in industry. Over time that was whittled down, and it was finally abolished in 2014. Instead, the Government at the time created the Health and Work Service, which was designed to be referred to by SMEs for people who have been ill for a few weeks—again, almost as a provision facilitated by government.
One of the challenges is that this is continuing to be part of an issue. Many businesses, particularly small businesses—certainly in submissions made to me—are particularly worried about this starting from day one of people being unwell. As a consequence, it is important that we should investigate the opportunity to get a rebate scheme for SMEs to try to keep the status quo as it is today.
It is in the interests of government to support SMEs. As we have already heard, the statistics show that, unfortunately, payroll employment is falling. When in office I was very pleased that we saw it increasing. Indeed, I am certain, in wanting the Government to succeed in their ambition to get to 80% employment rate, that they need SMEs to be taking on people to work. As I have explained, I do not think the Bill will help with that, but one modest way to go towards alleviating some of the issues would be to introduce a straightforward rebate scheme for SMEs.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
I speak in support of my noble friend Lady Lister of Burtersett, and in support of more being done on statutory sick pay. I welcome the Government’s commitment to strengthen statutory sick pay by removing the lower earnings limit and the waiting period, but they must go further to ensure that people with mental health problems have a secure safety net when they need time off work, and a pathway back into work when they recover.
The UK has one of the least generous sick pay schemes in the OECD in terms of rates and length. It forces people to remain in work while they are unwell, which risks them becoming more unwell and eventually falling out of work. Because statutory sick pay is inadequate, people who rely on it often carry on going into work when they are unwell. This can risk them becoming more unwell, to the point where they fall out of employment altogether. We need a sick pay system that provides real security, is more compassionate, gives people the time they need to get better and supports them to return to work when they are ready.
Reforming statutory sick pay is beneficial to the economy, to businesses and to people with mental health problems. As my noble friend has emphasised, presenteeism—going to work when unwell—is costing UK employers £24 billion a year, according to figures produced by Deloitte. It reduces productivity and business competitiveness, as well as aggravating a person’s illness. Introducing a flexible statutory sick pay model that allows for partial payments alongside wages would help people to gradually return to work after a period of sickness, or allow them to reduce their hours when needed without being signed off completely. Not only is this beneficial for the employer, as employees are able to return to work sooner part-time, but it keeps the employee connected to their workplace and reduces the likelihood that they will fall out of employment altogether.
Extending the length of statutory sick pay being paid from 28 weeks to 52 weeks will enable more people to stay in employment, reduce rehiring costs for businesses and prevent people falling out of employment and needing support from the benefits system. Ultimately, we need to see a higher level of statutory sick pay, and I see no reason why, when you are sick, you should get any less than the national minimum wage.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, my main concern with the changes to statutory sick pay in this Bill is the impact on smaller businesses, which is why I support the amendments in this group in the names of my noble friend Lady Coffey and the noble Lord, Lord Fox, which provide for rebates for SMEs. Of the two amendments, I prefer that of my noble friend Lady Coffey because it clearly undoes the harms that Clause 10 will cause.
I could not find much data on how much businesses actually pay in statutory sick pay, but I suspect that, unless an employer is unlucky enough to get an employee who has long-duration sickness, most will be paying relatively little at present, because absences are mainly for less than four days. What the data does show is that most sickness absences are for minor illnesses, which are unlikely to exceed three days. The average days lost per worker per year in 2023, which is the most recent data I could find, is just short of eight days. Among smaller and micro-businesses, that falls to around five days.
Extending the days for which payment is made is likely to increase the number of days lost to sickness, as the current incentive to work if the illness is mild will simply disappear. The Government say they have no idea what the behavioural impact of the changes will be—whether positive or negative—but I am prepared to bet that there will be far more short-duration absences, which will qualify for statutory sick pay, than there were before.
If I am right that most SMEs do not currently pay much in the way of statutory sick pay, the changes in the Bill will straightforwardly increase their costs. An average small business of between 10 and 49 employees has about 20 employees, which means that the average for a small business will be to pay for at least 100 days of sickness that they do not currently have, which would amount to around £2,000 in additional costs each year, even if no additional sick days were taken, which I doubt. That is not a huge amount per business, but it adds up to many billions of pounds across the whole economy. It also, of course, comes on top of the jobs tax and the very significant increases in the national minimum wage, which leads me to the likely real consequences of this change on top of the others. Put simply, SMEs will not hire workers unless they absolutely have to. We can already see evidence of that from the surveys of smaller businesses and in the weakening labour market—my noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom gave us an up-to-date view on that. It is only going to get worse.
Furthermore, all those groups that we as a nation want to get back into work, in particular those who are long-term sick, will simply not be attractive to employers. Any hint of an illness record in a job applicant’s background will count against them, because no employer would want to take on the additional costs that would automatically come with that employee.
I am sure that I do not need to remind the Committee that SMEs employ nearly half the private sector work- force. A reluctance to hire among SMEs will kill growth and opportunities for many of the groups that we need to be employed in this country. There is a simple way to solve this problem, set out in Amendments 73 and 74. The Government would be wise to go down that route.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak in support of Amendments 71A and 71B in the name of my noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom, Amendment 73 in the name of my noble friend Lady Coffey, and Amendment 74 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for a rebate scheme.
Amendments 71A and 71B propose a sensible modification to Clause 11 and strike a more affordable approach for a business paying the employee for time not worked, as well as for the compliance and record-keeping involved. I say “more affordable” rather than “fair” because many businesses—particularly small and micro-businesses, as we continue to hear in Committee —will struggle to stay afloat and in business, given the juggernaut of additional costs, burdens and increased obligations imposed by this Bill. That includes those in this clause and those in previous clauses that we have discussed.
In Clause 11, such costs are to be imposed for those below the lower earnings limit, as we have heard, which will add to the extra costs paid by employers. They will potentially open further problems raised in the impact assessment, the modelling for which suggests a rosier picture for business than the available evidence warrants but also raises questions of behavioural response. Indeed, that consideration was a fundamental principle addressed in the welfare state proposals by Sir William Beveridge in his blueprint Social Insurance and Allied Services in 1942. The original National Insurance Act was framed as a contributory scheme with strict conditions on benefit to avoid creating perverse incentives.
The impact assessment for this measure—which models outcomes on the basis of a variety of factors, including some unproven assumptions—contends that there is evidence suggesting that overall sickness absence may be reduced but, on the basis of evidence considered from other countries, says that it is
“possible that regulation changes induce a behavioural response”
and that
“studies from other countries have found that the incidences of sickness absences are higher when sick pay is more generous. There could be an increased number of sickness absence days taken due to improved financial protection”.
We can read that in whatever way we like, and we have heard different interpretations of more generous statutory sick pay, but it is incumbent on the Government to return to some of the original principles in the national insurance system in this country and to think further about not creating perverse incentives. There will now be days for which the employer will pay for which there is absolutely no productivity gain.
Baroness O’Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)
My Lords, I support the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, and Amendment 72, and I add my thanks to the Safe Sick Pay campaign, the Health Foundation and other organisations. I heartily welcome the Labour Government’s commitment to strengthening SSP by removing the lower earnings limit and the waiting period.
A nationally representative survey conducted for the TUC found that around half of employees get their full pay as usual when sick, but that around 28% were forced to rely on SSP alone. It also found a clear class divide when it comes to who gets what: eight in 10 of higher earners—over 50 grand a year—got full pay when off ill, compared with only one-third of lower earners.
The Covid pandemic exposed just how precarious life is for those in insecure, low-paid work, and we do not know how many preventable illnesses were caused by people struggling into work and spreading the virus because they could not afford to stay home. But we do know, as we have heard, that forcing people back to work when they are ill is bad for workers and bad for business, puts pressure on the NHS and is costly for the economy.
I am very grateful to the Minister for taking time to meet me and the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, to discuss our concern that the formula adopted by the Government could leave low-paid workers who earn just above the lower earnings limit worse off. The DWP’s answer has been that abolition of the waiting days before a worker receives SSP ensures that, for the first three weeks, those losses will be offset. But, surely, the policy intention of the Government’s commitment to abolish the waiting days is not to make up for losses caused by its own formula. The policy intention should be to ensure that every worker who relies on SSP is, in fact, better off, and we need to protect those on longer- term sickness who are, for example, receiving cancer treatment.
I note the Government’s concern that the formula must be designed in a way that avoids workers getting more in sick pay than they would in wages, and avoids a cliff edge. I remain unconvinced, however, that it is beyond the wit of the DWP to come up with an approach that protects that position without penalising a group of low-paid workers.
Secondly, as we have heard, this amendment seeks a review of the rate of statutory sick pay. As the Resolution Foundation has pointed out, unlike many other European countries, the rate is not linked to earnings. Currently at £118.75, SSP equates to 27% of the national minimum wage. In 1999, SSP was equivalent to 43% of the national minimum wage. That is a big drop. For a decade and more, SSP has failed to keep up with the cost of living or increases in the living wage.
The Work and Pensions Select Committee has confirmed that the SSP rate is not enough to live on. At the Covid public inquiry hearing in December 2023, Matt Hancock was quizzed by Sam Jacobs, who is counsel for the TUC. The former Health Secretary agreed that the rate of SSP should be higher. How could he argue otherwise, when the UK languished at the bottom of the OECD league for statutory sick pay under the previous Government and when we know that such a low rate of SSP is a danger to public health?
I understand that perfection must not be the enemy of the good, but an SSP rate that works out at around £3 per hour is some way short of either perfection or good. This amendment implicitly recognises that this woeful legacy of neglect in tackling it will not be remedied overnight. It would, however, be welcome if the Minister could reassure us today that both the formula and the rate of statutory sick pay will be reviewed before the Autumn Budget, and rightly so.
Baroness Cash (Con)
My Lords, I start by declaring interests. I am an employer, the founder of a listed business, MindGym, which is a behavioural science business, and an expert in corporate training to improve employee well-being and productivity. I am also a commissioner at the EHRC.
I support the Opposition’s amendments in this group: Amendments 71A, 71B, 73, 74A, 74B, and 74C. At the outset, I would like to note for the record that everyone here is driven by compassion for those who need protection. I pay tribute to the speeches by noble Lords from the Benches opposite, but I am very concerned about these proposals by the Government.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, for drawing our attention to the Resolution Foundation report, which has identified some of the points that support the amendments from this side of the Committee. I will return to those.
The Government have said on record that they want growth. We support that goal. They want businesses to succeed. We support that goal. They have also said on the record that they want to reduce the number of people who are out of the workforce on long-term sickness—currently running at 2.8 million. We support that goal. What we do not understand is how on earth the Government believe that this legislation and these proposals are going to achieve any of that. They are based in compassion, I have no doubt, but the Government are pursuing a culture of incapacity and dependency that will impede the stated aims.
Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (PC)
My Lords, I support Amendment 72 from the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, which I and the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, have signed. This amendment would require a review of the rate of statutory sick pay ahead of His Majesty’s Government’s 2025 Autumn Budget. It requires the Secretary of State to determine, following that review, whether the rate should be changed and to publish a Written Statement setting out the reasons for that determination.
It is important to remind ourselves what this amendment entails. As noble Lords are aware, statutory sick pay is a government scheme requiring employers to provide most employees in the UK who are absent from work due to sickness with a minimum level of pay during that period of absence. Statutory sick pay —SSP—is £118.75 per week, following an increase last month, which an eligible employee can receive for the days that they are ill and not working, except for the first three days of that sick leave. To be eligible, one must be classed as an employee and have done some work for the employer, earn at least an average of £125—previously £123—per week, and have been ill for more than three days in a row. It is only on that fourth day that they receive SSP.
The scheme as it stands is ineffective and causes hardship. As we have heard from the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, according to the TUC, 28% of employees receive only basic SSP when ill, meaning that they are reliant on this very small weekly amount during that period of illness. The TUC adds that
“there are 1.1 million workers earning below £123 per week who are not eligible for SSP”,
with most of those workers being women.
Considering also the penalty of a three-day delay until an eligible employee can claim SSP, it is clear that reforming SSP is both necessary and overdue. I therefore welcome the provisions under the Employment Rights Bill that will see SSP payable from the first day of incapacity to work by way of Clauses 10 and 12, and the removal of the lower earnings limit—that is, the requirement to earn at least £125 per week—through Clauses 11 and 13. However, Clauses 11 and 13 also set in legislation that the rate of SSP will be set at the lower of £118.75 or 80% of the employee’s normal weekly earnings. That payment is extremely low by international standards, as we have heard from many noble Lords. It is one of the lowest rates in the OECD.
If you were to divide this amount by a typical 40 hours worked by full-time employees in a week, this would provide under £3 per hour to employees who are ill. Of course, many workers work more than 40 hours per week, decreasing this hourly amount even further. But in the context of rising housing costs, food prices, energy bills and household bills, such a small payment is inadequate to meet basic living standards. I ask your Lordships: do we believe that those people can survive on £3 an hour? That is an important question that we must consider when we look at this amendment.
In fact, in the context of universal credit, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation estimates that to afford the basic household essentials, a single adult requires at least £120 a week and a couple £205 a week. It is clear that a review of the adequacy of the SSP rate is crucial to ensure people are not plunged into poverty just for becoming ill, which is something that happens to all of us. Proposed new subsection (7), in Amendment 72, makes provision for the Secretary of State to ensure that no employee receives less statutory sick pay than they would have received before the Bill’s enactment, as a result of changes under Clause 11. This is important because according to the TUC, an 80% replacement rate as under the Bill will see 300,000 workers entitled to a lower rate of SSP than currently. Many of these individuals work for multiple employers, work part-time and receive low wages. According to the Safe Sick Pay campaign, three-quarters of those impacted will be women. Disabled people will be disproportionately affected, almost half of whom are aged between 20 and 54.
Using the SSP amounts in place before April, the Safe Sick Pay campaign outlined the example of an employee who will now lose out. That employee, working for multiple employers, earning £123 a week, would have received £116.75 a week of statutory sick pay because they earned above the lower earnings limit. Following the Bill as it stands, that same employee will see a 16% reduction in their entitlement and receive only £98 a week, as this would represent 80% of their earnings. Many workers, particularly those in low-pay positions, already struggle to afford the shortfall caused by SSP when ill. Increasing that shortfall will make it more unlikely that workers will have adequate savings to mitigate the loss of income. Proposed new subsection (7), in Amendment 72, provides a way for the Secretary of State to rectify this situation and ensure that no one is worse off as a result of SSP changes made by the Bill. It is vital that His Majesty’s Government do not intentionally or unintentionally cut sick pay for hundreds of thousands of workers.
I will now briefly turn to some of the other amendments and the debate on this group so far. Amendment 73 in the name of noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, and Amendment 74 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Fox, call for the establishment of a scheme for reimbursement of statutory sick pay costs incurred by companies with fewer than 250 employees. This is an interesting proposal, as we have heard from the noble Baroness, although we have yet to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Fox. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response on the practicalities of such a proposal.
I feel very strongly that mental health is health, and that this is not just to do with those facing mental health conditions; it goes wider than that. It is important to note that this is about all workers who have been signed off from work; there are lots of different reasons why they might be ill, including those relating to mental health.
The aims of these amendments differ from those of Amendment 72, which seeks to address gaps in the Bill concerning adequate sick pay for workers—gaps that cause some concern, especially the consequential effects on low-paid workers. I hope that, in responding, the Minister addresses my concerns: the adequacy of the SSP rate as set out in the Bill; the effect on low-income workers, without relying on the welfare system to offset that effect; and whether His Majesty’s Government will commit to a review of SSP rates, so that workers are not punished by measures in a Bill which is expected to strengthen their workplace rights.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, there have been some excellent debates in this group. I ask for some clarification, particularly from the Government, on something I am confused about. I am sympathetic to Amendment 74A. The noble Baroness, Lady Cash, made a very useful and insightful contribution that brought another layer to the discussion. There is a danger of us talking about these things technically, yet in a rather old-fashioned way, when there is a lot more evidence and new phenomena to consider.
Amendment 74A looks at the impact on—
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Information and Technology (Baroness Jones of Whitchurch) (Lab)
I am sorry to interrupt the noble Baroness, but we are not debating Amendment 74A. It is grouped elsewhere.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
I have the right group; I have just said the wrong thing.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in what has been a very interesting debate. I will try to reflect on what I have heard as I speak; that will make my job quite difficult and probably make my speech completely incoherent, but I will do my best.
We closed last week with a couple of de-grouped Conservative amendments. I promised to reserve what I would say on statutory sick pay for this group, which means that I am unlikely to speak on the next group. Last week the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe and Lord Hunt, spoke firmly against the Government’s proposed changes. I have seen evidence of businesses arguing strongly either for the status quo or for a two-day threshold.
I am not a behavioural scientist, but I can read a room politically. The party that is sitting on a huge majority in the Commons has made it very clear where it stands on this issue, and that has been reasserted by some of the even stronger comments we have heard from the Benches opposite. Businesses have drawn the same conclusion. Many of those I talk to are seeking ways to ameliorate this, rather than eliminate it, which is probably unlikely.
I was interested to hear the noble Lords from the Conservative Front Bench speak to Amendments 71A and 71B. Their version of amelioration appears to be to reduce the amount of SSP, or at least severely limit it. We heard a different story from the noble Baronesses, Lady Lister and Lady O’Grady, who set out why SSP is important and why the rate is meaningful. To contextualise poverty, we are talking about the poorest people who are working people but still extremely poor. It is difficult to overestimate the generosity of this scheme, but that is what I have heard from several on the Conservative Benches. This is a very modest offer. With her statistics, the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, set it out very clearly, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Smith.
Before I talk to my own Amendment 74 and Amendment 73, I will deal with the others. In Amendment 75, the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe and Lord Hunt, call for a reviewer to report within two years. I mentioned there is a subsequent group which also has impact assessment amendments in it. I am not really sure why we are debating them separately. Rather like the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, I am going to mention 74A to 74C, which have been shunted into a separate group. Taken together, there is a slightly curious mismatch of timings: Amendment 75 is after two years, 74B and 74C after six months and 75A after a year. I agree that there do need to be impact assessments following whatever your Lordships decide, perhaps on a more systematic calendar than the ones suggested.
I am interested in the pre-emptive impact assessment. For the benefit of your Lordships’ Committee, it would be good to hear the Minister spell out the detail of the impact assessment of business on the current proposed measures. If, as the Minister says, the costs will be relatively modest, the costs of Amendment 73 or 74 would also be relatively modest, which takes me to the point in question.
As we have heard very eloquently from the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, she and I have come up with very similar suggestions in terms of amelioration, which is what I was talking about earlier. Rather like the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, I slightly prefer the version from noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, but that is not the point—this is not a competition. We would like to sit down with the Government and thrash through a way whereby a rebate scheme can be reintroduced. This seems to be the sensible approach. We care deeply about SMEs—they drive a huge part of our economy. This is a way of making sure that they do not get disadvantaged as employees get what they deserve as SSP. That is what I am asking for from these Benches. Very sensibly, the noble Baronesses, Lady Coffey and Lady Noakes, and others supported it. I hope that the Minister will be able to make a positive noise about that and we can sit down and have that conversation.
Today, we have heard that SSP is absolutely vital for a section of society who are already massively disadvantaged. We should not be drawing lines and pushing them further down. We should be finding ways of making sure that they are not disadvantaged even more and, at the same, we should find ways of making sure that our SME sector is not also disadvantaged.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, we have had a really good debate on these issues, and I hope that I can do justice to all the questions and points that have been raised.
I begin with Amendment 75, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe and Lord Hunt, on independent reviews into the effects of SSP reforms on small and medium enterprises. As noble Lords will be aware, the Government have already undertaken a regulatory impact assessment, which was published on 21 November 2024 and can be found on GOV.UK. This considered the likely direct business impact of the SSP changes, including on small and medium enterprises. In the regulatory impact assessment, the Government estimated that delivering these measures will cost businesses a modest £15 extra per employee. I assure noble Lords that the Government remain committed to monitoring the impact of these SSP measures. We intend to conduct a post-implementation review of the measures in the Employment Rights Bill within five years of implementation. Additionally, the Department for Work and Pensions conducts regular employer and employee surveys and will continue to do so, providing further monitoring of the impact of the SSP changes on a range of employers and employees.
I draw attention to the Keep Britain Working review. We asked Sir Charlie Mayfield to lead this independent review, which will consider recommendations to support and enable employers to promote healthy and inclusive workplaces, support more people to stay in or return to work from periods of sickness absence and retain more disabled people and people with health conditions.
While I am speaking about the variety of illnesses that people on sick leave incur, let me address the issue of mental health absences, which was raised by the noble Baronesses, Lady Cash and Lady Smith, the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, and my noble friend Lord Davies. Our proposals have to be seen in the wider context of the Bill. The Bill is intended to improve the experience of employees at work, so measures such as flexible working, guaranteed hours and protection from harassment could—we believe will—reduce stress at work, potentially leading to fewer incidents of burn-out and better employee mental health, and therefore fewer related absences. For us, that is an important challenge that we intend to monitor.
Amendment 73, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, would introduce a rebate scheme to reimburse SMEs for the cost of SSP for the first four days, although I think she clarified that she meant three. I thank her for her interest in SSP, and of course I appreciate her extensive knowledge and experience in this area, as a former Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. As previously mentioned, regarding waiting days, the changes we are making to SSP will cost businesses around an additional £15 per employee, a relatively modest amount in comparison with the benefits of reduced presenteeism and the positive impact that this will have on our lowest paid members of society. As the noble Baroness may recall, we previously delivered SSP rebate schemes such as the percentage threshold scheme. This was abolished due to SMEs underusing it, and feedback that the administrative burden was complex and time consuming. So I suggest that a rebate scheme that covered only the first three days of sickness and absence would also be quite administratively burdensome, both for businesses to claim and for the Government to process.
Previous SSP rebate schemes also did not encourage employers to support their employees. We know that employers having responsibility for paying sick leave helps maintain a strong link between the workplace and the employee, with employers encouraged to support employees to return to work when they are able.
Sticking with the theme of rebate schemes, Amendment 74, from the noble Lord, Lord Fox, would introduce an SME rebate scheme for the whole duration of sickness absence. I reiterate the points I made earlier about the limited cost to business as a result of SSP changes and the experience of previous rebate schemes. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, that we have moved a long way from the Beveridge system of social insurance. The costs and the mechanisms are very different now.
A rebate for the full cost of SSP could cost the Government up to £900 million a year. I do not believe that a rebate scheme is the best way to support our SMEs at this time. We will be considering the findings of the aforementioned Keep Britain Working review, which is expected to produce a final report with recommendations in the autumn. The noble Lord, Lord Fox, challenged me to keep talking about this, and of course I am very happy to do so.
Amendments 71A and 71B were tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe and Lord Hunt. As they may be aware, the Government consulted on what the rate of SSP should be for those who currently earn below the lower earnings limit. There was no clear consensus from stakeholders on the percentage. The Government believe that the 80% rate strikes the right balance between providing financial security to the lowest paid employees when they need to take time off work to recover from illness and limiting the cost to business. As the noble Lord, Lord Fox, said, if we are not careful, we will be penalising the very poorest in our society.
Crucially, the total amount saved by business, if the rate were set at 60% compared to 80%, would be around £10 million to £30 million per year. That is about a £1 difference per employee per year, or less than 0.01% of total spending on wages annually by businesses. On the noble Lord’s Amendment 71A, which would set the rate at 60% for the first three days of a period of incapacity for work, the amounts potentially saved by business become even smaller, with the difference in cost being a matter of pennies. Given the minimal savings for businesses, the complexity for employers in administrating different rates is difficult to justify.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister very much indeed for her response, and, indeed, all noble Lords for their contributions to what has been a thoughtful and valuable debate. My particular thanks go to my noble friends Lady Noakes, Lady Coffey and Lady Lawlor, as well as to my noble friend Lady Cash, for bringing to the debate her unique expertise in the area of behavioural science.
It is it is crucial that the Government fully recognise that many provisions in this Bill are interlinked, as we have heard from all sides of the Committee. Changes in one area can have unintended ripple effects in others. As I have said, we support statutory sick pay, but we must also acknowledge that these proposed changes will result in higher costs for employers. My amendments were an attempt—in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Fox—to ameliorate some of those costs and find some sensible compromises. I am disappointed that the Government have chosen to reject them. Without clarity, businesses cannot plan, cannot invest and cannot hire with confidence. As I pointed out in my opening remarks, the facts are plain: jobs are being lost now.
Regarding an SME rebate scheme—as highlighted by my noble friend Lady Coffey in her Amendment 73 and spoken to by my noble friends Lady Noakes and Lady Lawlor, as well as by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, in his Amendment 74—the Government have stated that final decisions will follow consultation with business through secondary legislation. The impact assessment notes plans for “extensive engagement” with small and medium-sized businesses to
“test where mitigations can be made”.
However, SMEs have spoken: they have asked for a rebate scheme as used during the pandemic. It is therefore disappointing the Government have not accepted the amendments to provide that support.
I would suggest that the Minister takes up the offer of the noble Lord, Lord Fox, to talk more on this subject —a conversation that we would like to be party to. I am pretty sure that we will be returning to it on Report. If I may paraphrase the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, it should not be beyond the wit of man to design a simple scheme that works. For now, however, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Hunt of Wirral
“Impact assessment: Statutory Sick Pay provision on absenteeismWithin 12 months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must publish an assessment of the impact of the provisions in this Act relating to Statutory Sick Pay on levels of absenteeism.”Member's explanatory statement
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to publish an assessment of how the Statutory Sick Pay provisions in the Act impact absenteeism, within 12 months of the Act being passed.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, after what has been a fascinating, wide-ranging and important debate on statutory sick pay, I would like to focus on the impact that these changes are going to have in particular on absenteeism, on short-notice shifts and on enhanced sick pay schemes. So I shall speak to Amendments 74A, 74B and 74C. We will continue to make the point that this Bill brings with it a raft of unintended consequences.
The importance of Amendment 74A cannot be overstated. Absenteeism is a critical issue for many businesses, especially those in hospitality, retail and other service-based industries, where staff shortages can lead to disruption, cancellations and even closures. With the removal of waiting days for SSP and the expansion of eligibility, it is essential that all of us should understand fully how these changes will affect absenteeism patterns across various sectors.
One of the sectors most concerned with the potential rise in absenteeism that these changes will cause is, of course, hospitality. Many businesses in this sector rely on part-time, hourly or zero-hour contracts, often employing younger workers, students or those with fewer financial responsibilities.
As we know, a significant portion of the workforce in hospitality earns below the lower earnings threshold for statutory sick pay, and may be employed for only limited hours. These workers are typically less dependent on their income, often still living at home or with fewer financial obligations. This brings us to a major concern. If these workers know that they will still receive statutory sick pay regardless of their financial needs, there may be little incentive for them to attend work when they feel under the weather, or even when they would simply prefer a day off. The concern is that the reforms could result in workers taking sick leave when it may not be strictly necessary, as the financial implications of their doing so would be mitigated by the statutory sick pay payment.
For example, if a student worker or part-time employee knows that they will still receive statutory sick pay, even if they do not meet the earnings threshold, they may not feel the same level of obligation to attend work. This is particularly true in a sector such as hospitality, where work provides either temporary or supplementary income. As such, the absence of financial pressure could lead to increased absenteeism in the short term, which could, in turn, lead to operational challenges for hospitality businesses, especially those that already operate with small teams, a high turnover of staff, or both.
As I mentioned, we believe it is essential that the Government thoroughly evaluate how these statutory sick pay provisions would affect absenteeism, particularly in sectors such as hospitality, where the risks of absenteeism are most pronounced. The impact assessment called for in Amendment 74A would enable us better to understand the extent to which these reforms would result in higher absenteeism rates and whether there are any other unintended and undesirable consequences, such as workforce disengagement, or a lack of motivation to work, in sectors where employees may not be so financially reliant on their income.
It is vital to understand, first, how absenteeism levels might change, especially in sectors with a younger, less financially reliant workforce; secondly, the operational challenges businesses would face due to potential increases in absenteeism; and, thirdly, the wider economic effects of these changes, including potential impacts on service quality, customer satisfaction and employee morale.
I turn to Amendment 74B. The proposal to remove the waiting period for statutory sick pay and the lower earnings limit represents a substantial shift in how sick pay obligations are structured. It carries serious financial implications, particularly for low-margin sectors, such as retail and hospitality, and for small and medium-sized enterprises more broadly. This amendment seeks a modest but necessary safeguard. It asks the Government to publish, within six months, a report on the impact of these statutory sick pay reforms on employers’ ability to offer enhanced sick pay and occupational health and well-being services.
As of 2024, 28% of UK employers offer occupational health services, while 27% provide sick pay that goes beyond statutory minimums. While we certainly want to see those numbers improve, we must surely understand why provision remains relatively low. A survey conducted last year found that 43% of business leaders cite financial constraints as the primary barrier to offering enhanced sick pay. Another 31% highlighted legal complexity; 28% cited administrative burden; and 31% cited staffing challenges as further obstacles. Rather than addressing those challenges, surely the Government have to recognise that the Bill threatens to amplify them.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I should have spoken in the other debate—
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
But I will carry on. I also want to refer to the issue of absenteeism, but I feel as though I have wandered into the skivers debate, and I do not necessarily want to be involved in that.
I am not worried that sick pay will create a nation of skivers or everybody phoning up and saying, “I am off sick”. But I am confused—maybe the Minister can help me here—about what seems to be a conflict in government priorities concerning our attitude to work and, in a way, our attitude to sickness. There seems to be some tension between the discussion around reforming the welfare system and PIPs, for example, and the concerns raised in that debate about ever greater numbers claiming disability benefits, especially for mental illness. I thought that the questions asked by Wes Streeting, the Health Secretary—quoting experts and evidence on the problem of overdiagnosis and of encouraging a culture in working-age adults, especially young people, of feeling incapacitated and dependent on the state in a demoralising way, such that they are written off—are in fact a very mature way of looking at that discussion that we should consider.
We also have to acknowledge a phenomenon that we discussed quite a lot during the passage of the Mental Health Bill. Being unwell, particularly mentally unwell, has now become integral to many people’s identities. The figures given in the earlier debate—when I meant to speak, and when the noble Baroness, Lady Cash, and others made the point about huge numbers of people now being off work as a result of disability due to mental ill-health—indicate that there is an increase not in mental ill-health but in a new cultural phenomenon of people feeling unable to cope in some capacity.
I raise this issue in relation to the Bill because, although the Government are having a mature and interesting discussion on welfare in the other place, I cannot see that it does not conflict with the statutory sick pay provisions and debate we have had on this Bill. On Amendment 74A, which calls for an impact assessment regarding absenteeism, I am concerned in a different way about absenteeism. If Liz Kendall and Wes Streeting are incentivising or encouraging people who have been on long-term sick leave to return to the workforce—maybe to all those care home jobs that have just been created—will they willingly do that, or will they take advantage of this new flexible sick pay from day one? Is that likely to happen? I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, made this point. In what way would they be encouraged to employ somebody who has been on long-term sick leave if they must say, “Come and work for me—by the way, you can have sick pay from day one”, when they have taken all that time trying to persuade them to get back into work? At the very least, it becomes a bigger risk for the employer to take on such people: the very people the Government want to get back into work and who, for their own sake, should be in work, because the alternative is not doing them any good.
We need to be honest in this discussion. Sick pay was hard-fought for for all those years, but we live in a different time, when sickness is viewed differently. It is almost like a badge of honour in some instances, but it has also become a way of coping. To give your Lordships an example, when I was a further education teacher, some 25 years ago, it was the first time I had come across people taking time off for stress-related sickness. It was often when there had been a political dispute or some big row at work, or a disciplinary action had been taken. Instead of it being dealt with politically, people went on stress-related sick leave. Fair enough—that was fine when it was one or two people. But at one point, a third of the staff in a further education department of humanities were off on stress-related sick pay. As you can imagine, it was a dysfunctional department.
So I agree with the Minister when she said earlier that we are hoping that a happier workplace is going to have less stress. I get that point, but I genuinely think that something else is going on. That form of sickness has become a means for people to express their problems in a range of ways, and they lose the habit of work. My concern is that the Bill, particularly in respect of some of the less flexible ways this issue is being dealt with—in this instance, sick pay—will incentivise those regressive ways in which people are retreating from the workplace.
There is a report out today that says that Gen Zers, or whatever the term is, believe that the workplace itself makes them ill and that workaphobia has to be taken into account. I know that these concepts seem a bit flaky, but it is an academic study, so I am citing it. It says that what needs to be considered is that is why young people should be treated with leniency about not going into the workplace, because they find going into the workplace and interacting far too stressful. It is that kind of nonsense, to be frank, that I hope that we will not encourage inadvertently by this Bill.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Fox, I am a little puzzled by the groupings between this and the previous amendments. I have gone the opposite route and decided to speak to this group rather than the last one, but everything that I say in this group applies equally to Amendment 75, which would have created a review of the impact of the changes on small and medium-sized businesses. This group would require impact assessments to carried out for the various other effects that the Bill would have—so really it is the same subject.
Frankly, a lot of this would not be necessary if the Bill had been properly thought through from the beginning, if there was not so much detail to be filled in later by regulation and, in particular, if a proper impact assessment had been carried out on the various changes proposed. The Bill will, by the Government’s own admission, impose costs on business, disproportionately on smaller businesses, of around £5 billion, and will, again by the Government’s own admission, have potentially negative impacts on employment opportunities for those with poorer employment records. It is deeply unsatisfactory that it should not have been properly impact-assessed.
The Regulatory Policy Committee rated the impact assessment as “not fit for purpose”. It is worth reminding noble Lords what it said:
“Given the number and reach of the measures, it would be proportionate to undertake labour market and broader macroeconomic analysis, to understand the overall impact on employment, wages and output, and particularly, the pass-through of employer costs to employees. The eight individual IAs and the summary IA need to provide further analysis and evidence in relation to the rationale for intervention, identification of options (including impacts on small and microbusinesses) and/or justification for the preferred way forward”.
It is damning that that was not done before the Bill was presented to us.
Now, before the Minister points this out, I concede that the statutory sick pay individual impact assessment is the only one of 23 that is rated as good—in itself a pretty damning statistic. However, the impact assessment for the monitoring and evaluation plan for the statutory sick pay part is rated as weak. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has already referred to the potential behavioural aspects that arise, which are not in any way covered in the impact assessment. In fact, there is a complete cop-out; it says, “We can’t do this because of the behavioural impacts”.
Sadly, these proposed amendments and Amendment 75 in the previous group are clearly necessary, as are the others that we will debate later today and throughout the Committee process. The five-year review that the Minister referred to earlier frankly does not cut it, given the significance of the measures in this Bill and how quickly how they will have impact. Five years is way too long to wait to understand whether it is damaging.
I do not wish to test noble Lords’ patience by repeating this speech multiple times during the process of the Committee, so I ask the Minister to take as read my support for proper and timely reviews and assessments of the impacts of this Bill as we go forward.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, as noble Lords have identified, we are now continuing the important debate on statutory sick pay and specifically to address the impact of these measures on businesses.
It is important to highlight that the statutory sick pay system, and the changes that we have brought about as part of this Bill, is designed to balance providing support for the individual with minimising the costs to the employer. This group of amendments, Amendments 74A, 74B and 74C, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe and Lord Hunt, would require impact assessments on absenteeism, enhanced sick pay schemes, occupational health, and short-notice shift working.
As I mentioned earlier, and as the noble Lord, Lord Fox, has already identified, the Government have already undertaken a regulatory impact assessment which considered the likely direct business impact of SSP changes. This included considering the impact on small and medium enterprises and sectoral impacts.
Overall, in the regulatory impact assessment, the Government estimated that the cost of delivering these measures would be approximately £15 extra per employee, a relatively modest amount when compared to the positive impacts that these changes will have for employees and overall productivity. I thank the noble Lord for the three amendments tabled in this group, all of which would require impact assessments. I look forward to debating those with the other 23 or so requests for impact assessments that the Opposition have already tabled. We have a plethora of requests for impact assessments. I reassure the noble Lord that we are at the same time updating our regulatory impact assessment and operating a post-implementation review of the measures—so the Opposition’s requests are probably not necessary.
On the noble Lord’s Amendment 74A, requiring an assessment of the impact of the changes to SSP in the Bill on absenteeism, we acknowledge that overall sickness absence may increase as a result of this Bill. This is not a loophole, nor are the Government not considering businesses; rather, it is the very objective of these changes to enable the lowest-paid employees to take time off when they are sick. Under the new system, employees will be able to take the time that they need to recover from short-term illness without struggling through work and often risking the spread of infectious diseases such as influenza. Similarly, employees with long-term or fluctuating conditions should feel able to take a day of sickness absence to manage their condition to prevent it worsening. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, suggested that employees might be encouraged to misuse the system. However, if employers have the right policies and practices in place, the risk of inappropriate absenteeism can and should be mitigated.
Additionally, the noble Lord’s amendment would be quite difficult to deliver in practice. There is not a standard measure of absenteeism versus legitimate sickness absence, and in many instances, it would depend on whether you asked the employer or the employee. The Government intend to build on the regulatory impact assessment and, as I have said, we intend to conduct a post-implementation review of the measures in the Employment Rights Bill.
I turn to Amendment 74B, to assess the impact of the reforms in the Bill on employers’ ability to continue offering enhanced sick pay and occupational health services, particularly in low-margin sectors such as retail. I appreciate the noble Lord’s concern about the potential impact on this matter, and the Government certainly agree that it would not be in anyone’s interest for there to be a rollback of occupational sick pay or occupational health provision. However, the Government’s view is that these changes will serve only to strengthen the link between the workplace and the employee. I question why any business would want to use these changes as a reason to reduce the support that they provide their employees to help them stay in, and return to, work.
The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, asked about the Government’s policy on getting people back to work, and she was right to raise the issue. We are talking about a balance here; when people are sick, they should have the right to be off sick. I also accept the point that she made that being at work can in itself be a healing experience, and we should not lose sight of that—that there can be a positive health impact from being at work.
I once again draw noble Lords’ attention to the Keep Britain Working review. As I set out earlier in the debate, Sir Charlie Mayfield will consider recommendations on how the Government can support and enable employers to promote healthy and inclusive workplaces and support more people to stay in or return to work from periods of sickness absence. That review is expected to produce a final report in autumn this year. I believe that much of what the Keep Britain Working review is doing will address the noble Lords’ concerns, and I hope this reassures them that the Government are taking this matter seriously. We look forward to the results of the review.
Finally, I turn to Amendment 74C, which seeks to review the effects of the SSP changes on shift management and short-notice scheduling in the workplace. As discussed in relation to Amendment 74A, the number of sickness absences may go up as a result of these changes. This is because it would enable employees to take time off when they are sick.
I again reassure noble Lords that the Government are committed to understand the impact of these changes on businesses. We intend to conduct a post-implementation review of these measures in the Employment Rights Bill within five years of implementation. Additionally, as I set out in the earlier debate, the Department for Work and Pensions conducts regular employer and employee surveys and will continue to do so, providing further monitoring of the impact of SSP changes on a range of employers and employees.
However, this amendment would require the Government to collect a significant amount of data from businesses on what noble Lords will understand is quite a wide range of issues. We believe that this would be administratively challenging for them to provide, particularly in less than six months. This is the very thing that the noble Lord is seeking to avoid—the extra bureaucracy that he has talked about. For example, asking employers, including SMEs, to accurately record and report to government the frequency of shift cancellations and redeployments because of sickness absence is not practical or reasonable.
We have had a worthwhile, short debate on these issues, but I hope I have persuaded noble Lords that we are on the case and therefore that the amendment can be withdrawn.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, the Minister said during her remarks that there would be a cost per employee of £15; I think she said that in the earlier group as well. Can she provide any more information on this? It seems counterintuitive. If the average number of sick days per employee is around eight, which is what the most recent survey data showed, that implies that employers are already bearing the cost of something like seven and a half days and are going to pay only for an extra half day. That does not seem to be consistent with the evidence of the nature of absences that also exist, which implies that most are at the shorter end and probably are going to be below the level at which they are currently being reimbursed by statutory sick pay.
It has been troubling me for some time, but I hope that the Minister will be able to provide some further information. I do not expect it from the Dispatch Box, although I would be delighted if it were to come from the Dispatch Box right now, but if she could write to me, I would be most grateful.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
I suppose the simple answer to that is that it is in the regulatory impact assessment, which the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, acknowledged was one of the things that we got a fair rating for. I refer the noble Baroness to that, which I think will give more details.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
I have read it. There is no more detail in that impact assessment on the £15. That is why I am asking whether the Minister can provide further detail on how that £15 was arrived at.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
I am happy to write to the noble Baroness.
Lord Fox (LD)
It would be very useful if she could share it with the other Front Benches as well.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
I am very grateful to the Minister. We have had a very important debate. I am particularly grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, because we have not really spent enough time worrying about the people who are just unable to cope. Working conditions have changed so much. Stress-related sick leave is a huge issue, as is what the noble Baroness referred to as “losing the habit of work”. These are issues that we have to think about very carefully.
There is an important and complex issue of so-called presenteeism, which deserves greater attention in our discussions about workplace health and productivity. I came across some research—perhaps the noble Baroness had this in mind—carried out by Robertson Cooper: its 2023 data, drawn from over 3,000 UK respondents, revealed that almost two-thirds, 60%, of employees reported working while they were unwell, so-called presenteeism, in the last three months. That is an important issue, which has to be taken into account in any impact assessment.
The distinction is essential because not all forms of working while unwell are inherently harmful. Some, such as pragmatic or therapeutic presence, can be beneficial for both the employer and the employee. The challenge lies in identifying when presenteeism becomes detrimental and ensuring that workplace policy, including statutory sick pay reform, supports businesses in managing that balance effectively.
I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Vaux of Harrowden, for reminding us of the finding of the Regulatory Policy Committee. We just need to be aware of the severe criticism that was meted out about a Bill that is making such profound changes while in the gloom of uncertainty, because no one can be actually sure what effect these changes are going to have.
“Review of parental leave(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, commence a review of paid parental leave.(2) The review under subsection (1) must explore—(a) the introduction of a statutory period of reserved, non-transferable paid parental leave for—(i) fathers;(ii) mothers’ partners;(iii) “second parent” adopters.(b) the level of statutory pay available to the parents listed in paragraph (a), through paternity leave, other reserved leave for fathers considered by the review or shared parental leave, and whether it is sufficient to encourage high take-up;(c) options for making paid leave available to self-employed fathers, and others ineligible for statutory support because they are not in regular employment, for example through a paternity allowance similar to the maternity allowance, currently available for mothers;(d) the extension of full employment rights, including redundancy protections, to fathers who take paternity leave and any other reserved leave considered by the review;(e) international examples of best practice in parental leave policy design.(3) The Secretary of State must lay the review before Parliament within 18 months of the day on which this Act is passed.”Member’s explanatory statement
This probing amendment specifies a number of issues that the proposed review of parental leave should consider, in particular a reserved, non-transferable period for fathers paid at a rate sufficient to encourage high take up. It also requires such a review to take place.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to those colleagues who have added their names to Amendment 76 and to the Fatherhood Institute for its help.
I welcome the Bill’s improvements to paternity and parental leave, but they only scratch the surface of a policy that is letting fathers down badly. Moreover, it is disappointing to discover that paternity pay will not be a day one right—an issue addressed by Amendment 139 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, which I support. Could my noble friend the Minister explain in her summing up why it will not be?
The amendment calls for a review of parental leave, which was required for drafting purposes, although I know that, in the Commons, the Minister reaffirmed an earlier welcome commitment to a review. The purpose now is to ensure that the review covers a number of key issues relating to fathers’ entitlement to paid leave in their baby’s first year, namely measures designed to improve fathers’ take-up of parental leave, including a “use it or lose it” period and adequate payment, taking account of international examples of best practice; the inclusion of self-employed fathers, who are currently excluded, and others currently ineligible for statutory support; the protection through full employment rights of fathers who take the leave; and the commitment to publish adequate take-up data in future years.
The aim is a simple one, on which I hope we will all agree: to strengthen the rights of fathers/“second parents” to be active parents, which, as I will argue, would thereby also strengthen mothers and prospective mothers’ labour market position. In doing so, it would further the Government’s own aspiration to achieve greater gender equality.
The current situation is pretty woeful as far as fathers are concerned. This has practical and cultural, symbolic effects: it is, in effect, saying that fatherhood is of lesser importance to family life and that, in so far as the labour market accommodates responsibilities for childcare, it need do so only for mothers. If we want to surround boys with positive symbolic messages about masculinity, what better place to start than to give their fathers the time they need to build strong relationships in infancy that last a lifetime, thereby showing that fatherhood is valued?
I do not have the time to give details of what fathers are entitled to compared with mothers, but suffice it to quote the Fatherhood Institute’s evidence to the Women and Equalities Committee’s current inquiry into the issue:
“As well as offering one of the least generous statutory paternity offers in the OECD … the UK is an outlier, especially among higher income countries, in the huge gap (50 weeks) between mothers’ and fathers’ entitlements to leave in the baby’s first year. By 2022 most countries in western Europe had a gap of 12 weeks or less”.
The partial extension of day-one rights does not touch the sides when it comes to the current shoddy treatment of fathers, which has resulted in low paternal take-up of paternity and shared parental leave. Paternity leave is dealt with by the other amendments in this group, so I will focus just on shared parental leave.
Take-up among fathers of the shared parental leave scheme, introduced 10 years ago, is a pitiful 5% of eligible fathers, according to a 2023 government report. The scheme is also skewed against lower-income families, with just 5% of the tiny population of SPL users coming from the bottom 50% of earners. Shared parental leave does not constitute an independent right for fathers: it depends on an entitled mother transferring part of her leave. The Government were warned at the time that this was going to fail in the aim of encouraging fathers to take the leave, and it did. This is in part because of the way the scheme is constructed, in part because the low rate of payment means that many fathers cannot afford to take it, and in part because some, such as self-employed fathers, are excluded altogether.
This matters for fathers, mothers, children and family life, as well as for the Government’s number one priority of economic growth. It matters for fathers because it makes it very difficult for them to play an equal, hands-on role in the upbringing of their infant children, which, increasingly, fathers wish to do. It matters for mothers because, to quote the Women’s Budget Group, of which I am a member:
“Unpaid care is the root cause of women’s economic inequality”.
So long as women carry so much of the responsibility for childcare in the private sphere, they enter the public sphere of the labour market with one hand tied behind their back. Too many women’s careers fall off a cliff when they become mothers. As the Women and Equalities Committee’s call for evidence states:
“Unequal division of childcaring responsibilities is a key driver of … gender inequality and the gender pay gap”.
It matters for children in two-parent families, not just for their relationship with their fathers but also, the evidence suggests, for their educational and cognitive development and overall family relationships. Research indicates that paternal engagement during the first year can foster ongoing engagement until a child is aged at least 11 and that this positive effect builds over time. It matters for families, as it can affect family well-being and stability.
It matters, too, for economic growth. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation and Centre for Progressive Policy calculate that more generous provision for fathers, earmarked for six weeks, could deliver nearly £2.7 billion net to the wider economy as a result of strengthening mothers’ labour market position.
The amendment requires a review to take account of international examples of best practice, because we have so much to learn from the many countries that are way ahead of us on this issue. In particular, the experience of the Nordic countries and some others, which have for some years included a reserved period of parental leave for fathers on a use-it-or-lose-it basis in their schemes, suggests that this model, together with adequate payment—I emphasise that—is the best way of ensuring fathers take up the leave, leading to a more equitable division of childcare responsibility between parents and enabling mothers to participate in the labour market on more equal terms.
Most see this as a better and more effective model than extending paternity leave, because it separates out the caregiving function of parental leave from the health and safety function of maternity/paternity leave and, after the first two weeks, it signals clearly that the father can take it at a later date, ideally on his own, helping more mothers resume their employment earlier. As the Fatherhood Institute notes:
“Reserved parental leave for fathers is seen as key to reducing both the gender wage gap and the gendered gap in men’s and women’s participation in paid employment – both of which act as an impediment to economic growth”.
In a book I wrote many years ago on feminist approaches to citizenship, I identified such schemes as a key social policy lever for promoting greater gender equality and recognising the importance of care to men as well as women and to wider society.
Much as I would like to see this as one result of the review, I should stress that the amendment in no way ties the Government’s hands as to this or any other outcome, apart from the provision of adequate take-up data. It could be seen as the soft-cop amendment to the hard-cop amendments by the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, which would require action now—I do have some sympathy for those, but we are where we are. That said, if the review fails adequately to consider the issues that Amendment 76 raises, then I fear it will be met with widespread derision.
I hope, therefore, that my noble friend will feel able to accept the amendment, in this or some other form, as a signal of intent. If not, at the very least, I would ask her to make clear on the record the Government’s acceptance that the current situation disadvantages farmers unfairly and that it must be a clear and explicit aim of the review to create a system that properly supports fathers and other second parents to play a full role in their children’s lives.
At Second Reading, my noble friend she expressed respect for the points that I and the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, made about parental leave and the desire to go further. However, she said that
“we must strike the right balance, while continuing to ensure that this remains a pro-worker, pro-business Bill”.—[Official Report, 27/3/25; cols. 1925-26.]
But the current situation is totally unbalanced as between the rights of fathers and mothers. Moreover, workers are gendered beings, and thorough reform of parental leave is in no way anti-business. Indeed, it would help ensure business can benefit fully from the contribution of female as well as male workers and would, as I have said, thereby contribute to economic growth.
Thus, on gender justice and pragmatic economic grounds, I hope the Government will accept the amendment and send a strong symbolic message to male workers that their role as fathers is fully recognised and valued. I beg to move.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, I speak to Amendments 80 and 136 in my name. These purely clarify an entitlement to paternity leave and really follow on from the remarks by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, on Amendment 76. Amendment 80 would extend statutory paternity leave to six weeks and allow new fathers to take this leave at any point within the first year after their child’s birth, rather than being restricted to the current 56-day window. At present, eligible fathers are entitled to just two weeks of leave, paid at a rate of less than half of full-time earnings at minimum wage. Take-up remains low and affordability is a major factor; 62% of fathers say they would take more leave if statutory paternity pay was higher.
Greater equality in parenting is essential to achieving greater equality in the workplace. At present, the unequal distribution of caring responsibilities is a major driver of the gender pay gap. On average, a woman’s earnings fall by approximately 40% following the birth of her first child and often do not recover. By contrast, men’s earnings remain largely unaffected.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 127, 128 and 139 in my name. Before doing so, I would like to add my support to all the amendments in this group, in particular Amendment 76 of the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, to which I have also added my name.
As we have heard already, our current system of parental leave is in desperate need of reform. For some of that reform, I accept a review is necessary. How can we improve shared parental leave? This is something that I was proud to have worked on during the coalition Government, but I and the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, have to accept that this has not delivered the change we want to see. Also, how do we extend parental leave to self-employed people—mums, dads and adoptive parents—at a proper rate of pay?
As the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, knows, I believe she is being too generous to the Government with her timelines. When this Government first took office, the Employment Rights Minister, Justin Madders, committed to the review of parental leave being completed within their first year; now, it is meant to be launched within their first year. On Report in the Commons, the Minister committed only to a launch ahead of Royal Assent of this Bill, which even on the most optimistic timetable will be after 4 July.
As well as giving important clarity to the points that the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, has made—calling for the review to cover key issues, including measures designed to improve fathers’ take-up of parental leave, such as a dedicated period of leave, adequate payment and the inclusion of self-employed fathers—could the Minister give us some reassurance on timelines? Will the review be launched within Labour’s first year in office? How long will the review take? To me, six months seems a reasonable period of time to report back on its outcomes, but I look forward to hearing from the Minister what the Government’s plan is.
While reviews are perhaps necessary in some areas, it is important not to confuse a review with action. The Minister kindly met with me last week to discuss my amendments, and it was clear at that meeting that the review would not be a consultation on specific proposals; those would have to come later. Added to any timelines for action would be a consultation on the outcomes of the review, and then, subject to its findings, further legislation. In reality, we are talking about a timeline extending over several years.
I am afraid that is not good enough on an area where there is clear evidence to support action now, and that is on improving paternity leave. It has been said that we are an outlier on how bad our paternity leave is in the UK and how unequal provision is between mums and dads or second parents. And yet, if you increased paternity leave to six weeks’ pay at 90% of salary, capped at average earnings, as my Amendment 127 does, the evidence for the benefits is overwhelming.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, has said, it would improve things for dads. This week is Mental Health Awareness Week. According to research by the Dad Shift and Movember, nearly half of new dads report experiencing multiple symptoms of depression in the first year after their baby is born; 82% of them agree that better paternity leave is the number one thing that the Government could do to protect new dads’ mental health. We have heard how it will support new mums and kids too. And it will support economic growth—and that is meant to be this Government’s number one priority.
This last point is really important. In our discussions on this Bill, I am acutely aware about the concerns employers have expressed about many aspects of the Government’s plans, but, in the context of our earlier debate on statutory sick pay, it is important to remember that statutory paternity pay is reimbursed for businesses at a rate of 92% for larger businesses and 108.5% for those which qualify for small business relief. Of course, it is not only the pay that affects business but also the prospect of more administration and disruption, which can be a concern. This is why for smaller businesses the government compensation rate is at over 100%.
As we are so far behind many other countries when it comes to paternity leave, we can look at whether those concerns have been borne out in practice when leave is more generous. The short answer is that they have not. A study by the National Bureau of Economic Research in the US on Danish parental leave showed no reduction in firms’ output or decline in the wellbeing of other employees at the firm when parents took time off at the birth of their child.
One of the reasons that better paternity leave has the potential to bring such significant economic gains is that, although you lose the dad's economic output for the time he is off, the loss is limited to that period only, whereas for mothers you see an increase in labour market participation and hours worked on a sustained basis, increasing the level of economic activity overall. Reimbursing paternity pay would come at a cost to the Government, but again increased economic activity as a result of the policy would offset four-fifths of that.
It might also be argued that it is not a priority for employers or employees when there are so many other issues that need our attention. However, only 18% of the public think that two weeks is enough paternity leave and 81% agree with the statement that “I believe that giving fathers a decent amount of paid paternity leave so they can be a bigger part of their children’s lives is good for families and good for the country too”. That includes a majority of support from voters from all political parties across the spectrum, including Reform.
As I mentioned, many employers already offer enhanced pay and leave, because they see the benefits for their employees but also, as companies, for recruitment and retention of staff. According to CIPD data from 2024, around 30% of organisations enhance paternity leave beyond the statutory two-week minimum, and around 37% enhance paternity pay beyond the statutory provision.
If this is the case, why is government action needed? For two reasons, I think. First, we are talking about a culture shift. Our system of paternity leave does not reflect many people’s attitudes and plans for starting a family in today’s society. None the less, moving away from the current system is a big shift for our society, and it is one that will not happen on its own. At the moment, the statutory system tells employers that two weeks is enough, and it tells employees that that is all they can expect.
The second reason, as I have said, is that the Government reimburse employers for the statutory system. If a firm wants to go further than the statutory entitlements, they bear the burden of all the costs. That is particularly difficult for smaller businesses. While there are long-term benefits for employers, we also get benefits as a society for supporting people to start and grow their families, and we should recognise that. The CIPD asked employers about their views on paternity leave in 2022 and 2024, and almost half supported extending the statutory paternity leave and pay system, with only 24% opposing it.
Finally, I turn briefly to my other amendments in this group, which would make smaller, but none the less important, improvements to our system of paternity leave. Amendment 139 takes the new day one right to paternity leave included in this Bill and makes it paid. I have to confess that, from everything the Government had said, I thought it would be paid, as they always talk about extending the right to paternity leave and unpaid parental leave. Well, parental leave is always unpaid, so specifying it for one but not the other feels a little misleading.
It also makes no policy sense. We know the biggest barrier to take up of paternity leave is financial. The current statutory rate may be low, but it is far better than nothing at all, particularly at such a point of financial stress in families’ lives. It makes no sense to me that Ministers and the Government acknowledge that paternity leave should be a day one right but are introducing it in a way that makes it hard, if not impossible, for those who most need it to actually take it up. On the subject of costs to businesses, this would be minimal. As I have said, they are reimbursed for this cost.
Amendment 128 would require businesses with 250 or more employees to publish their leave policies on their websites. That would help people thinking about a job move to have transparency on what their entitlements are, and it would help create a race to the top, where companies would need to keep pace with their competitors to attract the best talent.
Unlike almost every other measure in the Bill, this policy has actually been consulted on. It showed that 98% of respondents supported the proposal, including 96% of businesses and business representative organisations. One of the consultees could be considered to be Sir Keir Starmer. He was asked about this policy by Mumsnet in 2020 and said:
“I completely support this. In fact I’m really surprised it hasn’t already happened … I will wholeheartedly support this”.
Perhaps, in responding to this debate, the Minister can explain to the Prime Minister why this has not happened already and why his Government do not want to take the opportunity of this Bill to correct it.
Baroness Morrissey (Con)
My Lords, I am also pleased to support Amendment 76 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, and add my voice to others in the Chamber asking the Government to review paid parental leave in this country. I confirm, as someone who is involved with a number of multinational businesses, that Britain certainly has fallen behind the modern practices of other countries.
I appreciate that, as my noble friend Lady Penn has already said, some Members of this Committee might consider this to be a matter best left to businesses rather than government policy or law. Unfortunately, in my experience, many British employers—not the ones cited by my noble friend Lady Penn, but the others—take a rather old-fashioned view of paternity leave, leaving the UK at risk of continuing with this unusually gendered approach to parenting and childcare, which is ultimately detrimental to society, to women, to men and to the economy.
As set out in my registered interests, I chair the Diversity Project, which seeks to future-proof the investment industry’s ability to attract and develop the very best talent. We have been working with almost 120 member firms on enhanced paternity leave and pay. There are a number of early adopters, including Aviva, Mercer, Janus Henderson and Julius Baer, which have all reported positive impacts on culture, retention and staff morale. In a “Dragons’ Den”-style competition —I do not see the noble Lord, Lord Sugar, in the Chamber—at our International Women’s Day event earlier this year, somewhat ironically, enhanced paternity leave was voted overwhelmingly by the audience as the single biggest game changer for women’s progress. I endorse the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, and others that this would help drive gender equality.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 127, 128 and 139, which I have signed, but all the amendments in this group have real value.
In my relatively long life, in which I have argued endlessly for human rights, I think there can be only one or two times when I have stood up and argued for men’s rights, because I feel they have plenty of them and they do their own arguing. But, of course, this is a human rights issue. It is not just men’s rights; it is women’s rights as well, because the mothers will benefit if the fathers have parental leave.
Statutory paternity leave does not support families only in their first weeks; it helps rebalance society by moving away from a statutory parental leave system, which sends a strong message that parenting is a woman’s job and that men should keep working and stay out of the home. That idea is not just present in the legislation; it is embedded and deeply rooted in many people’s prejudices. Maternity leave is already a very hard-fought and essential right, but the imbalance between maternity and paternity leave is structurally embedding gender differences that do not benefit society.
This legislation can set young families up for a stronger start by ensuring that new fathers have plenty of paid time off work in those early weeks and months that are so crucial to a child’s development. I hope the Prime Minister was listening to the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, and that he will perhaps urge this House to adopt at least some of these amendments.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I have put my name to Amendment 76 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, and Amendments 127 and 128 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Penn. I rise as one of, I think, only two fathers in this debate so far and, as it happens, a recent grandfather. I thought it would be helpful to have a little bit of balance in a discussion on a group of amendments which is about what appears to be an imbalance in the respective roles of fathers and mothers.
It seems to me that there are three key reasons to act, rather than to think and debate and dance on the head of an ever-smaller pin. The first is the early years argument. I, together with other noble Lords and noble Baronesses, will be arguing the case for early years being included and very deeply thought about in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill. Indeed, the Secretary of State for Education yesterday said that early years was her number one priority. It is inarguable that changing our approach to paternity pay and giving fathers the opportunity to have a much greater presence in the lives of their children in the early years—and also, very importantly, in support of their partner or spouse, particularly if she is working or is attempting to work—is frankly a no-brainer. In that context, that is a very good first reason.
The second reason is that the economic arguments for this are also very strong. The report by the Joseph Roundtree Foundation, which came out only three weeks ago, and which was mentioned by, I think, the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, is fairly convincing. It says:
“Building on the evidence from other countries on the impact of paternity leave, the”
Centre for Progressive Policy—one would imagine that His Majesty’s Government would be in favour of an institute with a name like that—
“has modelled the economic costs and benefits of more generous paternity leave options. This novel model was built to help policy-makers understand the labour market effects – and associated economic and tax costs – of varying paternity leave terms in the UK”.
Its conclusions were very simple:
“The modelling shows a positive economy-wide effect of £2.68 billion, driven by the gains achieved when more women move into work and work more hours”.
The second bullet point is particularly apposite to the Government’s aims and what they are trying to achieve with the Bill:
“The modelling also shows that the increase in labour market outputs for this policy option is mainly driven by those at the bottom and middle of the labour market”.
That is a policy outcome you would think was very close to the Government’s heart.
Turning to the third and final reason, for 31 years I was a professional headhunter and, as a headhunter, you become relatively expert in what I might call the psychology of attraction and repulsion—what attracts people to particular types of employment or employer, and what detracts from that degree of attraction. There is increasing evidence to show that companies that are thoughtful, progressive and transparent about the offering they are making to both fathers and mothers stand a much better chance in this labour market of attracting people of real talent who have many choices they could follow up on. Also, relating back to comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, in a previous group, an important issue is that many individuals have a degree of trepidation about working for potential employers because they are uncertain of the working environment and how it might impact on their ability to play a full part in family life.
For those three key reasons, I support not only having a long hard look at paternity leave—as the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, said, frankly, we have been looking at it for longer than is either necessary or good for us—but, for the good of families and children, just getting on with it.
Baroness Whitaker (Lab)
My Lords, I add my support to this group, in particular to Amendment 76 in the name of my noble friend Lady Lister. I commend her illuminating and penetrating introduction. Indeed, all the speeches that we have heard set out a very strong case.
When I worked in an organisation, I had women colleagues whose partners could not afford to take even the leave they were entitled to, thus further burdening the tired mother and losing those irreplaceable bonding first days, to the detriment of both child and father, as many noble Lords have said. That bonding and support for the mother is just as important for adoptive fathers and stepfathers. Why should self-employed fathers be unequally treated? They are just as much fathers. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will carry out the review as set out in this amendment.
Lord Bailey of Paddington (Con)
My Lords, I support Amendments 127, 128 and 139 from my noble friend Lady Penn. I too am a father, so I have an interest in that regard. These amendments will be very useful to the poorest families in the country because currently, only the very well paid get access to serious paternal leave.
As someone who comes from a community that has suffered horribly from the absence of fathers, I know that an early intervention that ties a father emotionally, financially and in any other way to that family unit is very important. The impact it has on educational outcomes and the finances of the family into the future are hugely important. My community is more than three times more likely to be impacted by poverty and all the downsides that poverty inflicts because of that lack of an initial paternal connection to the family.
This country is also facing a very low birth rate. Many young men in this country will tell you that they cannot afford to have children. Paternity leave will be a big part of addressing that. So, supporting our birth rate in this country—addressing that demographic time bomb—is very important.
The mental health of men in this country has been poor for a very long time. Part of turning that around is improving how fatherhood is perceived, so that young men in particular lean into that role and take pride in being a father. That also has a strong knock-on effect for the women involved: they receive support in the home, and it helps them return to their own careers, as we have heard from so many Members of your Lordships’ House. In the poorest communities in this country, many of the real breadwinners in the household are the women. If they can be supported back to work, that will have a profound impact on the mental well-being of the entire family.
I have been on a personal journey to make this a day one right. Because of the profound effect that the lack of a father in the household has on many aspects of society, this should be a day one right. Basically, some things are just worth paying for, and if this has a cost to the Government, so be it, because the upsides, socially and financially, are massive and beyond measurement.
Lastly, as is well documented and as many noble Lords have already said, the benefits to companies are profound. The challenge will be the smaller companies, where one or two people form a significant proportion of the workforce. That is where this conversation has to be sold, where the rhetoric is important, because if smaller companies adopt this approach, I believe it will happen. Larger companies already know the benefits this has for their workforce.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)
My Lords, I beg to move that the debate on this amendment be adjourned.
Lord Katz (Lab)
My Lords, it has been agreed by the usual channels that we break at a time convenient for the Minister to make a Statement, thus allowing her to continue her other business outside the House.
Lord Katz (Lab)
My Lords, if I felt we were able to finish the group in the next five minutes, that would be fine. We have had a good debate, but this is an important topic, and it is important that the Committee is able to finish the group by hearing from any other Back-Benchers who might wish to contribute, as well as from the Front-Benchers and the Minister. All of the Committee might not be aware of it, but we have agreed through the usual channels that we will have the dinner break early to accommodate the repeat of the Statement. We are ultimately in the whole Committee’s hands. That is why we are breaking now. I know it is not usual to break midway through a group, but, as I say, it has been agreed through the usual channels that a dinner break at 6.30 pm would take priority. Perhaps we can resolve this.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I have had confirmation from my side that the usual channels have agreed.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Katz, for his explanation.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
Stop groaning.
Normally, if today’s list says, “at a convenient time”, that means at the end of a group surely.
Lord Katz (Lab)
As I said, I understand that this is unusual, but it is in no way unprecedented. We have broken in the middle of a group before. It is not ideal, but we are where we are. I think it is in the best interests of the Committee, especially as it has been agreed through the usual channels, to hear from both Front Benches and any other Back-Benchers on this group in good time, and to hear, in the meantime, a repeat of the Statement from the Minister, so that everybody gets the best of all worlds. I know this is not usual practice, and we will endeavour not to do it on future Committee days.
Employment Rights Bill
Tuesday 13th May 2025
(10 months, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Employment Rights Act 2025 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 81-III(a) Amendments for Committee (Supplementary to the Third Marshalled List) - (13 May 2025)
Lord Harlech (Con)
My Lords, I support Amendments 127, 128 and 139 in the name of my noble friend Lady Penn. In so doing, I declare my interests as an employer and as the father of a four month-old son.
The amendments in this group seek to deliver a fairer, more modern and more economically rational approach to paternity leave in this country. They are modest in scope but transformative in impact. They are not about political ideology; they are about justice, equality, family well-being and economic prudence.
The case for action is overwhelming. Today in the United Kingdom we grant mothers 52 weeks of maternity leave. Fathers receive just two weeks and are paid a mere £187.18 per week for it, which is less than half the national living wage. That is not support, it is a symbolic gesture, and one that fails our families, our economy and our vision for a truly modern and inclusive society. As we have heard, the UK has the least generous paternity leave system in Europe and we rank 40th out of 43 OECD nations. While 22 OECD countries offer six weeks or more of well-paid reserved paternity leave, the UK offers just 0.4 weeks of full-time equivalent paid leave. Is that the legacy that we wish to defend?
The amendments seek to correct that imbalance. They would do three vital things: make statutory paternity pay a day-one right, just like paternity leave will be under the Bill; increase paternity leave from two weeks to six and raise the rate of pay to 90% of the father’s salary, capped at median earnings; and require transparency from large employers by mandating the publication of their parental leave policies. Each of those proposed reforms is supported by robust evidence, each is economically justified and, perhaps most importantly, each is backed by overwhelming public support.
The Government rightly propose to make paternity leave a day-one right, yet they do not extend that logic to pay. What message does that send—that a father may take time off but must go without income to do so? Incidentally, it is worth noting that that is currently the arrangement in your Lordships’ House. Perhaps if the Government are about fairness and workers’ rights, as they purport to be, that may be something that they wish to take up with the commission.
Research shows that the biggest barrier to fathers taking paternity leave is affordability. Nearly three-quarters of those who cut their leave short did so because they could not afford to stay off work any longer. What use is leave if it is unpaid?
Why six weeks, and why 90% pay? It is because we know, from the experience of countries such as Sweden, Germany, Spain and beyond, that reserved well-paid leave for fathers leads to profound benefits for families, for women’s equality, for children and for national prosperity. OECD data shows that, in countries offering fathers six weeks or more of well-paid leave, the gender wage gap is 4% smaller and women’s labour force participation is 3.7% higher. Why? It is because shared caregiving allows mothers to return to work sooner and on fairer terms.
However, this is not just a women’s issue; it is a fairness issue for all parents, and smart economic policy. The economic argument is striking. Closing the gender pay gap could boost UK economic output by £23 billion, while increasing paternity leave to six weeks at 90% pay could generate an immediate economic benefit of £2.6 billion. That is based on sound modelling endorsed by reputable analysts, including the Joseph Rowntree Foundation.
Moreover, 90% of businesses surveyed by the CBI say that inclusive workplace practices help them to attract and retain talent. Nearly three-quarters of employers that offer enhanced paternity leave report higher productivity—we were discussing productivity rates in this country in earlier groups; this is a solution to help that—and employee engagement. So let us discard the myth that this would be a bureaucratic cost; in truth, it would be a smart investment for business.
Let us also remember the human case. Better paternity leave benefits children. As my noble friend Lord Bailey said earlier, children with engaged fathers show higher academic achievement, greater resilience and stronger social skills. It benefits mothers: when care is shared, women can more easily return to the workplace and pursue their careers. It benefits fathers: longer paternity leave leads to better mental health—something that we also heard about earlier—stronger father-child bonds and more engaged parenting throughout childhood. If we want to build a society where men are not just allowed but expected and supported to care for their children, then this is the place to start.
The public are with us on this point. Some 81% agree that more generous paternity leave is good for families and for the country. Support crosses party lines: Labour, the Conservatives, the Liberal Democrats, the SNP and Reform all back this measure. This is not a fringe issue; it a mainstream demand and a moral necessity.
We have what is perhaps a once-in-a-generation opportunity to reshape the way this country supports fathers, mothers and children in their earliest days together. The proposed amendments are reasonable, grounded in evidence and long overdue. I urge the Government to accept them.
Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (PC)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, who made a compelling case for these amendments. I rise to speak in strong support of Amendments 139 and 76, tabled respectively by the noble Baronesses, Lady Penn and Lady Lister.
The UK’s statutory paternity leave—just two weeks, paid at £187.18 per week—is the most limited in Europe. In many OECD countries, six weeks’ leave at the equivalent of full pay is standard. By comparison, our offer is inadequate and outdated.
Eligibility for paternity leave is also restricted. It requires continuous employment with the same employer for 26 weeks before the 15th week prior to the due date. That excludes many fathers, especially those in insecure work, the self-employed, or those working in gig economy roles. Many are forced to take unpaid leave or use holiday just to be present at the start of their child’s life.
The impact is significant. The TUC reports that over half of families struggle financially when a parent takes paternity leave, and one in five do not take the leave they are entitled to, mostly for financial reasons. Research from Pregnant Then Screwed found that 70% of fathers who did not take their full leave had to cut it short due to cost.
This is not just about finances; it affects bonding with the child and support for the mother or birthing partner, and it reinforces gender inequality in unpaid care. The lack of accessible leave for fathers limits shared parenting and is a contributor to the gender pay gap and future pension pot inequality.
The Employment Rights Bill includes provisions to address some of these issues. Clauses 15 and 16 remove the qualifying periods for unpaid parental and paternity leave. Clause 17 removes the requirement to take paternity or adoption leave before parental leave, allowing paternity and adoption leave to be taken following shared parental leave. However, these clauses fail to tackle the low level of statutory paternity pay, or to extend fathers’ and second parents’ leave entitlement past two weeks.
While the Labour Party committed in its manifesto to review the parental leave system more broadly, the Employment Rights Bill provides an opportunity in the here and now to implement changes that would make a real difference to families and people considering having children. The noble Lord, Lord Bailey, mentioned the lower birth rate—an important context that we must take into account in considering in these amendments.
Amendment 139 from the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, offers a practical and immediate step forward. It would require statutory paternity pay to be a day one right, removing unnecessary barriers for thousands of working parents.
Amendment 76 from the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, backed by the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, would mandate a comprehensive review of paid parental leave within six months of the Bill becoming law. Importantly, it sets the terms of that review: to consider a statutory, non-transferable period of paid leave for second parents, to raise pay levels, and to include the self-employed.
This is not merely a social issue; it is an economic one. Many noble Lords have mentioned the modelling by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and the Centre for Progressive Policy, which suggests that increasing paternity leave to six weeks at 90% of earnings could contribute £2.68 billion to the UK economy by supporting more mothers to return to work and encouraging shared care from the outset.
Countries with more than six weeks’ paid paternity leave have significantly smaller gender pay and participation gaps, as we heard in the international examples shared by a number of noble Lords during this debate. The benefits are clear, and the public support reform—only 18% believe the current two-week offer is sufficient.
Other amendments in this group have been powerfully spoken to, such as Amendment 80 from the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, and Amendment 127 from the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, which both propose extended leave and fairer pay.
The case for reform has been compellingly made in this group. The Employment Rights Bill offers a real opportunity to modernise paternity leave, benefiting families, the economy and gender equality at work. I urge the Minister to consider the strength of the arguments presented today and to respond with the action that it deserves.
Lord Ashcombe (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak in support of Amendments 127, 128 and 139 in the name in my noble friend Lady Penn.
I would like to think that the birth of any child is an important day in the eyes of the father as well as the mother; yet, when it comes to the parental leave granted by companies, they are treated very differently: up to 52 weeks for the mother and two weeks for the father. On this basis, as we have heard, the United Kingdom compares very unfavourably with other European nations. In addition, 22 OECD nations offer more than six weeks, paid at the equivalent of 100% of salary.
The Government’s weekly rate of statutory pay, for the two weeks that it is paid to fathers in this country, is currently the lesser of £187.18 or 90% of average weekly earnings. This is a modest amount by any measure, given that the average full-time working man is paid just under £700 per week.
We have heard from other noble Lords of the benefits to fathers themselves, as well as mothers and children, when fathers are permitted to spend longer with the family in the early period of a child’s life.
I wish to draw on my personal experience. As I have said before, the company that I work for—Marsh, a very large insurance broker—now has a mature policy on paternity leave. Fathers are allowed to take up to 16 weeks’ leave, and the company ensures that they continue to be paid the equivalent of 100% of their salary during their time away from the workplace. Importantly, their job remains open for this period to facilitate their return. This benefit was not available to me when my sons were born in the 1990s—unlike the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, I have not yet reached grandfatherhood.
The time allowed must be taken within 52 weeks of the birth of the child, or children in the event of a multiple birth. I am sure that our competitors offer something similar, as competition for staff is an ongoing issue, and benefits count enormously in any discussion should a member of staff wish to change employer. Such a policy helps to define the culture of a company that cares not only for itself but also for the lives of its colleagues.
I do not believe that Amendment 128, which asks for parental leave policies to be published by large companies, is making an onerous request; indeed, publishing them would enable meaningful comparisons, inform jobseekers and encourage best practice across industry. I support it.
As I mentioned in an earlier group, happy staff tend to do good work. This is certainly a stressful time in any family’s life, and the mental health of staff is important, as we have heard today from my noble friend Lord Bailey of Paddington and others. It is one thing for a large company with the ability to cover a colleague’s workload to offer such a period of paternity leave, but this is obviously more challenging for smaller companies.
I am not suggesting for one moment that all companies should offer such generous periods of paternity leave as my own, much as I would have enjoyed it in my time. The birth of any child is, I hope, an exciting experience. It is also, in my experience, a somewhat nerve-wracking one, which can be ameliorated by parents being able to spend more time together during this period.
Two weeks of paternity leave is simply not enough. I encourage the Government to extend the statutory period for paternity leave to six weeks, as suggested in Amendment 127, and to provide a more generous level of salary. I hope that this will encourage fathers to take off this period, which, as I have demonstrated, is exceeded in some workplaces.
Finally, I will look briefly at Amendment 139, again in the name of my noble friend Lady Penn, on which I have changed my opinion during this debate. I believe that companies of all sizes feel that day one paternity leave is a step too far when the new employee has not even walked through the door. However, if the Government insist on this, it seems only right that fathers should receive statutory pay as a minimum. Companies obviously still have the opportunity to decide whether to go further, as would be the case for employees who have been part of the workforce for a certain period of time.
Lord Gascoigne (Con)
My Lords, I support Amendment 127 from my noble friend Lady Penn. I declare an interest—which I am increasingly discovering to be a growing financial interest—in the form of my two daughters, who are the most precious things to me.
I confess that I am glad that it is my noble friend Lady Penn who is leading the charge on this amendment, and the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, leading the group. I rise with some trepidation. I am not alone in being conscious that, in speaking to this amendment, as a man I am putting myself slightly in the firing line by somehow implying that a man should have exactly the same as the woman who has just carried and given birth to the child. As has been said, this is not about more rights for the man. It is more than that. It is about ensuring a dad can be at home to play their part for the child and, crucially, be there for the mum.
I am lucky and immensely grateful that, on both occasions when my wife gave birth to our children, I had two supportive bosses, one of whom I am delighted to say is still my boss, in the form of the Opposition Chief Whip. When the time came, my noble friend worked to give me the support and time I wanted to be with my family. When I was in the Government Whips’ Office, I worked with colleagues—two of whom I am pleased to see here, in the form of the noble Lords, Lord Evans and Lord Harlech—to ensure that we all got the time at home that we wanted, especially me. This is not unique, but I was lucky: lucky that it was offered, lucky that it was an open dialogue, lucky that I could ask for what I would like without recourse and was completely understood, and lucky that the support extended beyond the time I was at home. I was also lucky that my child was healthy and lucky that I had my in-laws around to help out.
Like so many in the country, I wanted to be at home to help, but also to share those early moments—the precious moments in a young child’s life that were mentioned earlier. I was there to help, tidy, ferry, feed, give cover and support my wife, who was recovering after surgery. To explain my personal circumstances, both of my children’s births were not simple. The first required emergency surgery, and then a return to hospital for another stay a week after coming home. Our second child’s birth was also complicated. Despite being a planned caesarean, the surgery did not go well and it required weeks of hospital visits. There is no way at all that my wife, on her return, could have looked after a newborn child, never mind our eldest or, indeed, herself.
I say this not for sympathy, or to suggest that I am special or unique, or deserve better support than others. General statistics show that, on average, a labour can last up to 18 hours. While around 46% of women who give birth in England spend one day in postnatal care, around 40% of women spend two days or more. Caesareans have increased over the last decade, amounting to over 40% of births. It is worth reflecting that the advice on caesareans is that for weeks the mother should not lift anything heavier than her own baby.
Not everyone is able to have a wider family network to rally in support. While I was lucky that I had support at work, some are not so lucky. They do not have a choice and have to return to work sooner than they would like to, as the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, said. Indeed, I read online that one dad was back at work 24 hours after their child was born.
I am a realist and I know that money does not grow on trees, and many businesses are already providing longer and better parental leave. Some may say that they have concerns about the impact on business and the economy, and I will not comment on the Bill as a whole, but it is obviously right that each and every day we should be supporting and helping businesses to grow—they pay the taxes and employ people.
Research shows that three-quarters of employers who offer extended leave see an increase in productivity and engagement, and almost 100% of fathers said flexibility is a deal breaker when looking for employment. As my noble friend Lady Penn said earlier, extended leave is good for parents, so that they can help and support one another; it is good for the child, to ensure that support is there for them, and to build bonds as part of a new unit; and it is good for forming another special bond, the one between employer and employee. I hope that all noble Lords, especially in my own party, recognise the merits of this amendment as something that is good for both business and families.
Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak very, very briefly. It is heartening to hear support for the amendments in this group right across the House. I will speak in particular to those from the noble Baronesses, Lady Lister and Lady Penn. I have already shared with the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, that, when I was at the TUC, I very, very vividly remember having conversations with young men who were working as riders and delivery drivers, and they really, really wanted to be good dads. They had young babies and children, and what was most important to them—and I hope others will reflect this in paying attention to how we make working families’ lives better—was predictability of shifts and guaranteed hours, so they would know how much money they could earn, but they also wanted paid paternity leave.
To keep this really, really brief, I have a couple of questions for my noble friend the Minister before she responds. First, can we accept that the starting point for a review would be to recognise that, compared with other countries, the UK is so ungenerous in its paid paternity leave? We do not need a huge review to know that; it is our starting point. If we are to move into the 21st century, we also need to recognise that new dads from all sorts of backgrounds want time to bond with their babies and be involved more equally in their care. Secondly, will this review focus specifically on paid paternity leave, working from the simple premise that, unless it is paid, there are whole swathes of new dads who simply cannot afford to take it?
I have been encouraged by the discussion around the House. I think there is a cross-party consensus that we all want to see new dads having that opportunity. We all know it will bring benefits for women—including closing the gender pay gap—and opportunities for children to have a better life, too.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Penn for her very thoughtful amendments in this group. I acknowledge the valuable contributions from all noble Lords, in particular the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, for introducing her amendments, and the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, for introducing his amendments and, perhaps more importantly, reminding the House of the Conservative-led coalition Government’s work in this area—although I note that he did not heap praise on the then Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my right honourable friend Iain Duncan Smith.
We fully recognise and support the intention behind these proposals, which is to strengthen support for families and in particular to enhance the role of paternity leave in allowing fathers to spend essential early time with their children. This is a laudable aim that clearly finds broad sympathy across the House.
However, while the objective is clear and commendable, we must also consider the practical implications of how such policies are implemented, particularly in relation to the impact on businesses. Many employers, large and small, continue to face significant challenges in the current economic climate, as we have discussed at length this evening. The introduction of new requirements, even when limited to large employers, must be approached with caution and care, and I acknowledge that my noble friend Lady Penn addressed many of those concerns directly in her speech.
As for the reporting obligations set out in Amendment 128, tabled by my noble friend, these would apply to businesses with 250 employees or more. While this threshold helps to focus the requirement on larger organisations, we should still be mindful of the potential administrative and financial burdens such reporting could entail. Even within that category, resources vary significantly, and not all may be equally equipped to take on new reporting functions—a point that was addressed by my noble friends Lord Bailey and Lord Ashcombe. That said, transparency and data collection can play a valuable role in shaping effective policy. If it can be clearly demonstrated that these measures would bring mutual benefits, improving employee well-being and retention, for example, without imposing disproportionate costs or complexity on employers, it is certainly something that we should be prepared to consider further.
Ultimately, we have to strike the right balance, ensuring meaningful support for families while safeguarding the viability and flexibility of the businesses that employ them. That is the lens through which we should view not just this amendment but the broader provisions of the Bill.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Leong) (Lab)
My Lords, this has been a wide-ranging, informative and very exciting debate. I thank all noble Lords who have contributed. I take this opportunity to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, on his four month-old son. I begin by recognising the key role that parental leave plays in supporting families—I wish it had been available when I became a father, at a much older age, some 18 years ago. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, for sharing his story about the difficult time he had during the birth of his children.
This Government understand that the arrival of a child, whether through birth or adoption, is the most transformative time in a family’s life. We understand that the current parental leave system needs changing so that it better supports working families. We have committed to do this and we are taking action in a number of different ways. Through this Bill, the Government are making paternity leave and parental leave day-one rights, meaning that employees will be eligible to give notice of the intent to take leave from the first day of employment. I hope that many noble Lords will welcome this position. This brings such leave in line with maternity and adoption leave, so simplifying the system.
Baroness Penn (Con)
The Minister said that this brings paternity leave in line with maternity leave, but for maternity leave, the right to pay is also a day-one right. Does he acknowledge that the Bill does not create alignment between maternity and paternity?
Lord Leong (Lab)
The noble Baroness is absolutely right. I just said that the leave is the same as maternity leave, not the pay. This brings paternity leave in line with maternity leave and adoption leave, thereby simplifying the system. We are removing the restriction preventing paternity leave and pay being taken after shared parental leave and pay, to further support working parents in assessing the entitlements available to them. Separate from the Bill, planning work is under way for the parental leave review, which will explore how well the current system supports working families and what improvements could be made.
Amendments 127, 80, 138 and 139 seek to make changes to paternity leave and pay. Amendments 127 and 139 are in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Penn. Amendment 127 seeks to extend statutory paternity leave and pay from two weeks to six weeks and to increase the rate of pay to the lower of 90% or national median pay—although the drafting relates specifically to pay. Amendment 139 seeks to make statutory paternity pay a day-one right for all employees by removing the current continuity of working requirements. The noble Lord, Lord Palmer, has laid two similar amendments, Amendments 80 and 138. Amendment 80 would increase the minimum length of paternity leave from two to six weeks and require regulations to introduce the ability to take paternity leave at any time in at least the first year following birth or adoption. Amendment 138 calls for the existing flat rate of statutory parental payments to be increased, by doubling the rate from £184.03 to £368.06.
I hope to reassure the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, in part by highlighting several reforms to paternity leave and pay which took effect in April last year. These changes now allow eligible parents to take their leave and pay in two non-consecutive weeks; to take their leave and pay at any point in the first year after the birth or adoption of their child, rather than only within the first eight weeks, as was previously the case; and to give shorter notice for each period of leave. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, will therefore agree that, while well-intentioned, Amendment 80 is not necessary in relation to when paternity leave is taken, for the reasons I have just explained.
Baroness Penn (Con)
Will the noble Lord clarify whether he just said that there are no day-one rights to parental pay, including for maternity?
Lord Leong (Lab)
I will read it again. Amendment 139 would make statutory paternity pay a day-one right. Currently, no parental pay entitlements are available from day one, including maternity pay.
Baroness Penn (Con)
Does the noble Lord acknowledge that maternity allowance is available from day one, at the same rate of pay as statutory paternity pay?
Lord Leong (Lab)
The noble Baroness is absolutely right: maternity allowances are available from day one.
Parental pay entitlements require employees to meet an average earnings test. Calculating whether newly employed parents have met this threshold would present a significant challenge to their new employers who administer parental payments.
Amendments 127, 138 and 139 would introduce a cost burden to the Exchequer at a time when public finances are under pressure. When considering calls to increase the level of parental pay generally, any changes will need to take account of the economic situation, the financial impact on employers and the needs of parents, and be made in consultation with businesses and stakeholders. The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions is required by law to undertake an annual review of benefits and state pensions, including statutory payments. This is based on a review of trends in prices and earnings growth in the preceding year. Generally, as with other benefits, parental payments are increased in line with CPI. For example, statutory maternity pay, statutory paternity pay and statutory adoption pay will all increase by 1.7% in April 2025, in line with the September 2024 CPI figure.
Baroness Penn (Con)
Does the noble Lord acknowledge that, in linking the payments to CPI, what is actually happening is that we are seeing a bigger gap between statutory payments and people’s salaries, as the national minimum wage is increasing by a greater degree? The process that the noble Lord has laid out is increasing the problem that we have of payments not coming anywhere close to replacing wages.
Lord Leong (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for that. That is the situation as it is now. Until and unless things change, that is what is happening.
Depending on individual circumstances, additional financial support will be available to parents. For example, universal credit, child benefit and the Sure Start maternity grant may be available alongside statutory parental pay.
I turn to the issue of shared parental leave. Where fathers and partners want a longer period of leave and pay, shared parental leave and pay is already available. Shared parental leave and pay offers up to 50 weeks of leave and up to 37 weeks of pay, which can be created for parents to share from maternity entitlements that the mother does not intend to use. Parents can use the scheme to take leave together for nearly six months, or intersperse periods of leave with periods of work.
I turn to Amendment 136, again laid by the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, and supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, which calls for individuals who are self-employed or contractors to have access to statutory adoption pay within six months of the passage of the Bill. It would also require the terms “self-employed” and “contractors” to be defined in regulations, to set out a clear description of who would qualify for statutory adoption pay under this extended eligibility.
I want to reiterate my appreciation and gratitude towards all adoptive parents, who provide loving and stable homes to children who are unable to live with their birth parents. Currently, parental leave and pay entitlements are generally not available to the self-employed. This focus on providing parental leave and pay to employees is rooted in the understanding that employees often have less flexibility and control over their working conditions than those who are self-employed. There is of course the exception of maternity allowance, which is available to self-employed mothers as an important health and safety provision. It makes sure that mothers can take time away from having to work to recover from childbirth, bond with the child and establish breastfeeding if they wish to do so. For parents who do not qualify for adoption pay—for example, those who are self-employed or contractors—statutory adoption guidance advises local authorities to consider making a payment similar to maternity allowance.
In November 2024, the Government published Keeping Children Safe, Helping Families Thrive, in which we allocated £49 million to the adoption and special guardianship support fund for this financial year. This will enable local authorities and regional adoption agencies to offer a wide range of tailored support, including psychotherapy, family therapy and creative therapies, to adoptive families. These services are available following a locally conducted assessment of the adoptive family’s needs.
Amendment 128, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, would commit the Government to introducing regulations requiring organisations which employ more than 250 people to publish information about their parental leave and pay policies. It is true that parental leave and pay policies are not extras. They are essential policies that allow people to manage their professional and personal responsibilities and play a huge role in addressing wider social and economic issues.
The Bill contains a number of measures which will improve the support working families receive, most notably by: putting in place legislation that makes it unlawful to dismiss pregnant women, mothers on maternity leave and mothers who come back to work for a six-month period after they return—except in specific circumstances; making flexible working the default, except where not reasonably feasible; and the requirement that large employers produce equality action plans. We feel that we are already striking the right balance between doing more to help working families and ensuring that these changes are manageable for employers to respond and adapt to. Therefore, we do not believe this is the right time to legislate to require publication of parental policies.
Amendment 76, tabled by my noble friend Lady Lister, would make it a legal requirement for the Secretary of State to begin a review of paid parental leave within six months of Royal Assent and to lay the review before Parliament within 18 months. I share the desire of all the noble Lords and Baronesses who have tabled these amendments today: I too want to see change made to the parental leave system to better support families, and I thank them for their clear dedication to improving the lives of parents and children. I recognise their concerns that the current system reinforces outdated gender roles. The responsibility for childcare remains, for many families, with the mother. For many, this will be through choice, but it is also reflective of a system that grants fathers and partners a short period of time off to be with their partner and child during this first year of life. Shared parental leave is available to qualifying fathers and partners who wish to take a longer period, but take-up remains low.
Family life has changed radically since the 1970s, when the then Labour Government passed the Employment Protection Act, which established the right to maternity leave for working mothers. We all agree that improvement needs to be made, and this Government have already begun that work by making paternity leave and parental leave day-one rights through this Bill. This removes a layer of complexity and makes the system more accessible. More needs to be done, and I recognise the fair point raised by my noble friend Lady Lister in Amendment 76 that a review needs to address the disparities in the current system.
The plan to make work pay—a manifesto commitment —committed to a review of the parental leave system within the first year of a Labour Government to ensure that it best supports working families. Planning is under way, and we hope to provide further detail soon.
Baroness Penn (Con)
Can the Minister confirm that the Government will meet that manifesto commitment to start the review within the first year, and can he give a timescale not just for when the review will start but for when it will be completed?
Lord Leong (Lab)
I can give the commitment that we will do this within the first year of the Labour Government.
Lord Leong (Lab)
We are planning and conducting the review within the first year of the Labour Government.
It would be premature to make further legislation in this space before the parental leave review has taken place. We will, however, take my noble friend’s ideas and concerns into consideration, and I look forward to updating your Lordships’ House on the review.
Before I conclude, we understand the concerns raised by—
Lord Fox (LD)
Before the Minister exits the review, it clearly reflects on a number of the issues in the Bill. It would make an awful lot of sense, if the Government are going to do this within the first year—which, by the way, is not very much longer—to be able to present us with the findings of that review so that we can reflect them in what we bring back on Report.
Lord Leong (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for that intervention, and I will speak to my officials and write to all noble Lords accordingly regarding the review.
We understand the concerns raised by micro and small businesses around proposed day-one rights to paternity leave. Those employers often work with very lean teams and tight margins, so any perceived increase in entitlement can raise questions about costs and continuity. Introducing day-one rights is about fairness and consistency. It ensures that all fathers, regardless of tenure, have the opportunity to support their families at a critical time.
Baroness Penn (Con)
I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord again. He has just talked about the importance of a day-one right to paternity leave, giving fathers the ability to take that leave, but, as the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, said, unless it is paid, swathes of dads will not be able to afford to take it. If the Government recognise the importance of this, why will they not make it paid?
Lord Leong (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for that. As I said in my previous paragraph, we are making day-one rights such as this and consulting, and the review will look at all the issues that the noble Baroness has brought forward. Until we get the review done, I really cannot commit to anything at this stage.
For businesses, this kind of support fosters loyalty and improved retention in a competitive hiring environment. Demonstrating a commitment to family-friendly practices helps attract and keep skilled employees. We also encourage proactive workforce planning. Cross-training and flexible staffing arrangements can mitigate disruption during short absences. Many small employers already manage similar situations around holiday leave or illness, so this policy is not about adding burden but about building a workplace culture where staff feel valued from the very start. We are committed to working with small businesses to ensure that the transition is smooth, supported and sustainable.
I hope I have reassured all noble Lords of the Government’s commitment to parental leave and respectfully ask that the amendment be withdrawn.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, before the Minister sits down, can I, first, just make an observation? Having listened to him reading from his brief, I wondered how many members of the team who prepared the brief have themselves ever been able to take paternity leave, because it certainly did not sound like they had. Secondly, as the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, said in her intervention, she was very happy with the support from across the House for paternity leave being changed, and quickly. Those of us in the House who are in front of and to the side of the Minister were able to witness the body language of his Back-Benchers. Having seen that, I will say only that I suggest that going and sitting down with them as a group between now and Report might be helpful.
Lord Leong (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for that, and I will probably take up his idea.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I thank everybody who contributed to this debate. I particularly thank all the fathers who contributed; they made it very much an issue for fathers and brought their personal experience to it. That was very important, and I value it.
The noble Baroness, Lady Penn, pushed and pushed on the question of the timeline. As far as I understand it, it is starting to happen and will start within the first year of a Labour Government, but there remains a question about when it will finish. Perhaps the Minister can take away that question and see whether he could bring back in a letter before Report a clearer idea of what the timeline will be and exactly what it will look like. I must say that, if the scenario that the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, laid out is how it is going to be, I would find that disappointing. It would be very disappointing for many people in this Committee who have supported the raft of amendments so powerfully.
I ask that a copy of this debate is given to the Minister responsible for this review. I think it would help that Minister, whoever it is, to see just how strong the feeling is, across this Committee, that this needs looked at—in particular, from the perspective of fathers and the raw deal that they get.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, pointed out, this is a human rights issue. I am more used to talking about women’s rights than men’s rights, but I hear that this is one of those issues where the two come together and the one supports the other. It is so good to see this acknowledged across the Committee in that way.
My noble friend the Minister said he hoped that we had been reassured, but I have to admit that I was not—I am sorry. There was a lot of talk about better support for working families. What I did not hear—I will read Hansard—is a clear acknowledgement that this is about a better deal for fathers, and that from that then flows a better deal for mothers, children, families and the economy. The noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, talked a bit about the costs, but this could be good for the economy and for business, and I think that perhaps that needs to be recognised more.
I will not say any more now. I ask that my suggestion that this debate be brought to the attention of the Minister responsible for the review is taken seriously—there is nodding from the Front Bench in front of me.
I cannot speak for the body language of all my colleagues here on the Back Benches, but I think it has been a very good debate and worth having. We need to think about what we want to do on Report, and I am sure this will come back in some form then. I ask that officials give more thought to what was really motivating this debate in what is presented back to us on Report, because I am not sure that they really got it—and this is too important for it not to be got. I will leave it at that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, but I look forward to continuing the conversation across the House.
“Foster carer’s leave(1) The Employment Rights Act 1996 is amended as follows.(2) In the title of Part 8B, for “CARER’S LEAVE” substitute “CARER’S LEAVE AND FOSTER CARER’S LEAVE”. (3) After section 80J (Carer’s leave) insert—“80JA Foster carer’s leave(1) The Secretary of State must make regulations entitling an employee to be absent from work on leave under this section in order to undertake activities as a result of being a local authority foster parent.(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), “local authority foster parent” is defined in accordance with section 105 of The Children’s Act 1989.(3) The regulations must include provision for determining—(a) the extent of an employee’s entitlement to leave under this section;(b) when leave under this section may be taken.(4) Provision under subsection (3)(a) must secure that where an employee is entitled to leave under this section the employee is entitled to at least a week’s leave during any period of 12 months.(5) The regulations may make provision about how leave under this section is to be taken (including by providing for it to be taken non-continuously).(6) The regulations may provide that particular activities are, or are not, to be treated as providing or arranging care for the purposes of this Part.”(4) In section 80K—(a) in subsection (1), after “80J” insert “and 80JA”,(b) in subsection (2), after “80J” in both places it occurs insert “and 80JA”,(c) in subsection (4), after “80J” insert “and 80JA”, and(d) in subsection (5), after “80J” insert “and 80JA”.(5) In subsection (1) of section 80L, after “80J” insert “and 80JA”.(6) In section 80M—(a) In subsection (1)—(i) in the opening words, after “80J” insert “80JA”,(ii) in paragraph (e), after “80J” insert “and 80JA”,(iii) in paragraph (f), after “80J” insert “and 80JA”,(iv) in paragraph (g), after “80J” insert “and 80JA”,(v) in paragraph (h), after “80J” insert “and 80JA,(b) In subsection (2), after “80J” insert “and 80JA”, and(c) In subsection (3), after “80J(4)” insert “and 80JA(4)”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause ensures local authority foster parents are entitled to at least one extra week’s leave every 12 months.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
In moving my Amendment 77, I shall speak to Amendments 78, 79, 135 and 144 in my name. Amendment 77 seeks to extend to foster carers the leave given to carers, and I hope that noble Lords will see this as a necessary clarification, which is all that it is. Amendments 78 and 79 focus specifically on kinship carers and would require larger employers—those with over 250 staff—to review the support they offer to unpaid carers. Amendments 78 and 79 seek to address a significant gap in employment rights for kinship carers by introducing a new entitlement to kinship care leave. Amendment 78 proposes a provision to establish this right, while Amendment 79 links the proposed entitlement to the broader provisions of the Bill.
These amendments respond to a pressing social need. Over 130,000 children across the UK are currently being raised in kinship care arrangements—more than three times the number in foster care. Despite the critical role that kinship carers play, often stepping in during times of crisis to prevent children entering the care system, they receive far less support, including in the workplace. Introducing a specific entitlement to kinship care leave would provide families with much-needed time and space to adjust, to make the necessary arrangements and to ensure the child’s well-being during what is often a traumatic transition. Not only would this improve outcomes for children and families but it would help relieve pressure on the formal care system, where costs are often excessive and the emotional toll on children is, I am sure, significant. In enabling kinship carers to remain in employment while fulfilling their caregiving responsibilities, these amendments recognise the long-term social value of keeping children within loving, familiar, family environments.
Amendments 78 and 79 would introduce a right to kinship care leave and link it to broader employment provisions. As I say, 130,000 children in the UK are in kinship care, which is more than three times the number in foster care. Kinship carers often step in during family crises, preventing children entering state care, yet they lack formal workplace protections. These amendments would provide time for families to adjust and to support a child’s transition—especially vital in sudden or emergency situations. I maintain that supporting kinship care is cost-effective and reduces reliance on costly private care providers that profit from family meltdown. This is about reshaping workplace culture to reflect the reality of modern families and ensure that children can remain in loving, stable homes. These proposals align with broader efforts to reform the care system and should be viewed as part of a compassionate, pragmatic approach to child welfare.
Amendment 135 would make carer’s leave a paid entitlement. I do not really need to add more than that.
Amendment 144 would require employers with more than 250 employees to consider what support they offer to unpaid carers within their workforce when publishing their gender equality action plans. This is a modest but important step towards recognising the hidden pressures faced by most employees, most often women, who juggle paid work with unpaid caring responsibilities.
Unpaid carers are the backbone of our social care system—where would we be without them? Yet their contribution is routinely overlooked in workplace policies and gender pay gap reporting. By including consideration of unpaid carers in gender equality action plans, we would acknowledge the real-life factors that contribute to disparities in career progression, earnings and job security. Employers cannot meaningfully address gender equality without recognising the care burden that disproportionately falls on women. This amendment is a practical and proportionate way in which to ensure that unpaid carers are no longer invisible in workplace policies.
When drafting my words for today, I did not realise how important kinship care was. One talks about the mothers and fathers, but very often it is the aunts, uncles, grandmothers and grandpas—other people who are kin to the child—who are not recognised in our system as producing the support that our system requires. I hope that noble Lords will support the amendment in my name, which I beg to move.
Lord Brennan of Canton (Lab)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 81, standing in my name in this group, if that is in order at this stage. It is a privilege to speak to this amendment. Although it stands in my name, I am just a vessel in this case; the credit for getting the amendment to this stage and in this shape should go to the members of the House of Commons Women and Equalities Committee, but particularly to the wonderful chair of that committee, my good friend Sarah Owen MP. Her tireless and passionate advocacy in raising the issue of the need for bereavement leave following pregnancy loss has successfully persuaded the Government that action is necessary on this particular matter. Therefore, I hope that, when my noble friend the Minister replies at the end of the debate on this group of amendments, he will be able to indicate support for Amendment 81 or at the very least confirm that the Government will bring forward an equivalent amendment on Report.
Listening to and reading the stories of women and their partners affected by pregnancy loss is a very moving and powerful experience. However, unlike other parts of the pregnancy journey, such as IVF, there is often a cloud of secrecy around miscarriage, leading sometimes to a feeling that many women have that it is somehow their fault when pregnancy loss occurs. Sarah herself has spoken publicly with great courage, emotion and eloquence about her own experiences of pregnancy loss, and she has referred to that feeling, which is compounded by the fact that, having miscarried and experienced the related physical and emotional trauma, a woman is expected to apply for sick leave to deal with the bereavement of pregnancy loss.
Miscarriage is not a sickness; it is not a disease, and it is not the equivalent of having a heavy cold or any other infectious condition. Having to take sick leave to deal with the heartbreak of miscarriage trauma reinforces the idea that there is something wrong with the woman. That is the evidence that Sarah Owen’s committee received when it undertook its inquiry into this matter. It is also the case that taking sick leave will often trigger an HR process from an employer, which can enhance a feeling of insecurity of employment at a time of great vulnerability for the woman concerned.
Pregnancy loss bereavement should be treated in the same way as any other kind of bereavement suffered by workers, and it should therefore be a right in law, enacted through this Bill. In addition, this measure would help to lift that veil of secrecy and guilt around miscarriage and build more compassionate and human workplace environments. Sarah Owen herself has spoken movingly about this when describing and discussing her own experience of miscarriage. She said in the Commons:
“I experienced pregnancy loss while I was an MP, and the kindness of colleagues in this place got me though, but at no point did any of them wrap their arms around me and say, ‘Get well soon’; they all said, ‘I’m sorry for your loss.’”.—[Official Report, Commons, 11/3/25; col. 927.]
I believe that this amendment can help to drain that well of loneliness that can be felt when pregnancy loss is left unacknowledged in employment law and in the workplace, particularly as it is such a common occurrence.
Of course, partners need to be involved too. The committee heard compelling testimony from women who had experienced miscarriage that partners needed time to grieve their loss, as well as to accompany their partners to doctors’ appointments and so on. They heard from a witness who nearly bled to death on the way to hospital because her husband was not given time off work.
Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 134, which is in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Finlay of Llandaff.
The aim of this amendment is simple but vital. It seeks to provide day one financial support for parents of children diagnosed with a serious or life-limiting illness. It would create a new statutory right for parents to take a period of paid leave from employment to care for their seriously ill child. This right would apply to parents of children aged between 29 days and 16 years old who are receiving or have received specified types of medical or palliative care. The duration of this leave, including rate of pay, would need to be set out in regulation.
This amendment is tabled in honour of a young boy named Hugh, who sadly lost his battle to rhabdomyosarcoma, a rare form of cancer, at just six years old. His parents, Ceri and Frances Menai-Davis founded the charity It’s Never You to help support the parents of children who have been diagnosed with serious illnesses. They have been campaigning for three years to change the law and are here in the Gallery tonight to listen to this debate.
Throughout Hugh’s treatment, Ceri and Frances saw first hand the immense challenges faced by parents—not just the emotional and physical strain of caring for a seriously ill child but the severe financial pressures that come with it. Each year, around 4,000 families in the UK spend two months or more in hospital with their child, who is undergoing treatment for a life-threatening illness. These parents are being forced to make the impossible choice of earning a living or being by their child’s bedside. The current system is leaving these families unsupported at the most vulnerable moment in their lives. Many are selling their homes, their clothes and turning to crowdfunding sites like GoFundMe just to cover basic living costs, which can go against them in any application for universal credit.
At present, no parent is entitled to any financial support in the first 90 days of their child’s illness. After 90 days, they can apply for disability living allowance, which would help with the costs of caring for their sick child. But even then, successful DLA applications can take up to 20 weeks to be approved.
Of the families surveyed by It’s Never You, 90% believed that immediate financial support would have made a critical difference to the hardships they faced following their child’s diagnosis and treatment. This amendment seeks to build on important progress made through the 2023 Neonatal Care (Leave and Pay) Act. Under this Act, parents of babies admitted to neonatal care within the first 28 days of life and who require a hospital stay of seven continuous days or more, are now entitled to up to 12 weeks of statutory leave with pay for those eligible. This leave is also in addition to existing maternity or paternity entitlements.
Regarding these recent legislative changes, the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, remarked:
“No parent should have to choose between being with their vulnerable newborn or returning to work … We are giving parents peace of mind so they can focus on their family.”
Considering this statement, I would like to ask the Minister just one question. The Government clearly recognise that no parent should be forced to have to make such choices between their child’s health and employment. So why are they so reluctant to provide essential financial support to those vulnerable parents who are in equally devastating situations?
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
My Lords, I wish to speak to Amendment 77 on foster carers’ leave, and Amendments 78 and 79 on kinship carers’ leave. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, on bringing them forward.
Both types of carers, as the noble Lord said in tabling his amendments, provide a huge service by allowing children to remain in loving family settings, and both types will be the subject of wider consideration in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill. But today there is a need to ensure that the essential caring role they provide is acknowledged by making provision for them to have a right to leave, as do employees.
Foster carers at least receive fees and allowances, although a survey by The Fostering Network last year found that 32% of local authorities pay less than the national minimum allowance to their foster carers, and even those rates are out of date and fail to meet the costs of caring for a child. It is also essential that recognition be given to foster carers’ right to leave from work to enable them to respond to situations in the same way as birth parents are able to do.
There are over 150,000 children in kinship care in England, and yet there is a lack of understanding among the general public as to just what kinship care is and what it involves. It is any situation in which a child has been raised in the care of a friend or family member who is not their parent. The arrangement may be temporary, or it may be long term. Kinship carers need employment leave because they step up in times of crisis to provide love and care to children who may otherwise be sent to the care system—a situation that has often come about because of tragedy and/or trauma.
The period when the child moves in with a family can be difficult. They are likely to need a lot of support. Often, the carer has not planned to take on parenting responsibilities for one or more children, so they may have to spend time attending meetings with children’s services, being involved in court proceedings, finding a nursery or making arrangements with the child’s school and GP. Sometimes, children’s services place an expectation on kinship carers that they at least temporarily stop working, if they think it necessary to meet the needs of the child.
Whether the carer receives any local authority support, in a financial sense, in this situation is dependent on where the carer lives, the type of arrangement and whether the child is or was previously in the care system. More often than not, kinship carers become dependent on social security, which is simply not right or fair. Surveys by Family Rights Group have found that a third of working-age kinship carers are not in paid employment due to their caring responsibilities, and six in 10 kinship carers have to give up work or reduce their hours when the child comes to live with them.
The contrast between adoptive parents and foster carers is stark. Adopters are entitled to 52 weeks of leave and 39 weeks of pay to enable them to settle a child into their home. This is paid at 90% of average weekly earnings for the first six weeks, followed by a payment which currently stands at £184 a week for the next 33 weeks, and employers can usually reclaim almost all those costs. There is no equivalent employment leave entitlement or payment for kinship carers, but there should be. Amendment 78 would introduce significant steps towards that, because providing kinship carers with paid leave would provide families with financial security and lead to direct savings for the Treasury from kinship carers remaining in employment, reduced universal credit claims and greater tax revenues, not to mention wider social benefits from gains in children’s well-being and in GDP.
Foster carers and kinship carers do not simply provide a service to the children they look after: they provide a service to the Government by lessening the demands on children’s services and saving public expenditure. I very much hope that my noble friend will recognise this and give an assurance that she will bring forward a government amendment to right these very obvious wrongs around leave for foster carers and kinship carers, and recognise the vital service that they provide.
The Lord Bishop of Newcastle
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, for tabling Amendments 78 and 79, to which I have added my name in support. My comments will be brief. I add my voice to those of other noble Lords in the Chamber in appreciation of the debates that we have heard today on the detail of the Bill, which in many ways indicate the interrelatedness of the issues before us, and about what it is to live well together to enable the flourishing of every person throughout their whole lives.
I am very grateful to the Minister for her engagement with me over several months on the matter of kinship care, and I acknowledge the Government’s evolving view on how best to ensure consistent and sustainable support for kinship carers. I appreciate that the Minister is open to further conversations, and I look forward to them.
Part of the challenge is providing a clear, agreed and workable definition of kinship care, and there is more work to be done on this, recognising that Amendment 79 sets out in some way to go about this task. It is about finding the right balance to achieve what is needed in supporting kinship carers and is not so open as to be unworkable in law and unrealistic in affordability. That, to me, is a challenge—it is around the parameters of what kinship care is—but I do not think that it is unresolvable.
However, the longer we take to get to this point, the more lives are being impacted. Kinship carers are overrepresented in the health, education and social care sectors, so the withdrawal from this labour market has an obvious impact on wider society. The north-east region, which I serve, has the highest rates of children in kinship care. The impact of this in real terms, given multiple and systemic factors of inequality, is immense.
Amendment 78 would grant kinship carers the right to take statutory paid leave, as the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, said, akin to the entitlements of adoptive parents. It would allow them to spend a period of protected time with the children entering their care as they settle into their new arrangements. Further, it would enable caregivers to remain in employment while they adjust to their new responsibilities and continue contributing to the economic growth that this Government strive for.
I again thank the Minister for her willingness to meet me and engage with these amendments. I urge her to carefully consider the difference these amendments would make to the lives of kinship carers, to those growing up in their loving care and to wider society.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the right reverend Prelate, who makes a strong case for more support for kinship carers. I added my name to Amendments 135 and 144 to demonstrate cross-party support for a squarer deal for carers.
Before I add a brief word to what has already been said about carers, I add a quick word about Amendment 77, on foster care. A long time ago, my wife and I were registered foster parents in the London Borough of Lambeth. We did short-term fostering, typically when a mother went into hospital to have a child and somebody needed to look after her existing child or children. It is not quite clear from the wording of Amendment 77 how short-term foster parents might qualify if the amendment became law.
If the definition in Amendment 78 was used—namely, that the fostering of a child had to last a year—then short-term foster parents would not qualify, even though they might have been providing short-term fostering for up to a year with a series of different children. Short-term fostering can last from two days to two years. On the other hand, should a two-day short-term fostering spell qualify for leave on its own? Probably not—so, we need a bit of clarity on entitlement if this is to go further.
Baroness Pitkeathley (Lab)
My Lords, I support Amendments 135 and 144, which relate to unpaid carers. It is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, who is always so sound on carers’ issues. I declare an interest as vice-president of Carers UK.
Amendments 135 and 144 would provide employees with a statutory right to paid carer’s leave and require employers with over 250 employees to consider what support unpaid carers are given within their workforce when publishing action plans on gender equality. Both seem to be entirely sensible, and I am pleased they have received cross-party support. As noble Lords will know, I have long campaigned for greater employment rights for those juggling paid work with their unpaid caring responsibilities. This Bill is very welcome and includes many provisions which have a positive impact on working carers.
Millions of people are now doing this juggling act of paid work with their unpaid caring responsibilities, but this juggling act is very difficult to maintain. Despite pockets of good practice, a lack of support and understanding from many employers—and too few rights in the workplace—too often leaves carers with no choice but to give up work or turn to part time or insecure work. It is estimated that 600 people per day quit work to provide unpaid care, with real and lasting consequences for them and their families. That is not only bad for them but bad for their employers and the economy. As recently as March, the Government provided a new estimate of the cost to the economy of carers being unable to work, which the noble Lord, Lord Young, quoted. It was a staggering £37 billion a year—a huge figure.
We have made good progress in recent years. Indeed, the entitlement to a week of unpaid carer’s leave was secured, as we have heard, through the Carer’s Leave Act 2023, and it was a positive step in the right direction. However, it was always intended to be just that—we said this endlessly during the passage of that Act, as some noble Lords will remember—as it was a first step to be built on. I welcome that the Government have committed to review the implementation of the current right to unpaid carer’s leave under the Carer’s Leave Act 2023 and to consider whether there is a need for paid carer’s leave. However, I urge the Government to go further and faster to seize the opportunity in front of them. It is clear to me that we should be doing everything we can to ensure that all carers who are able and wish to work are able to do so. Surely this is part of what the Government are trying to do in other areas—encourage people back into the workforce.
Carers UK’s evidence shows that 80% of carers say that additional paid carer’s leave of between five and 10 days would better help them to juggle work and unpaid care, and 50% of carers would find it easier to return to work after a period of absence if they had access to paid carer’s leave. Almost half of those who have given up work or retired early—many people take early retirement specifically to take up caring responsibilities—said that paid carer’s leave would have helped them to stay in employment for longer had it been available at the time.
The modelling that Carers UK has undertaken based on existing employer practice estimates it would cost the Government between £5.5 million and £32 million annually to introduce paid carer’s leave, depending on the rate of compensation employees receive. I know that is a large figure, but it is in fact a small price to pay compared with the huge contribution made to our economy by carers.
Amendment 144, relating to equality action plans, is necessary due to the gendered nature of caring. At the heavy end of caring, women are still much more involved than men, and this impacts specifically on women’s employment. I understand and welcome that Ministers have been engaging with organisations such as Carers UK, as well as carer-friendly employers, over the last year. I am sure they will have heard much about the positive impacts that organisations such as TSB, Centrica and Phoenix Group can have on their employees by promoting best practice. However, that support should not be the preserve of employees who just happen to work for enlightened employers.
I agree with the Government that this Bill is pro-business and pro-worker. These amendments are too, and that is why I hope they will be supported by the Government.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
My Lords, I support Amendment 134 from the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson. She has highlighted that there is a glaring gap in our welfare system. It fails to provide adequate, immediate support for parents whose children fall seriously ill. Although the Neonatal Care (Leave and Pay) Act rightly recognised the need for non-means tested leave and pay when a child is critically ill at or shortly after birth, that protection vanishes as the child grows older. Parents whose children fall seriously ill beyond the neonatal period are left navigating benefits that are not suited to the immediate support they require.
Currently, there are only three options available for parents seeking that financial support. The first is universal credit, which is means tested and not easily accessible. The second, disability living allowance, was mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson. It can only be applied for three months after a diagnosis and then takes an additional 20 weeks—approaching half a year altogether—to process. DLA is also a requirement for claiming a blue badge—just to give an example of how long this process takes. The third option is 18 weeks of unpaid parental leave taken in four-week blocks within a calendar year.
So, there is a gap from day one to day 90 before a parent can apply for financial help. In these cases, it appears families face an impossible choice—financial insecurity or being at their child’s side during the most traumatic moment of their young lives. This amendment addresses that gap, providing a grant to the parents of a chronically sick child from day one. The grant will be limited to the first one to three months, and approved quickly by the consultant, with a renewal every month.
According to data from the Treasury, there are approximately 4,000 children each year who could be expected to have a hospital stay of two months or more. The cost of caring for a chronically ill child is estimated to be around £750 per month. According to estimates by the charity It’s Never You, if the Government were to provide two months of support during this gap period, it would cost around £6 million—a significant amount, but at the lower end of national spending in revenue terms compared with many of the options talked about today.
This amendment seeks to extend the principles of the Neonatal Care (Leave and Pay) Act to children up to the age of 16 in cases of serious illness. It builds on a clear precedent and introduces a compassionate, practical solution—non-means tested support—at that moment of crisis.
The impact on employers will be minimal, affecting, as I have stated, only a few thousand families a year. But the benefit to those families would be profound. This is precisely the kind of change where legislation can make a life-changing difference at very little cost. I urge the Government to consider this amendment, which is in keeping with the spirit of this legislation.
Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (PC)
My Lords, before I deliver my remarks in relation to the amendments that I have signed, I will add my support to the amendment on miscarriage leave from the noble Lord, Lord Brennan of Canton. My Plaid Cymru colleagues in the other place also supported that amendment, so I am glad to see that it has made its way to this House, too.
Amendment 135, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, would establish carer’s leave as a paid entitlement. I will keep my remarks brief, but I speak from lived experience. I became an unpaid carer at the age of 12. I know what it means to juggle education, work and caring responsibilities while having to repeat my story to NHS staff, college tutors, employers and the DWP. The obstacles I faced are not unique. I know that a number of carers who I spoke to in the past, and continue to do so, continue to face these obstacles. Those experiences led me to campaign on those issues, and I am proud to have influenced positive policy changes in Wales that make life a little easier for young carers trying to stay in education.
Amendment 135 would help build a safety net for the millions of people with unpaid caring responsibilities —people like I once was. The Government have made it clear that getting people back into work is a priority, and they also recognise that unpaid carers’ inability to work costs the economy £37 billion a year. Supporting carers to enter and stay in employment must therefore be seen not only as a social priority but an economic one. Introducing paid carer’s leave is not an expensive proposal. Modelling by Carers UK suggests it would cost between £5.5 million and £32 million per year, depending on the rate of compensation. Set against the cost of lost productivity, high turnover and pressure on health and social care systems, this is a modest and worthwhile investment.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I rise to support Amendment 135, to which I have added my name. It is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, especially given that she spoke from lived experience, which I think is really important.
I recently attended a policy breakfast about support for working carers, sponsored by the Centre for Care, Sheffield University. The unanimous view was that the leave has to be paid to make a real difference, and that is the message received from carers themselves, gathered by Carers UK. Many, especially those on low income, many of whom as we have heard are women, simply cannot afford to take unpaid leave. In the words of the Centre for Care:
“A statutory right to unpaid carer’s leave in the context of a gender-segregated labour market with a substantial gender pay gap is likely to substantially exacerbate inequality”.
The evidence it has collected shows that we compare badly to many other countries where paid carer’s leave is now taken for granted.
As I said on Second Reading, the argument rests not simply on the social and moral case—the huge difference it would make to the lives, health and well-being of carers—but on the strong economic case. It would increase the likelihood of carers entering or remaining in the labour force, thereby supporting the Government’s aim of increasing employment and promoting economic growth. As a Government-supported task and finish group noted, supporting carers to remain in paid work represents an economic opportunity. TSB, which provides its own carer’s support scheme, is clear about the value it provides for it as an employer, and therefore is one of many organisations calling for the Bill to include provision for paid carer’s leave. It is not just big employers that are supportive: a CIPD consultation with its members found that support among SMEs was not much lower than among large employers.
The original new deal for working people promised paid carers leave. I have a different quote from that given by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham. At the Commons Third Reading of the Private Member’s Bill which introduced unpaid leave just a couple of years ago, the Front-Bench spokesperson said that
“the next Labour Government will be committed to building on this legislation and introducing a right to paid carer’s leave in our new deal for working people”.—[Official Report, Commons, 3/2/23; col. 580.]
However, although he responded sympathetically on the issue on Report for this Bill in the Commons, the Minister could only say that, because the right to unpaid leave was enacted recently, the Government were
“reviewing this measure and considering whether further support is required”.—[Official Report, Commons, 11/3/25; col. 952.]
I echo the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Young, about whether my noble friend the Minister could explain this shift in attitude. I completely understand that the Government need to consider how paid leave should be designed, not least because we need to learn from other countries. Yet what is there to consider with regard to the need for further support, given the body of evidence which overwhelmingly demonstrates the case for it? Surely, we can show our commitment to unpaid carers by writing into the Bill an in-principle provision to cover the introduction of paid leave once a review of the details is completed. This would be wholly in line with the spirit of the Bill and consistent with the Government’s missions—not least their overriding pursuit of economic growth—while demonstrating support for a group at considerable risk of poverty.
The Government have demonstrated their commitment to carers, with action already taken on carer’s allowance, although its loss for thousands of carers as a result of the planned PIP cuts points in the opposite direction. Therefore, it is all the more important to use this Bill to demonstrate our commitment to carers who are desperately trying to juggle their responsibilities in the labour market and to their loved ones and our recognition of the importance of care to our society.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I commend the speeches that have been made, particularly on kinship care, but recognise the challenges that carers face. I am sure that the debate on remuneration for carer’s leave will continue. I am contributing on this group because of Amendment 81, from the noble Lord, Lord Brennan of Canton. I would say that it is quite odd for this to have been grouped alongside the other issues, recognising the very serious situation of pregnancy loss. Before the noble Lord spoke, I was not aware that this was relating to an inquiry at the other end. I have only just started reading aspects of that report, so I am not as fully informed as he was in presenting this. However, there are some issues here that I am concerned about.
Thinking through this, only three other countries in the world include parts of pregnancy loss in terms of being formally considered for bereavement leave. That is not a reason not to do it, but it is important to recognise that we would still be quite a considerable outlier. It needs careful consideration. I am not dismissing it in any way, but I am conscious that the Government responded on 25 March and I am slightly disappointed that we have not yet seen an amendment tabled. I appreciate that some of these things take a bit of time, but I had hoped that in Committee we would be able to consider what the Government were going to table in this regard.
As the Government have set out in their response to the committee and as is set out in ACAS guidance, a number of these issues are already covered in terms of pregnancy or maternity-related illness. I heard what the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, said about this becoming a potential HR issue. It is discriminatory for any such illness in any way, including miscarriage, and molar pregnancy and ectopic pregnancy would be covered very straightforwardly by that.
I have a particular concern about proposed subsection (2B)(a)(iv) in his Amendment 81, which widely casts the net of any medical abortion. It is already recognised that any abortion after 24 weeks is automatically covered in bereavement leave. The same is true of stillbirth, which, in the UK, is considered to be the loss of a pregnancy at 24 weeks and above. The two are not causal or directly related—obviously, there is a correlation in the timing. It just so happens that we have our current abortion limits, with certain exceptions, up to 24 weeks. So I am concerned that, in effect, proactive abortions taken up to 24 weeks would be covered in this amendment. I do not know whether that is the intention of the Government in their response, because, as I have said to the House already, I have not yet had the chance to read the entire report from the Women and Equalities Committee.
On proposed subsection (2B)(b), I say that I have had many friends who have, not always successfully, had children through IVF. Thankfully, many people do, but they recognise when they enter into it some of the challenges they definitely will face in trying to have a child by IVF. As it stands, on average, the success rate for a woman below 38 is about 35% for any particular embryo-transfer loss. Once a woman starts to go over the age of 40, that falls—it has gone up from 2012 from an 8% to a 10% success rate in 2022. That careful consideration needs to be thought about by the Government and your Lordships in this House when we decide to extend certain entitlements, while recognising the heartbreak that can happen at certain moments in people’s lives in these particularly sensitive moments. I am conscious that this is a sensitive issue to bring up at this point in the Bill.
I do believe that I would like to understand this in more detail. I will take the time to do some more research myself, but I am very keen to hear from the Government quite where this is stretching. I appreciate they have given a certain kind of wording to the House of Commons Select Committee on this point, but the provision of further details to the Committee here would be very welcome.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, I thank all speakers from your Lordships’ House for what has been an excellent debate. It is a genuine pleasure for me to participate, hopefully quite briefly.
The noble Lord, Lord Brennan, gave a moving speech, which was made more moving by the knowledge that Sarah Owen is at the Bar today, and I thank both of them for their contributions, but especially Sarah.
Amendment 81 has our support, not least as a catalyst to try to have the sort of debate we need and the careful consideration that the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, also alluded to. I hope it can start to move things forward.
We also support Amendment 134, which was so ably explained by the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, and supported by the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe. This again is an important issue that we want to have more conversations about following this debate.
My noble friend Lord Palmer gave a very spirited and strong advocacy for kinship care, and that was supported across the House—here is another area where there is an absolutely clear and present need for carers to be officially brought into the carers’ community.
The point on fostering was also well made by my noble friend, as was the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Young, about short-term fostering as something we should seek to bring into that. All these amendments are, in a sense, broadening the scope of carers and where we should be considering. For all of them, I hope the Minister will be able to stand up and say “Let’s have a debate following this particular group. Let’s talk with interested parties to see how some or all of this could start to be moved forward”.
I hope your Lordships will excuse me if I focus on paid carer’s leave. I had the great honour of piloting Wendy Chamberlain’s Private Member’s Bill through your Lordships’ House with, as the noble Lord, Lord Young, pointed out, the strong support of the Conservative Government. During that time, I had a chance to meet a lot of carers and a lot of employers of carers—big companies such as Centrica, which the noble Lord mentioned, and much smaller companies. They all set out the advantages of having a proper, strong relationship with their carers and the starting point, which we established through that Private Member’s Bill, of unpaid carer’s leave.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Fox, whose fox has not been shot.
This has been such an interesting, important, fascinating and deeply moving debate. We owe a debt of gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, for very positively introducing the fact that unpaid carers are the backbone of the care system, and for bringing us up to date with the reality of modern families. I think the Committee has spoken with one voice as we await the reply from the Government Front Bench. Have we not united in saying what we want the Government to do? It will be very interesting to hear the response. I hope they will use every moment between now and Report to be more specific about how they wish to respond to the issues that have been thrown up in this debate.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, I acknowledge the importance of kinship carers—the grandparents, aunts, uncles, siblings and other close family members who step forward when children need a stable and loving environment. These individuals often take on significant responsibilities with little preparation or support, and they always do so with compassion and commitment. The contribution of kinship carers cannot be overstated. As the noble Lord, Lord Watson of Invergowrie, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Newcastle reminded us, they help prevent children entering the care system. They keep families together, and often do so at great personal and financial cost.
I have to acknowledge the contribution of my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham, who had some wonderful specific quotes to share with the Committee. There is an important strategic alliance here, particularly with the noble Baronesses, Lady Pitkeathley and Lady Lister of Burtersett, and it will be important to respond positively to the points that they have made.
I believe there is a genuine case for us to explore how we might better support those who take on these caring responsibilities in such difficult circumstances. While I appreciate that statutory leave may not be straightforward to implement, especially in the current economic climate, there is room, as the noble Lord, Lord Fox, suggested, for a wider conversation about what more might be done. There should therefore be further consultation on this matter—with kinship carers themselves, with businesses and with the wider public—to understand the practicalities and to gather the necessary evidence. If we can find a solution that is proportionate, workable and rooted in the realities faced by both carers and employers then that will deserve our serious consideration. As the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Llanfaes, has said, there is room here for a modest move forward that would make a significant contribution.
We have to acknowledge the moving speech of the noble Lord, Lord Brennan of Canton, about bereavement leave. He spoke movingly of his Commons colleague Sarah Owen, MP for Luton North, who has blazed a trail of understanding in some areas that previously have not been properly understood, and we need to respond positively to that.
The noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, talked about serious childhood illness, pay and leave, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe. That that is another area where we need to explore how we can better tackle these challenges. In all these areas, I am confident that, through continued dialogue, we can work towards a sustainable strategy.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)
My Lords, this has been another wide-ranging debate and I am grateful for the contributions of all noble Lords. As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, my opposite number, just said, it has been a moving and profound debate that has demonstrated the complexities of the issues in front of us. There is unanimity across the Committee, I am sure, that we should do as much as we can to support carers. We have to ask ourselves how best we do that. We have picked up the baton from the last Government, who passed the Carer’s Leave Act, and we must move forward on that—but I am getting ahead of myself.
I join the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, in paying tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, and the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, for putting the issue of kinship care in front of us, tabling Amendments 77, 78, 79, 134, 135 and 144. I also thank my noble friend Lord Brennan of Canton for tabling Amendment 81. I will do my best to get through these amendments at a decent pace.
I will begin with kinship care, speaking to Amendments 78 and 79, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Palmer. I join others in emphasising how greatly I and the Government appreciate kinship carers, who generously step into the breach and offer loving homes for children who cannot live with their parents. I am sure that the whole House shares these sentiments.
I reassure noble Lords that the Government are committed to ensuring that all employed parents and carers receive the support they need to manage both their work and their family lives. As we have heard, Amendment 78 aims to establish a new “kinship care leave” entitlement for employed kinship carers. Amendment 79 then seeks to creates a legal definition of “kinship care” to be used to establish eligibility for kinship care leave.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Newcastle, my noble friend Lord Watson of Invergowrie and, indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, himself, rightly talked about the amazing work done by kinship carers across the country, supporting children in times of greatest stress and need, in their own households, and in so doing relieving local authorities and the wider care system.
The Government recognise that the current support for working families needs improvement. We have already begun work to improve the system for kinship carers. We are defining kinship care through other legislation that is currently before this House, and later this year we will begin trialling a kinship allowance in several local authorities.
We are pleased to say that, for the first time, through the Government’s Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, we will create a legal definition of kinship care for the purposes of specific duties within that Bill: the requirement to provide information about services to kinship families, and the duty to promote the educational achievement of children in kinship care. This will help to ensure that all local authorities interpret and apply the definition uniformly in relation to the new duty to publish information required, reducing ambiguity and potential disparities in information provided about support by different local authorities. This will, we hope, make life much easier at the sharp end of providing kinship care. It is a vital part of our commitment to keeping families together and supporting children to achieve and thrive.
I am also very pleased to say that the Government have recently announced a £40 million package to trial a new kinship allowance. This is the single biggest investment made by any Government in kinship care to date; indeed, it is the first of its kind. This financial commitment could transform the lives of vulnerable children who can no longer live at home. It would enable children to be raised within their extended families and communities. As we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, and others, it would minimise disruption to their formative years, allowing them to focus on schooling and building friendships—in short, having a normal life, as we want for all our children.
In addition, qualifying employed kinship carers may already benefit from various workplace rights aimed at supporting employees in managing work alongside caring responsibilities. These include a day one right to time off for dependants, which grants a reasonable amount of unpaid leave to deal with unexpected emergencies involving a child or dependant; the right to request flexible working; and unpaid parental leave, which, through this Bill, we are making a day one right.
Employees may not automatically have parental responsibility as a result of being a kinship carer, but they can acquire parental responsibility through different legal methods such as a special guardianship order. The Government have also committed to a review of the parental leave system to ensure that it best supports all working families. This review will be conducted separately from the Employment Rights Bill, and work is already under way on planning for its delivery.
Amendment 77 would provide foster carers with one week of leave every 12 months. As we have heard, foster carers play a life-changing role in the lives of children who need a safe and supportive environment. At times when young people are facing significant challenges, foster parents offer not only care and security but emotional support and consistency. I pay tribute to all those who step forward to provide the essential service of foster-caring—not least, as we have heard, the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, who has now changed his place but is very much with us in the Chair.
It is important to highlight that a range of workplace rights already exists to help employees who take on the responsibilities of fostering. From their first day on the job, employees have the legal right to take unpaid time off in emergency situations involving their dependents. This enables them to respond swiftly to sudden issues, such as arranging care for a foster child. If a foster carer is looking after a child with a long-term illness or disability, they are entitled to carer’s leave. This provides them with up to a week of unpaid leave in a 12-month period, to manage healthcare needs or attend appointments. Those fostering with the intention of adopting may be eligible for paid adoption leave, provided they meet the necessary criteria. In addition, all employees are entitled to submit a request for flexible working arrangements from day one of their employment. Given that these existing provisions go a long way to help foster carers to balance work and their foster care responsibilities, it does not seem right to add a new entitlement without a proper assessment of the need for it and the impact it might have.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
I appreciate what the Minister has said. If I heard him correctly, he said it would not be appropriate to introduce this leave without undertaking an assessment of how it would be applied. Will such an assessment be undertaken? I think it is important.
Lord Katz (Lab)
I am very happy to write to my noble friend with more details. We will cover some of the issues on carer’s leave in the round later in my speech, but I thank him for his intervention.
Lord Fox (LD)
With all due respect, this Bill is full of situations in which the consultation for its implementation is yet to be completed. Having adopted a principle in primary legislation, one more consultation would hardly stain the integrity of this Bill. If the Government wanted to, they could very well take on kinship care and fill in the details later—that is what they are doing with the rest of the Bill.
Lord Katz (Lab)
We may be talking at cross purposes. I am very happy to write with more details of the way that we plan to take foster care forward.
On paid carer’s leave, Amendment 135 would introduce a statutory entitlement for unpaid carers to receive their usual wage while taking carer’s leave. As drafted, the responsibility for covering these costs would lie with the employer. At Second Reading, and this evening, the noble Lords, Lord Palmer and Lord Young of Cookham, spoke powerfully on the vital role played by unpaid carers. I pay tribute to my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley for all the work she has done on fighting for carers, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Llanfaes, for speaking about her direct experience of caring. As my noble friend Lady Lister remarked, it is this sort of lived experience that brings so much to our House’s considerations of these matters.
I emphasise that the Government are committed to supporting those who combine work with care. However, there are not insignificant concerns with the amendment, which has not been changed since it was first brought forward in the other place. It does not give due consideration to the potentially significant costs it may place on businesses—particularly small businesses. It would create a situation of differential treatment between those taking leave to care for a family member or loved one under the Carer’s Leave Act and those taking other forms of leave, such as maternity and paternity leave. Those taking carer’s leave would be paid their normal wage, while other forms of leave are paid at a statutory rate, meaning that unpaid carers would be treated more favourably.
Although the Government do not support this amendment for these reasons, I assure noble Lords that His Majesty’s Government is fully committed to ensuring that unpaid carers can combine work with their caring responsibilities. We are reviewing the Carer’s Leave Act, which was introduced in April 2024 and gave employed carers a new right to time off work. We have heard tonight, as the noble Lord, Lord Fox, expressed, the depths of feeling and concern that this is done properly. We have had the baton of the Carer’s Leave Act passed over; we want to make sure that we get this right, hence the review that we are undertaking.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
I quite take my noble friend’s point, but we were not saying how it should be paid; we were asking for an acknowledgement of the principle that it should be paid and leaving it up to the Government to then review the details of how it should be paid. It would be good to have at least an acknowledgement that that is where the Government are heading.
Lord Katz (Lab)
I fear I may disappoint my noble friend slightly, but it is important that, if we are going to review these things, we review them in the round, and that I do not pre-empt that review at the Dispatch Box tonight. We are considering whether further support is needed, including potential options for paid leave, while being mindful of potential impacts on businesses.
It would be worth spending a little more time discussing the review, as several noble Lords have now asked about it. The review is under way and officials in the Department for Business and Trade have already spoken to over 70 employers, third sector organisations and charities, such as Carers UK, in the course of undertaking the report. We have held events across the UK, in Wales, England and Scotland, and this engagement will continue as the review progresses, alongside both qualitative and quantitative research.
I will answer a couple of direct questions on the review. To answer the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, we will be considering international examples. To answer the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, we will be taking into account the immigration White Paper, which he so keenly observed has just been published. The review will assess the impact of unpaid carer’s leave, introduced last year, while considering whether further support is needed, including potential options for paid leave, while being mindful of any potential impacts on businesses.
To respond again to my noble friend Lady Lister, we do not want to pre-empt the outcome of the review. We must allow it to run its course, to ensure that we make a considered, evidence-based decision about what further support would most benefit unpaid carers.
As time is running on, I will speak to Amendment 134. I begin by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, and the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, for bringing attention to this issue. I pay particular tribute to the work done by the charity It’s Never You, which worked with the noble Baroness on this amendment. I join her in paying tribute to Ceri and Frances Menai-Davis, who have so bravely and tirelessly campaigned in memory of their son, Hugh. I am so pleased that they could join us in the Committee to understand how seriously the whole House takes the issue they have raised—it gives us the opportunity to thank them again for their hard work on the issue.
This amendment would extend provisions on neonatal care leave and pay to the parents of all children up to the age of 16 who are seriously ill for an extended period of time, entitling parents to paid time off work at the rate of statutory neonatal care pay. As I have said, this is a very important issue, and I wholly acknowledge how incredibly difficult childhood illness can be for parents. Equally, I recognise the vital role played by parents and other family members who provide care in such circumstances. The importance of being able to spend time by the bedside of a loved one who is unwell cannot be overstated.
To respond directly to the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, the Government are reviewing the existing entitlement to carer’s leave, as I have already mentioned, and considering whether further changes may be helpful in supporting those who provide care to loved ones alongside work. For instance, employers are able to offer enhanced parental leave beyond the four-week limit in a year, and we encourage employers to consider doing this in unusual circumstances, such as a child becoming seriously ill. It is important that parents of disabled children are supported to return to or remain in work, if this is what they choose to do. Parents of disabled or seriously ill children may be protected from employment discrimination, by association with a disabled person, under the Equality Act 2010. These may well be more appropriate avenues through which to consider the issue.
While I am afraid that the Government cannot support the amendment at the present time, I understand that officials in the Department for Business and Trade have extended an invitation to the It’s Never You campaign to further discuss its proposals as part of the ongoing review of carer’s leave. I hope that noble Lords take that as a promissory note of how seriously we take the issue. I certainly hope that the Menai-Davises will be able to contribute their valuable perspective on this ongoing piece of work.
Amendment 144, on carers and equality action plans, would require employers to consider caring as a matter related to gender equality within any equality action plans, with reference to Clause 31 of the Bill. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, for drawing attention to the disproportionate impact that is felt by women when it comes to providing unpaid care, and particularly women in the workplace. This is undoubtedly a very important issue.
The provision in the Bill is designed to emphasise gender equality issues, but this amendment risks inadvertently strengthening existing assumptions about who provides care within our homes, families and society. The clause as it stands can already accommodate consideration of the needs of carers. We want to ensure that a variety of actions can be taken to support employees in a range of circumstances, so we fully expect action plans to consider those with caring responsibilities. Action plans are a vital step in supporting employers to make progress on closing the gender pay gap. Acknowledging the needs of those who provide unpaid care will no doubt play an important role in this, given that it is a significant contributing factor to the gap.
Finally, I will speak to Amendment 81, tabled by my noble friend Lord Brennan of Canton. I think the whole House was moved by his words on the issue. He calls himself a vessel, but he was certainly no empty vessel—if he will excuse my rather poor pun for this time of night. The amendment would extend the scope of bereavement leave to include pregnancy loss before 24 weeks. It would apply to those who experience miscarriage, ectopic pregnancy, a molar pregnancy, a medical termination or an unsuccessful attempt at IVF due to embryo-transfer loss.
The loss of a baby at any stage is incredibly sad and difficult. As my noble friend Lord Brennan said, it is not a disease or an illness. The Government acknowledge that there is a clear gap in support for those who suffer a pregnancy loss before 24 weeks and that there is a need for time to grieve and recover, which, as many noble Lords from around the Committee recognised, was so helpfully highlighted by the work of the Women and Equalities Committee. It would be most remiss of me now not to join my noble friend Lord Brennan and indeed other noble Lords in paying tribute to the work of the committee, and in particular of my friend and comrade Sarah Owen, who has so movingly told of her own experience and has thought about the wider piece around this important and sensitive issue. We appreciate the way in which the committee has brought this issue forward.
We fully accept the principle of bereavement leave for pregnancy loss, as raised in the amendment, and we look forward to further discussions with my noble friend and other noble Lords as the Bill continues in this House. As my noble friend Lord Brennan said, this can help bring a more compassionate and humane face to the workplace as people deal with events that, frankly, at this current point in time, carry far too much stigma, secrecy and basic misconception of the facts.
Lord Brennan of Canton (Lab)
Can my noble friend the Minister confirm that the meaning of his words is that it is the intention of the Government to bring forward amendments that he is about to get to on Report in this regard?
Lord Katz (Lab)
It will not come as a surprise to my noble friend that we cannot accept the amendment in front of us today. However, I am very happy to work with him to ensure that your Lordships’ House can consider this most important issue again on Report. So I respectfully ask him not to move this amendment and ask that the noble Lord withdraws his amendment.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
I feel humbled by this debate. It started off for me with the noble Lord, Lord Watson of Invergowrie, and the right reverend Prelate and it went on in the same vein, right across the House: the feeling that there was this Bill, the Employment Rights Bill, and that we recognise that within employment rights there are carers who have been ignored and need to be paid for what they are doing, for people and for the system that they underwrite.
The Government have not really replied in positive enough terms on this, but we will come back to this on Report with specific amendments. By that time, I hope that Government Ministers will go back to their colleagues in the other place and say that across the House, from all parts of this House, there was a feeling that unpaid carers need to be recognised in the Employment Rights Bill, and that kinship carers, who have not been recognised before, need to be recognised. We hope the Government have heard this and we look forward to a positive response by Report. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Hogan-Howe
“Special constables: right to time off for public duties(1) The Employment Rights Act 1996 is amended is follows. (2) In section 50 (Right to time off for public duties), after subsection (1) insert—“(1A) An employer shall permit an employee who is a special constable, appointed in accordance with section 27 of the Police Act 1996, section 9 of the Police and Fire Reform (Scotland) Act 2012 or section 25 of the Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003, to take time off during the employee’s working hours for the purpose of performing their duties.(1B) In section (1A), “duties” means any activity under the direction of a chief officer of police.””Member's explanatory statement
This new clause gives employees who are special constables the right to time off to carry out their police duties.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
My Lords, my amendment is supported by the noble Lords, Lord Paddick and Lord Evans, for which I am grateful. The amendment seeks to add special constables to the group of people in the criminal justice system who have the right to time off to fulfil their duties.
In 2018, Section 50 of the Employment Act was amended to include lay observers in prisons and members of immigration visiting committees for immigration centres and short-term holding facilities among those, such as magistrates and JPs, who have the right to take time off from their employment. Of course, each of those groups of volunteers is essential to the effective functioning of the criminal justice system, and so are special constables, who have existed since being created by the Special Constables Act 1831, although today’s version was really created by the Police Act 1964.
Special constables are special by name and special by nature, in my view. They are unpaid volunteers who have all the powers of a regular constable and take all the risks that their colleagues take, too, of being stabbed, assaulted and people abusing or spitting at them. They are paid expenses, but of course this covers only their outgoings and they make no profit. They deal with issues such as suicides, terrible road traffic collisions and many other things that regular officers have to deal with, but these are volunteers. After being trained, they are usually expected to be on duty for at least four hours a month. Most do very much more than that; some work every weekend. During breaks in employment, they often work almost full-time hours. Some work at this for over 20 years.
Special constables were designed to be a contingency for war, backfilling the police officers who would be expected to join the Armed Forces. Given many of the uncertainties in the world at the moment, it is not unrealistic to expect that we may call on them in the foreseeable future.
Special constables are a visible representation of community policing, giving of themselves without payment to stop crime and keep order. For me, they have always been a way to have the community in the police station, holding their regular colleagues to account and not captured by the prevalent police culture of the time—almost a pre-body-worn video system before that was even thought about. Some 25% of them go on to become regular officers, so it is not a bad recruiting route and not a bad way for them to test whether they would like to be a police officer or whether police officers think that they are going to be suitable full-time colleagues in future.
At present, the numbers of special constables are dropping quite dramatically. In September 2023, there were 6,330 in England and Wales, but by September the following year there were only 5,818. That is just one-third of the figure it was 10 years ago.
In this context, on the grounds of equity with other volunteers in the criminal justice system, surely we need to enhance the volunteer offer to encourage recruitment, retention and diversity. The Government have said that they want strategically to boost neighbourhood policing, with around 13,000 more officers and PCSOs in the coming years. Surely that priority alone demands that special constables—the most visible of community-based policing—have a priority in recruitment. This amendment would assist in that process.
No doubt the Government may say that this should not be approached in a piecemeal way and that they will make announcements when they say more about neighbourhood policing. Many of those announcements have been made, and this opportunity has been missed, I would say.
Some may say that this is a burden on small businesses, but I do not accept that. The Section 50 right for volunteers has a reasonableness clause in it, so a business of three people may struggle to give any time off, whereas a business employing 10,000 people may have far more flexibility. For example, it is not reasonable for an employee to consistently take time off when the business is particularly busy and needs them.
To be fair, those people come back to work better trained, confident and rounded individuals. As I said earlier, they have had a few new experiences of life—some good and some not so good. The Government may say that, if we do that for this group of volunteers, we may have to do it for others, and we may need to consider that as a whole. I do not accept that either; this reform is long overdue and is supported by the National Police Chiefs’ Council and the specials’ own representative body, the Association of Special Constabulary Officers.
There is a huge gap in recruitment and retention, and that problem is now and the time to deal with it is now. This is a great opportunity to assist what is a special group of people whom we probably have all taken for granted for too long. The Government have an opportunity in this Bill to do something to help, and which will cost nothing.
Lord Paddick (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I rise to support Amendment 82 in the name of my friend and former colleague, the noble Lord Hogan-Howe, which I have signed. I declare an interest as a paid non-executive adviser to the Metropolitan Police Service. I apologise that I was unable to speak at Second Reading, but I intend to focus in a disciplined way on the amendment, unlike some colleagues.
In London, the Metropolitan Police, the UK’s largest police force, has, in recent years, been unable to recruit police officers to the level it has been funded for, and is now unable to recruit full-time regular police officers because of budget constraints. The Labour Government’s community policing guarantee, to recruit 13,000 more neighbourhood police and Police Community Support Officers, appears to be challenging, given that the Metropolitan Police accounts for about 19% of all UK police officers and about 25% of the UK police budget.
One low-cost way to recruit more community police officers is to take a no-cost-to-the-taxpayer measure to encourage members of the public to become special constables, such as that proposed in the noble Lord’s amendment. As of March 2023, the contribution of special constables was saving an estimated £85 million to £90 million a year in policing delivery, according to government statistics.
The Minister may well say, as Ministers are prone to do—for example, on the issue of humanist weddings—that while they agree in principle with the amendment it needs to be part of a holistic approach to volunteering generally; that the Government will consider this and bring forward such legislation in due course, if necessary; but that they do not want to create an uneven playing field. However, if they intend to meet the 13,000 uplift in community police officers, they need to create an uneven playing field, providing more of an incentive for the public to volunteer to be special constables than to be any other sort of volunteer.
In any event, the playing field is already uneven, as the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, has just said, in that in 2018 the Government—albeit a different Government—amended Section 50 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 to include four groups of volunteers in another part of the criminal justice system, such as independent prison monitors. The reason was to attract applicants in full-time employment, who tend to be younger, and thereby improve the diversity of these volunteers, who tended to be skewed in favour of older age groups.
Not only do the police need fit, younger people to volunteer to be special constables but, particularly in London, they need local volunteers who know and reflect the diversity of the communities in which they will serve. The proportion of special constables from minority backgrounds currently serving is higher than it is among regular full-time police officers, and with the added incentive that this amendment would provide, we have the prospect of recruiting more ideal volunteers, who know and reflect their local communities, as special constables.
Were these not good enough reasons to support this amendment, given the current issues around police culture—highlighted by the noble Baroness, Lady Casey of Blackstock, in her report on the cultural issues facing the Metropolitan Police—recruiting more officers from minority backgrounds, working part-time and hence less influenced by existing negative aspects of police culture, would assist in changing those undesirable aspects of police culture and increase public trust and confidence. Not only would the public see more police officers who look like them; they may recognise them as members of their local community.
The special constabulary has also proved to be a fertile recruiting ground for the full-time regular force, as the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, has just said, providing an opportunity for those from minority backgrounds in particular to try out policing before making a full-time commitment to it. Recruiting more volunteer special constables could also lead to improving the diversity and local representation among the full-time regular police force.
As with the changes made in 2018 to the 1996 Act, there are compelling reasons to extend Section 50 of the current Employment Rights Act to special constables, and I enthusiastically support this amendment.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, we could hardly have expected two more expert speakers to propose this amendment. This is another case where society is getting something on the cheap and, even though it is a different argument from the one about unpaid carers, it is another way where, in fact, we are not recognising the value that society is getting from these people who work as special police officers.
I really want to hear what the Government say on this and I hope it is not the sort of answer that my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, suggested it might be but is something rather more constructive that can come forward the next time this Bill comes up.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I would very much like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, for his important amendment in this group and for the valuable context he gave in his opening remarks, and the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, for speaking so eloquently to it as well.
They are both right. Special constables play a vital role in our communities and, as they pointed out, they serve alongside other police officers, offering their time and their skills to protect the public and contribute to the safety and well-being of society at large. As the noble Lord, Lord Fox, has just pointed out, society benefits from their work.
It is often overlooked, though. For many, being a special constable is something they do alongside other regular employment. These individuals are already balancing their professional lives with the demands of policing and, as has been pointed out, that can be both challenging and rewarding.
I could bore on for hours about how valuable special constables were when I was policing in Hong Kong—but I will not. I welcome this amendment and believe it represents a small but significant way to better support those who give their time to serve our communities by ensuring that special constables can fulfil their duties without facing conflicts with their employment obligations. We would be sending a strong message of support for public service generally, as well, of course, as for special constables. So we are very minded to support this amendment.
Lord Katz (Lab)
My Lords, this has been an interesting debate—some might say “esoteric”, but not me— and indeed, thankfully, a slightly shorter one. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, for tabling Amendment 82, co-signed by the noble Lords, Lord Paddick and Lord Evans of Rainow. I am also grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Hogan-Howe and Lord Paddick, for meeting me, the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Leong, earlier today to discuss this amendment. It was really helpful to have the opportunity to, as we heard from both noble Lords this evening, hear the background context to the work of special constables, how they are regarded within the force and how they are integrated within the forces in which they serve.
Amendment 82 would give employees who are special constables a statutory right to time off from work to carry out their voluntary police duties. This Government recognise, as I think we all do across the House, and really value the important role that special constables play in our communities, and we are committed to ensuring that they are supported to navigate those responsibilities that they carry out as special constables alongside their working life.
Special constables, along with the full range of police volunteers, bring valuable and diverse skills, which complement the roles that full-time officers and staff play in delivering the best possible service to the public in protecting our streets and making sure that our communities are safe.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Katz, and his colleagues for providing the meeting earlier for me and the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, and for the time they took, on a long Bill with many amendments, to spend some time with us. We both appreciated it.
The Minister just said—he realised that I possibly might not agree—that it was invidious to draw distinctions between volunteers, but that is what happened with the employment Act in 2018, which distinguished between prison visitors and immigration. I see no reason why it cannot happen again, in principle. It does not seem to be a real problem.
The Minister said that it is hard to establish how many people might use this right. However, we know that it is no more than about 5,000 people—there are so few of them—in a workforce of about 26 million, so it is not going to cause a massive disruption to employers and employees.
On the voluntary arrangement with the NPCC whereby employers voluntarily give time off, the Minister will know that a survey established that about two-thirds of those who tried to use that scheme were unable to access it because their employers denied them that opportunity. That probably means that this right is particularly needed at the moment.
Finally, although I was not aware of the Hong Kong example—which I guess has a little of the British tradition—there are not many, if any, places in the world where a police officer can be a volunteer and take all the risks and have all the powers. It is a unique thing in the UK. If you talk to officers from Australia or America, they say, “Let’s get this right: they pay them nothing and they take people on and try to arrest them?” They cannot believe it. It is a rare thing we have, and it would be a shame to lose it, but we are in the process of losing it. All that said, of course I am prepared, at this stage, to withdraw my amendment.
Employment Rights Bill
Monday 19th May 2025
(10 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Employment Rights Act 2025 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 81-IV(Corrected)(a) Amendments for Committee (Supplementary to the Fourth Corrected Marshalled List) - (19 May 2025)
Baroness Morrissey
(b) after “prevent” insert “and address”;(c) after subsection (3) insert—“(4) Where an employee makes an allegation that sexual harassment has occurred in the course of their employment, an employer must take reasonable steps to investigate the allegation.(5) Any investigation conducted in accordance with subsection (4) must be proportionate to the severity of the allegation and, where an allegation relates to—(a) sexual assault, or(b) sexual harassment by a member of the senior management of the employer,the employer must commission an independent investigation.(6) During any investigation conducted under the terms of this section, an employer must take all reasonable steps to protect the wellbeing of the employee who has made the allegation.(7) Where an investigation under this section makes recommendations, an employer must comply with those recommendations.””
Baroness Morrissey (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to the amendment in my name, on which I am very grateful for the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer. We will shortly debate several proposed amendments to Clause 22 that would require employers to prevent harassment in the workplace. Amendment 82A is also designed to require employers properly to address instances of sexual harassment if they occur at work.
As set out in my register of interests, I chair the investment industry’s Diversity Project. Through that role, I receive reports of poor behaviours submitted by workers in the sector through a confidential hotline that was set up after the CBI sexual harassment scandal. Sadly, from over 30 reports submitted—90% from women—it is clear that, if someone makes an allegation of sexual harassment at work, the investigation process that follows is often very difficult for them. It is typically conducted by people they work with, compounding the embarrassment and shame, which obviously may be misplaced, and making it exceptionally awkward, especially when, as is so often the case, their complaints concern someone more senior and powerful than them in the firm.
When working in an executive role, and being no expert in the field, I was once asked to oversee a process following a woman filing a complaint of quite serious sexual misconduct, which had been witnessed by several others, only for her to withdraw it midway through because she found the whole process of being investigated by her colleagues so excruciating. Even if a complainant decides to go through with the whole process, and even if the complaint is upheld, the pattern I see from so many of the reports submitted through the Diversity Project’s hotline is that the woman’s life, including her life at work, gets worse—much worse. She ends up leaving the firm, while the perpetrator’s career is often completely unscathed.
Amendment 82A calls for an independent investigation to be carried out by people qualified to investigate cases of sexual harassment and for all those involved in the case to be appropriately protected during the investigation. It would also require firms to adopt the independent reviewer’s recommendations, following their investigation. Your Lordships may be amazed—I hope you will be amazed—to learn that, in many cases today, even if a serious complaint is upheld and the firm decides to take action against the perpetrator, it often errs on the side of leniency, especially if the perpetrator is senior or a significant revenue generator. So, I am afraid, the abuses of power continue.
Even if a firm dismisses, it can fail to qualify references, so the bad apple is put back in the system to reoffend. A couple of years ago, I received a tip-off from a former colleague that a man who had been let go from a City firm for sexual harassment had committed the exact same thing at the next firm and was now being investigated again. He was then let go from that firm and, I have just discovered, is now in a senior role at yet another one. Clearly, something is very wrong with a system that lets this happen, especially in the highly regulated financial sector. Those of us who work in financial services hope very much that the regulators—both the FCA and the PRA—will eventually produce guidance for regulated firms about what they euphemistically call non-financial misconduct, but I recognise that the problem goes far beyond the City.
I urge the Government to consider reasonable measures requiring firms to address instances of sexual misconduct at work, as well as seeking to prevent it occurring in the first place. The Bill provides a perfect opportunity to do this, after far too long when abuses of power have been allowed to go unchecked. How many more cases will we read about in the papers where nothing was done for years—decades even—to address these behaviours, before we take action? A workplace free from sexual harassment is surely the least that employees should be able to expect, and this amendment is designed to strengthen the Bill in this respect. I beg to move.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, I am a signatory to this excellent amendment, but I am also speaking as a winder from these Benches. I shall speak very briefly, because I will touch on many of the issues in a later group, but this is so important. I am so glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Morrissey, brought forward an amendment that focuses on the issue of investigation and action.
The noble Baroness has made the case powerfully, but for many people, it is such a shock to realise that it is the victim of sexual harassment—usually a woman, sometimes a man—who finds themselves, in effect, on trial. That is how the investigative process, when it happens, generally progresses. We all know that that is wrong and has to change.
If you talk to people who have been victims and ask them what they want most as a response to having spoken out, despite what they have gone through, the answer, again and again, is twofold. First, they never want this to happen to anybody else; secondly, they want investigation and action. The systems we have in place never focus on that issue and drive it as the primary response when somebody speaks out with a serious complaint of this nature; we will be talking later about complaints of another nature. I hope very much that people will become engaged with this issue, which has been so well represented here today.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, I commend my noble friend Lady Morrissey on moving this important amendment. She speaks from her own personal experience with wisdom and understanding, in particular on the whole issue of investigation and action. I also agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer: the victim can so often find themselves on trial, and that is unacceptable.
So I have some sympathy with this amendment, in that it seeks a more proportionate approach to the matter than the Bill currently contains. We all agree that harassment, particularly when it is persistent—and, even worse, when it comes from a senior colleague—is a stain on society. Not only does it poison the workplace; it can ruin lives.
The amendment emphasises the need for employers to act reasonably, particularly in cases involving serious allegations such as sexual assault or harassment by senior management, and to protect the well-being of the employee involved.
Of course, many businesses already follow best practice, and we believe that proper measures to address the issue are critical in building safer and more respectful workplaces. Clause 20 as drafted also raises concerns about free expression, and it is our view that the amendment would be better placed elsewhere in the Bill, where it can be more thoroughly examined and discussed in its own context, without the issue of freedom of expression being engaged.
I want to emphasise from these Benches that we are committed to tackling sexual harassment in a meaningful way, but we also believe in ensuring that the right to free expression is carefully protected. We will listen very carefully to the Minister’s response to these concerns, and we will continue to advocate for a balanced approach that protects the dignity and safety of individuals while preserving fundamental rights.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Information and Technology (Baroness Jones of Whitchurch) (Lab)
My Lords, this has been a good introduction to the further debates we will have today on provisions in the Bill on harassment. I am grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Kramer and Lady Morrissey, for tabling Amendment 82A. Both made important points about investigation and action being crucial.
The Government agree that while the preventive duty places broad requirements on employers, it is important to ensure that specific steps are taken by employers to combat sexual harassment in the workplace. This is why, in addition to strengthening the preventive duty, we are introducing a delegated power, enabling us to specify steps that are to be regarded as reasonable for the purpose of meeting the obligations set out in the Equality Act 2010 to take all reasonable steps to prevent sexual harassment.
The regulations may also require an employer to have regard to specific matters when taking those steps. The regulations that the power will introduce will help clarify what is expected of employers, as well as guiding the EHRC or employment tribunals when taking enforcement action. These steps may include requirements on employers to undertake investigations following complaints and action recommendations, in addition to the requirements set out in the ACAS code of practice on disciplinary and grievance procedures. To better understand what steps are effective and proportionate, we have launched a call for evidence, and we will give responses careful consideration.
I have to say to the noble Baroness that it would be premature to introduce specific requirements in relation to investigations at this stage. I ask her to withdraw Amendment 82A, but I hope she will take on board that I am happy to continue discussions with her on these issues after the call for evidence concludes. I am sure we can reach an agreement going forward on that basis.
Baroness Morrissey (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, for their thoughtful remarks, and in particular for highlighting the need for investigation and action to protect the victims.
I was slightly surprised at the grouping of this amendment, as it probably sits better among the other provisions and amendments designed to combat sexual harassment that we will be discussing later.
I am glad to hear from the Minister that a consultation is planned, which may include provisions requiring employers to conduct proper investigations. I look forward to hearing further about that. But for now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Young of Acton
“(1D) In this section, the definition of “harassment” cannot include conversation or speech involving the expression of an opinion on a political, moral, religious or social matter, provided the opinion is not indecent or grossly offensive.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment means employers would not have to take all reasonable steps to protect their employees from hearing or over-hearing expressions of opinion (from either employees, or third parties) on political, moral, religious or social matters that they might find offensive or upsetting by virtue of their protected characteristics, provided the opinion is not indecent or grossly offensive.
Lord Young of Acton (Con)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 83 I will speak to Amendments 84 to 86 and 88 in this group. I declare my interests as the general secretary of the Free Speech Union and as an employer.
As your Lordships know, Clause 20 amends Section 40 of the Equality Act to make employers liable for the harassment of their employees by third parties. Henceforth, they will have to take all reasonable steps to protect their employees from third-party harassment, and if they fail to do so, they could be sued in the employment tribunal. Do not let the proponents of Clause 20 muddy the waters by claiming it will protect workers from sexual harassment by third parties: employers are already liable for third-party sexual harassment thanks to the Worker Protection Act 2023.
Where is the evidence that non-sexual third-party harassment is a problem in the workplace? There is none in the final-stage impact assessment. For that, we have to turn to a fact sheet produced by the Office for Equality and Opportunity and the Department for Business and Trade published last year, which says:
“For the year ending March 2024, 9.2% of people aged 16 years and over who said they had experienced non-sexual harassment in the last 12 months, reported that they had been harassed by a client or member of the public contacted through work”.
But only 5.5% of the respondents in that survey reported experiencing non-sexual harassment, and 9.2% of 5.5% is 0.51%. To be clear, only 0.51% of the respondents in this survey reported experiencing non-sexual third-party harassment in the workplace or through work in the past year.
As the Equality and Human Rights Commission said in its parliamentary briefing on this clause ahead of Second Reading:
“Evidence of the prevalence of third-party harassment in the workplace, beyond sexual harassment, is limited”.
Incidentally, that is also the opinion of the Regulatory Policy Committee.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, I have several amendments in this group. I also support all the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Young of Acton. The extension of the Equality Act harassment provisions is not new territory. In 2023 it was included in a Private Member’s Bill, which became the Worker Protection (Amendment of Equality Act 2010) Act 2023. A number of us were concerned about the extension of employer liability for non-sexual harassment and tabled amendments to remove that part of the Bill. In the event, that aspect of the Bill was dropped, and we all heaved a sigh of relief until we saw this Bill published last autumn.
The provisions of Clause 20 are, in many respects, worse than the 2023 Bill, which at least tried to address the issue of freedom of speech. It did not go far enough, but at least it tried. This Bill proceeds on the basis that freedom of speech is not an issue. My noble friend Lord Young’s amendments are absolutely essential if there is to be a workable and fair extension of employer liability for harassment.
I will not repeat the arguments put forward but will emphasise how burdensome such a requirement can be for a small business. Since most businesses in this country are small, accounting for a bit less than half of private sector employment, Clause 20 is a very big problem. It is already hard enough to run a small business and cope with all the regulatory burdens that the state imposes. This new requirement will extend into the realms of impossibility. How can a small hospitality or retail business realistically cover itself against every possibility that a member of staff might perceive that they have been harassed by a customer or even a passer-by?
I have a specific question for the Minister on the territorial scope of Clause 20 or, more accurately, Section 40 of the Equality Act as amended by Clause 20. Does the duty to prevent harassment apply only to UK-based employees or does it also apply to those who are overseas?
I am sure that noble Lords who have dealt with overseas call centres recognise that it can be a somewhat vexing experience. Recently, a young man who was almost certainly in India insisted that he must educate me for 10 minutes on frauds and scams before he would unblock one of my credit cards, which had hit one of those fraud trip-wires in connection with a perfectly straightforward transaction that I had already completed on another card without any problems whatever. I explained that to the young man. I explained that I knew quite a bit about frauds, scams and financial services, but he was absolutely adamant about my educational needs. I hope that my responses were not perceived as harassment, but one can never tell these days. Does Clause 20 mean that my card provider will be liable if I intentionally or otherwise harass its overseas employees? If so, how on earth does that work?
My Amendment 87, in seeking to avoid single incidents being treated as harassment, is a softer version of my noble friend Lord Young’s Amendment 86. I stress that I am not talking about sexual harassment—a single incident of sexual harassment is one too many. Rather, I am talking about the kinds of harassment that my noble friend Lord Young has described. We really cannot expect employers to be able to prevent every single incidence of hurt feelings, if only because the highly subjective nature of workers’ perceptions means that employers face an impossible task.
My Amendments 89 to 96 concern Clause 21, which empowers the Secretary of State to make regulations about “reasonable steps” in the case of sexual harassment. I always thought that the Equality and Human Rights Commission was the correct source of guidance on the application of the 2010 Act. But if we accept that it is right for the Secretary of State to get involved in the specifics of sexual harassment and the “reasonable steps” that are necessary, logic requires that it should extend to all forms of harassment where an employer has to take all “reasonable steps”. That is what my Amendments 89, 93, 95 and 96 seek to achieve.
Furthermore, if the Secretary of State issues rules about what constitutes “reasonable steps”, we need to see what the consequences of that are. If employers can establish that they have followed the steps set out in the regulations, I believe there should be no question of falling foul of the revised harassment regime in Section 40 of the 2010 Act. It should be for the Secretary of State to ensure that the rules set out in regulations are comprehensive and for employers to follow them. My Amendment 94 would then give employers protection from the harassment provisions.
Lastly, and for good measure, I included a may/must amendment in Amendments 90 and 91, so that the Secretary of State would be required to issue regulations dealing with all “reasonable steps”. This is such a difficult area for employers, particularly in customer-facing businesses, but it should be incumbent on the Secretary of State to set out clearly and comprehensively what employers need to do.
Baroness Carberry of Muswell Hill (Lab)
My Lords, I focus particularly on Amendments 83 and 84, which purport to deal with a hypothetical “banter ban”. I listened very carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Young, said about these amendments because I have been struggling to understand why they are thought necessary. I regret to say, with the greatest respect, that I am still none the wiser.
The wording in those two amendments does not need to be included in the Bill because most overheard conversations that someone who hears might not like would already fail the test of unlawful harassment in the Equality Act 2010. Most overheard conversations would not fall under the definition of harassment in Section 26 of that Act. That would include the example given by the noble Lord of a blind person at a football match. To be caught by the definition, something an employee hears at work and finds objectionable or offensive would need to be relevant to a protected characteristic and would also need to have
“the purpose or effect of … violating”
the person’s
“dignity, or … creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment”.
If this were put to the test, it would not just be about the employee’s subjective perception. If a case like this ever ended up in court, which is highly unlikely, the court would also have to take into account all the circumstances and would need to decide whether it was reasonable for the overheard conversation to have had the effect of violating dignity or creating a
“hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment”.
In other words, the subjective is balanced against the objective, and context will always be crucial.
The average everyday chat in the pub or elsewhere would not pass these tests, however much someone dislikes what they hear, so the Bill would not require employers to take steps to prevent conversational expressions of opinion on, in the words of the amendment,
“a political, moral, religious or social matter”.
Of course, in some circumstances, third parties do abuse and harass employees. It happens with depressing regularity, notably in hospitality, which the noble Lord seeks to exclude from the Bill altogether. It can happen when abuse is obviously directed at an employee by way of a pretended or fake conversation that is obviously expressly designed to be overheard and to offend. That is the whole point of this clause. Instances of obvious direct harassment and abuse of employees by third parties would, rightly, be protected by the Bill under current definitions.
It is important to note that steps to prevent this would not place an onerous burden on employers. As my noble friend the Minister said in her introduction, regulations will set out steps that employers should take, but many employers already take relevant steps to prevent this sort of offensive behaviour. For example, your Lordships will be very familiar with signs on public transport or in healthcare settings warning that abuse of staff will not be tolerated. That is very familiar to all of us.
The broader point here is that the Bill’s purpose is to require employers to take all reasonable steps to prevent their staff being harassed and abused by customers or members of the public. It is not about preventing or regulating private conversations or restricting free expression. I suggest that Amendments 83 and 84 would not add anything and are not needed.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, the whole of Clause 20 should not stand part and should be dropped from the Bill. The amendments that I have put my name to are mitigating, in case this very dangerous clause is not dropped, but I remain hopeful that the Government will realise—despite what the noble Baroness, Lady Carberry, just argued—that this clause will, no doubt unintentionally, be not only bad for business and a range of public-facing institutions but detrimental to workers.
I appreciate that the Government are seeking to reassure and dampen down the public unease about this clause with their suggestions that campaigners are hyping up the threat that it could pose to free speech, but I have yet to hear a convincing positive argument for why legislation is being used to create this sweeping new duty that will significantly expand all employers’ liability for third-party harassment of their employees. It is unclear why, if any employee has evidence of harassment as just described, they do not call the police. Should this not be left for criminal law to deal with, rather than extending employment law?
This clause puts the onus on employers to plan for, prevent and police alleged problematic interactions—a task they are simply not qualified to do, and indeed should have no right to do. This clause amends the Equality Act by reinstating liability for harassment of employees by third parties. As we know, that was in the original 2010 Act, but, when the then coalition Government consulted on the matter, there was such negative feedback that it was kicked out in 2013. Why has it now reappeared, with no consultation?
Moreover, this new duty is considerably more onerous. For example, there are no exemptions. One of the amendments that I have put my name to tries to at least carve out especially vulnerable sectors. As we have heard, employers would be liable for any single act of harassment by a third party. In the previous iteration, employers would have been liable only if the employee was harassed for a third time. Again, an amendment has been tabled to remedy this. To date, the Government have not presented any evidence that would justify ignoring the reasons why the original liability was rebutted, so what has changed that demands it?
Superficially, protecting employees from harassment sounds fair enough to all of us, but a lot hinges on what we consider harassment to mean. First, one confusion to clarify is that the content of this clause is sometimes bundled together with the issue of sexual harassment, giving it a moral force that is not merited. To be clear—as others have been—Clause 20 covers liability for third-party non-sexual harassment.
There is then the common-sense notion of harassment in people’s minds. This is understandable but misplaced. Lord Sumption, in Hayes v Willoughby in 2013, said of harassment that it is
“an ordinary English word with a well understood meaning”,
going on to describe it as
“a persistent and deliberate course of unreasonable and oppressive conduct targeted at another person, which is calculated to and does cause that person alarm fear or distress”.
If only that was the definition. Unfortunately, Lord Sumption’s wise thought that harassment has a well understood meaning is not true in the 2025 era of lawfare.
Section 26 of the Equality Act defines harassment as
“unwanted conduct related to a relevant protected characteristic”.
The EHRC guidance sets out that this can include “spoken words”, “banter”, “jokes”, “written words”, “imagery”, “physical gestures”, “facial expressions” and “posts on social media”. That is a very broad catch-all list of forms of harassment that employers will now have to protect their employees from when encountering third parties.
Harassment under the Equality Act includes indirect harassment. I cannot see any way for an employer to seek to comply with this when they will be compelled to take all reasonable steps to prevent their staff encountering, or even overhearing, those conversations, jokes and remarks that they might find upsetting in view of their protected characteristics. Harassment cases taken to employment tribunals increasingly concern conduct having the effect of harassment, rather than behaviour intended to have that effect. The motives or intentions of the third party are irrelevant.
I have noticed that, in response to previous speeches raising concerns about this clause, the Government have argued that it will not be enough for the claimant simply to claim that someone’s conduct is offensive, and that there will be an objective test in which the reasonableness and facts of the individual situation will always be considered. But in every iteration of harassment—in law; in codes of conduct, including our own, here in the Lords; and, for example, in all elements of the regulation of hate speech—a key factor is the perception of the claimant. That is unduly subjective—something I have raised as a problem on numerous occasions, only to be told by Government Ministers that victims’ feelings are a core component. I would be more than happy if the Government were proposing amending equality law to tighten this up and narrow down indirect harassment, but, in the present circumstances, Clause 20 is a minefield and opens the door to egregious and boundless litigation across the board.
I want to consider who these third parties are. Maybe in the Government’s mind they are lairy, drunken, rich businessmen shouting abuse, or some mythical, anti-social, boorish bigots roaming around public-facing establishments hunting down hard-pressed staff to harass. In reality, who is it who goes to the football or the rugby and may fall foul of the law, as the noble Lord, Lord Young, illustrated? It is other workers who relax on their days off by supporting their sports clubs, and who do not mince their words while doing so.
Who do the Government think frequents pubs? These third parties could well include workmates who go for a pint after a long shift and may want to let off steam by moaning about their bosses, only for a member of the bar staff to take their lively views personally and feel harassed. They could be a group of care workers, gossiping away as they get their nails done and discussing the local grooming gang scandal, to which someone who works at the beauty salon takes offence. What about a bunch of apprentices on a night out at a comedy gig who join the heckling banter and perhaps shout something that a staff member or steward says insults their protected characteristic? What about the ex-police officer reading a Brexity book in the cafe and chatting to a staff member about it, and so on?
In other words, beyond some abstract legalese, third parties in the flesh are fellow workers trying to spend their private time unassailed by undue, back-door state regulation of their speech and leisure.
I note that, in universities, third parties are not just external speakers but students, who are now considered consumers and customers. Already, without this clause, there is a growing phenomenon of university management imposing rigorous speech codes on the student body in the form of anti-harassment policies under the guise of dignity at work and study policies. Many of us who are campaigners for free speech, such as those at the Free Speech Union, or my colleagues at the Academy of Ideas and Living Freedom, are working with students to roll back these policies that are a serious threat to academic freedom. Clause 20 would not only justify such censorious policing of students’ speech but would, in effect, necessitate it, as it would be remiss of any university not to take steps to minimise the liability risk of students offending academic staff and making them feel unsafe and complain of harassment.
Finally, I am concerned about the disproportionate effect that this will have on groups in society who hold dissenting views, expressions of which are too easily and regularly misrepresented as harassment. Surely any businesses that operate venues as part of the hospitality industry will seek to manage their liability through a risk-averse approach to any potentially contentious gatherings booking their premises. You can just imagine the conversations: “Oh God, no. Those evangelical Christians want to book a room again. That could be seen as harassing our gay staff”; “Oh, damn—that pro-Israel group wants to hold a meeting here, but lots of the catering staff are pro-Palestinian migrants. It is a bit risky”; “Drat. That bolshy Women’s Rights Network and Let Women Speak lot have arranged to meet here with all those customers wearing ‘Women = Adult Human Female’ T-shirts. That is bound to wind up our right-on, trans-ally bar staff. Just tell them we’re fully booked”.
In other words, Clause 20 could lead to overly cautious, “better safe than sorry”, informal blacklists. It could radically change and toxify the relationship between businesses and their customers. It is no longer “the customer is always right”, and you can forget about improving customer service; now customers are third-party harassment risks to staff.
We live in an era of divisive cancel culture. This misplaced assertion of the right not to be offended threatens social cohesion. We as legislators should seek to dismantle this culture and not add to it, as Clause 20 absolutely does.
Baroness Meyer (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to my amendments, as well as Amendment 84, for the same reasons so clearly highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Acton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox. Of course no one should ever face sexual harassment at work. That is why we passed the worker protection Act 2023 to place a clear duty on employers to take reasonable steps to prevent it, including from third parties. That law came into force only six months ago, so, as the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, quite clearly highlighted, why are we adding the so-called banter clause?
Clause 20 is not just unnecessary but a threat to free speech, a blow to small businesses, and a betrayal of the very spirit of this country. It amends the Equality Act 2010 to extend third-party harassment to non-sexual conduct. A casual comment between customers that is misunderstood or simply unpopular could trigger a legal claim, as noble Lords previously explained. This is not the same as the Conservative Government’s earlier reforms, which explicitly protected political, moral, religious or social opinions. Are we really expecting publicans, shopkeepers and café owners to police conversations on their premises? Someone joked that pubs would need “banter bouncers”. The Government laughed, but for small businesses it is not a joke. Even the Equality and Human Rights Commission warns that this is legally complex and challenging. Employers will need legal advice, staff training and new policy, and will risk get it wrong.
Clause 20 also demands that employers “take all reasonable steps” to protect their employees. This sounds minor, but it creates major uncertainty. What does “all reasonable steps” mean? To make matters worse, the Secretary of State will define reasonable steps by secondary legislation, without parliamentary scrutiny. This is not good governance. And at what cost? The Budget itself estimates an extra £3.4 billion cost for the hospitality sector alone. Dozens of pubs are already closing every week. Do we really want to make this worse?
This debate is not only legal and economic; it is also cultural and, for me, personal. I became a British citizen not because I had to but because I wanted to. I fell in love with this country for its soul, its quiet strength, its humour and its tolerance. In Britain, we did not take offence; we took the mickey. We disapproved without outrage. We rolled our eyes and moved on. We did not report people or call a lawyer. As Douglas Sutherland once said, the Englishman is never quite so natural as when he is being artificially humorous. That gentle irony—that refusal to take ourselves too seriously—is part of who we are. This clause will legislate it out of existence. This is not dignity at work; it is paranoia in public. Clause 20 will create a society where offence becomes power and litigation will replace common sense. We will become a society that silences its own people. We have seen where that leads—in regimes built on censorship and denunciation.
These amendments are crucial. Without them, the consequences will be more regulation, more red tape, more job losses and more silent voices before, once again, we will be forced to admit that we have gone too far. I support all the noble Lords who spoke before me in favour of these amendments. In particular, I reiterate that Clause 20 is unnecessary.
Lord Londesborough (CB)
My Lords, I will speak in particular to Amendments 83 to 85, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Acton. Clause 20, on harassment by third parties, although well-intentioned, has triggered this batch of amendments, none of which is perfect. Most seek to damage limit the Bill or bring in exemptions.
I will focus on the exemptions proposed in Amendment 85 and declare up front a relevant interest, in that I hold a significant minority stake in a rural community pub in mid-Wales. As we have already heard, the hospitality sector is low margin and struggling with a range of issues, including shortages of staff, smoking bans, competition from supermarkets, the rise of home entertainment, big tech and social media. Pubs specifically have had a horrendous time. In England and Wales alone, we have lost 13,000 pubs in the past 25 years and, as we have heard, each and every week another 10 close their doors for the final time.
Now this Bill expects the owner or the bar manager, often on low pay and inexperienced, to take on the role of a conversation arbiter or chat monitor in case a customer says something to their drinking or dining pal that is overheard and deemed offensive by an employee. To be clear, I accept that employers should step up if their customers or clients are being offensive to their staff. Yes, they have a responsibility to their staff’s welfare and to their code of conduct, but is legislating in this way the answer? It leaves so many questions, on a subjective level, of what is offensive and what is not.
That brings me to the second sector proposed for exemption by Amendment 85: sports venues. This is where Clause 20 threatens to become unworkable. This struck me only yesterday while I was in the London Stadium, with 60,000 others, watching West Ham stumble to yet another home defeat, this time against Nottingham Forest. There was a lot of anger in the crowd and much of the language could be described as vulgar or offensive. Others would call it passionate, fruity, spiky or humorous, but these views could be heard—or, importantly, overheard—by club officials, security staff, stewards, the police, bar staff, programme sellers and burger flippers, all of whom are employees of the club, the stadium, or various contractors and subcontractors. These views, in the space of 10 minutes, included the manager’s IQ being questioned vigorously and frequently; savaging of the players and their work ethic; forthright suggestions that the referee’s assistant should book multiple appointments at Specsavers; and, finally, the referee himself being repeatedly accused of practising self-love.
I am choosing my words carefully and not quoting directly in order to meet this House’s Code of Conduct, which I respect and have signed up to, but if I did not and repeated some of the profanities I heard yesterday, I would be in trouble. Here is the thing: Parliament, as an employer, would not currently be taken to a tribunal by a colleague, a doorkeeper or a Hansard employee who found my language offensive, but that could change if this Bill has its way.
The point is that most workplaces are covered by a code of conduct or employer’s handbook that sets out the markers and helps sort most of these incidents without the need for dispute litigation, employment lawyers or, indeed, tribunals. Much of this is driven by common sense and human decency, and the mutual interest of employer and employee to ensure a productive and harmonious working environment. Clause 20 threatens to undo much of that. I ask the Minister and this Government to seriously think again.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
I rise to support the amendments in the names of my noble friends Lord Young of Acton and Lady Noakes to Clauses 20 and 21. Both noted, as have other noble Lords, the impact these clauses will have on small businesses already struggling under a juggernaut of burdens, particularly those introduced since last July.
I begin with my noble friend Lady Noakes’s amendments to Clause 21, which, as she noted, amends the Equality Act 2010. These amendments, Amendments 89 to 96, would require regulations to specify the steps an employer needs to take to prevent the harassment of an employee and to cover all forms of harassment so that, provided those steps are followed, the employer is protected from liability. This change is reasonable and proportionate, in that it would oblige regulations to specify the steps needed to protect employers from liability to claims. It is a matter of fairness and good law that a measure should be clear about the duties under it, rather than leaving it to litigation.
The measure also has precedents, such as health and safety regulations in which employers’ duties are set out. In the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 the main duties are to identify risks, assess them and reduce them. The Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 require employers to provide adequate lighting, heating, ventilation and workspace and to keep them in a clean condition—and so on throughout the health and safety regulations of the 1990s. As if to egg the cake, we have the HSE’s guide on the steps needed to manage risk, which sets out step by step the process for controlling health and safety risk, in line with the regulations to identify hazards, assess risk and so on.
My noble friend Lady Noakes’s amendments to Clause 21 would ensure that employers know what is required in respect of preventing harassment, which matters in itself and is germane to good law. I therefore support them.
I also support Amendments 83 to 88, to Clause 20, in the names of my noble friends Lord Young of Acton and Lady Noakes. They address what is and is not required of employers in protecting their employees; clarify harassment to exclude
“the expression of an opinion on a political, moral, religious or social matter, provided the opinion is not indecent or grossly offensive”;
exclude the hospitality sector, university settings and sports venues so the obligation on the employer does not apply; exclude indirect harassment; take account of the employee’s perception of the circumstances and whether it was reasonable to have the effect; and take account of whether it was an isolated incident. These are all important amendments that have a great deal of support across the Committee.
Noble Lords have already explained how Clause 20 could undermine freedom of speech. We are not speaking of an employer’s liability for direct harassment by a third party, such as customers or clients, against an employee. That is covered by Section 40 of the Equality Act 2010. Rather, the clause being amended has the effect of making the employer liable for what third parties say when speaking among themselves, and which is then overheard by an employee. This might occur in a bar, restaurant, shop, the foyer of a cinema or theatre or on public transport. Customers in a restaurant or a bar might be discussing the latest immigration figures, the likelihood of yet more unsustainable migration into the country, the shortage of housing, schools and hospitals, ever longer waiting lists for a place or a bed, or an inability to understand English. To hold an employer liable for a private conversation among customers overheard by an employee is wrong. It would bring the law into disrepute.
Baroness Deech (CB)
I rise to support the noble Lord, Lord Young of Acton. It is great to have another champion of free speech in this House. I put my name to two amendments, Amendments 84 and 88, but I would happily have supported all the amendments in this group.
May I raise this to a slightly higher level? Earlier this afternoon, we heard a great deal of justified passion and appeal to principle in relation to creative rights. This time, we are talking about free speech, which I see as creepingly under attack in recent years—in fact, under this Government.
The situation is getting very bad: whether it is the halting of a higher education freedom of speech Bill or the failure, conversely, to stop hate marches proceeding through Jewish areas on Fridays and Saturdays or, indeed, outside this House; or whether it is arresting people for tweets, bursting into their houses with police because they have made an unpleasant tweet. We do not know where we are with freedom of speech any more. All we know is that we have to be very careful, and this is highly significant.
If the noble Baroness, Lady Carberry, was right in her analysis, we do not need Clause 20 at all; there is other protection for the sort of things that we are worried about. However, I will give your Lordships a couple of examples that puzzle me. I have read that the Co-op is now applying a policy of boycott, divestment and sanctions against Israel and Israeli products. Some would say that that is mere anti-Zionism; some would say that it is antisemitism.
Noble Lords will know that a yellow ribbon, which I see some Members of this House are wearing, stands for freeing the hostages. If I go into the Co-op wearing a yellow ribbon, am I offending those employees of the Co-op who are firmly anti-Zionist, anti-Zionism being a protected characteristic? If I go in there and ask for a tub of hummus and I am told that they do not have it, am I upsetting the employees or the policy of the Co-op? And what if there are Jewish employees of the Co-op who hold different views?
Noble Lords will know—I have often talked about this—that the main road from my home in Oxford to the station is completely blocked; one cannot get to the station except by walking about half a mile over cables and cones. I think it was yesterday that I picked my weary, arthritic way through this, and there was one of the builder’s employees pointing me in a different direction. I have to say that I lost my temper. I got worried afterwards that maybe I had harassed him but, frankly, the only way to stop harassment of those employees is for them to get that work done.
I mention those examples because I think the definitions will be extremely difficult. I am worried about freedom of speech, about the chilling effect that recent legislation and, indeed, social attitudes have had. Schoolchildren have recently been told that there should not be so much definition of their unhappiness as being about mental health. In relation to many things that are regarded as mental health issues, one might say, “Grow some grit”. I would say, “Grow some grit”, in relation to some things that people are worried about as expressed in Clause 20.
There is no right not to be offended, short of by hate speech or terrorism, let alone having someone else be offended on one’s behalf. Let us return to freedom of speech, uphold these amendments and get rid of Clause 20.
Lord Strathcarron (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 83, 85, 86 and 88 in my name. I am sure noble Lords will have noticed that, after the Second Reading of this Bill, media reports the next day focused disproportionately on what was reported as the absurdity of employers being held responsible for employees who are offended by third parties in situations in which the employers had no control over who said what, to whom, when, why or where. The “where” aspect is important, because this also applies to real or imaginary offence taken by employees off-site of the employer’s premises. It was rightly reported the next day as an Alice in Wonderland proposal, where the whole concept of responsibility is turned topsy-turvy. Another reported it less kindly as “bonkers”, and yet another as a new way for unscrupulous lawyers to make a killing.
One can only imagine the fresh media ridicule to which your Lordships’ House will be exposed if it allows Clause 20 to go through unamended. Of course, it is no ridicule for employers, or taxpayers where this happens in the public sector, but potentially a very expensive and time-consuming burden on them, and wide open to vexatious misuse.
Amendment 83 would the remove employers having to be responsible for their customers being overheard talking about matters of the day. If the proposers of the Bill had visited a pub, for example, they would know that a pub is a Parliament in which customers have just as much right to discuss the ways of the world as we do here in this Parliament.
Amendment 85 refers to the hospitality sector, sports venues and higher education settings. To give an example close to home of why it is needed in the hospitality sector, let us say that I invited someone to visit me here in your Lordships’ House and this person did not have English as his or her first language. Let us say, further, that my guest had stopped off at the Red Lion on the way here for refreshments, and that, after our meeting, I took him or her down to the River Restaurant for a quick meal. If this guest happened to see that one of the items on the menu was a curry, and remarked to the unprotected-characteristic employee serving the curry that no one in England knows how to make a proper curry, and if that remark was overheard by a chef with a protected characteristic, then the overhearing person could take real or vexatious offence, and the House of Lords could be taken to the tribunal, or more likely, after several months and thousands of pounds, there would be a pre-tribunal taxpayer-funded pay-off.
I am sure that noble Lords do not need reminding that such vexatious claims are a significant contributor to the 50,000 tribunal case hearings and one-year waiting-time backlog. We would indeed then be laughing stocks for allowing our own legislation to be used against us like this, or even to exist at all in the wider context.
That Amendment 85 should apply also to sports venues would be obvious if the proposers had attended any sports event, where support for a competing individual or team is necessarily enthusiastic and often boisterous. The crowd’s speech is so impossible for the venue employer to control that, if a protected-characteristic steward took offence at a remark aimed indirectly at an official, the employer would inevitably raise waivers with the organisers, who might quite reasonably think the whole idea is not worth the candle, and so unintended consequences would strike again. This is what we recently saw with the Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Act, leading to long-standing local events—in one case, a 150 year-old local flower show—being cancelled because it was caught in the collateral damage of well-intentioned legislation, just like this part of the Bill that we are discussing now.
Amendment 85 also seeks to exempt higher education settings, where, surely, hearing and coping with diverse opinions is what education is supposed to be about. Amendment 86 seeks to remove any offence taken by casual overhearing if that happens just once, by applying a rule that would rely on the offender causing offence on purpose rather than by mistake, casually, or—with the recent enormous rise in employees whose first language is not English—doing so through an understandable lack of familiarity with the language, with its nuances, subtexts, sarcasms and ironies that a native speaker would understand.
Amendment 88 seems the most reasonable of all, removing the overhearing aspect of the legislation, which is the one most open to vexatious claims, and for which, surely, no employer can reasonably be held responsible in any foreseeable circumstances.
I hope that, after hearing all the arguments against Clause 20, the Government will agree that these amendments would remove the most egregious parts of it and bring an element of reality to bear on these unforeseeable and uncontrollable circumstances in which employers might find themselves.
Lord Ashcombe (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 83, in the name of my noble friend Lord Young of Acton, and others in this group tabled by my noble friend Lady Noakes. I would like to reflect on the practical implications of these amendments for companies that regularly receive visitors in the course of their business. As noble Lords may be aware, I work for Marsh, an international, American-owned insurance broker. We are fortunate to welcome clients from across the globe—individuals from many cultures with diverse values—who come to London to discuss their insurance needs. As the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, noted, at Marsh we are guided by a strong internal code of conduct known as The Greater Good. This code outlines our organisational values and individual responsibilities. It is built on three pillars: “Win with integrity”, “You are never alone” and “Speak up”. These principles are designed to ensure a safe, respectful and inclusive environment for all our employees wherever in the world we operate; it matters not whether it is London or Singapore.
However, while we can uphold these standards internally, we cannot reasonably expect all visitors to our offices to be bound by the same code, much as we might wish it. Nor can we predict or control every comment made in the course of a conversation. Is it truly fair or practical to hold a company liable for remarks made by a visitor that may touch on political, moral, religious or social matters, as we have heard, and are not indecent or grossly offensive but might none the less be perceived as offensive by an employee or another guest? Such a standard would place an impossible burden on businesses, not just in hospitality and so on. It is simply not feasible to monitor or pre-empt every interaction that takes place on our premises.
Baroness Cash (Con)
My Lords, there have been very helpful and mainly anxious speeches during this debate. I am very grateful to my colleagues but also to the noble Baroness, Lady Carberry, whose speech this afternoon was probably the most enlightening and helpful. I say that because throughout her speech she described how improbable it was that anything described in the other speeches would happen. Unfortunately, we do not have the promise of the noble Baroness adjudicating on the claims that will be brought as a result of this clause.
I should declare at the outset that I spent 15 years as a libel barrister specialising in media law and freedom of expression. I am also a commissioner at the EHRC. I know only too well that the law as intended gets misconstrued. If one looks back at the EHRC’s code of practice in relation to equal pay, one sees very clearly that the code, issued under Trevor Phillips, was never intended to be deployed in litigation that has resulted in the bankrupting of Birmingham City Council or in the absolutely constraining circumstances imposed on large companies. It is just not there. Similarly, the reputation of our immigration tribunals is on the floor because they are likewise applying provisions in the Human Rights Act, which we are bound by the ECHR to apply, but they are applying them in subjective, absurd ways that I do not doubt for a minute the noble Baroness, Lady Carberry, would throw out if they were in front of her.
So what are we to do? We know that there is common sense on all sides of this Chamber, but our job is to scrutinise legislation and ensure that, when it gets to a court and to a judge, it can be properly and safely applied. That is why I support some of these amendments: there must be a way, and I beseech the Minister to review this and to look at what anxieties on this side of the Committee could be closed by some of these amendments.
I have done a search of the Article 10 case law under the human rights and European legislation where there has been tension in other countries. In France, for example, employees were harassed directly because of smoking outside—only in France, of course. In Germany, it was because they were wearing uniforms while biking. In all those cases, Article 10 rights were protected because the legislation was specifically drafted to say that the harassment was directed at the employee. The original clause here is not safely drafted, which is why I am asking the Minister to look at this again. It is not clear that it is only direct discrimination or harassment of an employee that will be caught by this. That is why we have had so many speeches this afternoon worried about what loopholes are being allowed with the clause as currently drafted. To be compliant with Article 10, we need to tighten it. We need, in this Chamber, to scrutinise it and ensure that the message goes back to the Government that it needs to be tightened.
The other thing that the noble Baroness, Lady Carberry, so beautifully enunciated in her speech was how it ought to be a reasonable perception of the activity that was deemed to be harassment. Again, we would hope that any sensible court would look at that and say, “Yes, absolutely”, but that test is not in the clause as currently drafted. I will read Clause 20, “Harassment by third parties”:
“In section 40 of the Equality Act 2010 (employees and applicants: harassment), after subsection (1) insert … (1A) An employer (A) must not permit a third party to harass a person (B) who is an employee of A”.
There is the first problem: we do not limit the harassment to direct harassment, and we need to do so. To ensure that it will be applied and interpreted by tribunals in the way that the noble Baroness, Lady Carberry, envisages, we need to ensure that that is tightened. Clause 20 goes on:
“(1B) For the purposes of subsection (1A), A permits a third party to harass B only if … the third party harasses B”—
there is still no tightening of the definition of “harass”—
“in the course of B’s employment by A, and … A failed to take all reasonable steps to prevent the third party from doing so … In this section ‘third party’ means a person other than … A, or … an employee of A”.
There is no reference at all in that clause to what test a court is to apply to the perception by the employee of the harassment. All the European cases, by which we are still bound under the ECHR, require an objective test to safeguard our freedom of expression rights under Article 10. What I have heard this afternoon is that there is no dispute between the two sides of this Committee that protecting Article 10 in the balance that happens here is the right thing to do, but that test is not in this clause, which is why these amendments are so important. We need that test and we need the direction of the harassment at a specific person, so that it cannot scoop up the other conversations or any of the other activities that are happening around them. It must be like the French case, the German case and all the other cases, which anyone is welcome to look up as I did. For that reason I support these amendments and beseech the Minister and the Government to look again at this. The way this clause is drafted is of very real concern.
Baroness Carberry of Muswell Hill (Lab)
My Lords, I did not want to interrupt the noble Baroness when she was speaking. However, I refer her to Section 26 of the Equality Act 2010, with which I am sure she is familiar, as an EHRC commissioner. That is where the relevant test is set out.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, this has been an interesting debate. It is difficult to know where to start, so I thought I would do so with a couple of parish notes. To the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, I say that the young man who was on the other end of her call was required by contract to read out a script. If he had deviated from the script, he would have been dismissed. The noble Baroness was not guilty of harassment, but of a lack of empathy concerning his contract. To the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, I can report that hummus is for sale in the Co-op in Bow. Indeed, following the cyberattack, that was about all it had for sale. To the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, I say that were he taken to court in the circumstances he describes—though I think that unlikely—for being grumpy in a football ground, all he would have to do was say where he was, and the judge would let him off on mitigating circumstances.
When the noble Lord, Lord Young, was announced as a peer I was very pleased, because I thought he would add something to your Lordships’ House from which we would benefit. To a great extent, that has revealed itself today. Through a cleverly and carefully constructed straw man argument, he has set up today’s debate. That straw man has been paraded, hoisted aloft, by a series of speeches either wittingly or unwittingly misapprehending the purpose of Clause 20. Before I begin to discuss that, though, let me say that I have been worrying about the use of the word “banter”. That word causes me to worry, and I will explain why to the noble Lord, Lord Young. For as long as I can remember, it has been used as a defence: “It was only a bit of banter”. It was only a bit of banter, but what was it? It has been justifying racism, sexism and homophobia since time immemorial. I was very surprised, therefore, that a man who understands words in the way the noble Lord, Lord Young, does, should use that phrase. The alliteration may work; but I am not happy with the word “banter”.
As I understand it, the point of the Bill is not the noble Lord’s straw man of policing personal conversations; the point is to take on the problem of workplace bullying by customers and users of particular facilities, and ensure that the employers adequately defend the workers, particularly those who have to interact with the public and who may otherwise feel exposed.
I would like briefly to drag this debate into the area of the practical reality for many people, often young, who work in industries where contact with customers is unmediated. After graduating, I ran a bar for a year, and I know what it is like for people working in those environments. They are largely in service industries—the very industries that some of your noble Lordships seek to absent from the Bill. My understanding of this part of the Bill is that it aims to protect people from having to withstand unreasonable behaviour. If we were to throw out that objective in the way that some of these amendments suggest, that would be to declare that we do not care about the plight of those employees and how they are treated.
The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, talked about the customer always being right. That is one of the problems. In the past, bosses have taken the side of customers against employees because they need the trade. In a way, the clause seeks to address that. There are other potential economic benefits, too. For example, many people talk a lot about recruitment problems in the service industry. One of the ways of enhancing such jobs would be for potential recruits to know that their employer has their back. Many good employers already do that; but everybody needs to know that there is an expectation across the board that they will be protected.
To echo my cry at the start of Committee, we need to see how the Government expect this to operate. Here, I join forces with the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes. We need to see what the draft regulations will look like and understand how the guidelines will interpret those regulations, so that your Lordships can be calmed and brought down from the current position.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, before my noble friend speaks from the Front Bench, I wonder whether I might contribute. I apologise to the Committee that I did not leap to my feet prior—
Lord Fox (LD)
Was the noble Lord in the Chamber at the beginning of the debate?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I was—I was sitting over there. I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for speaking after him. I am sure he is welcome to speak after me if he disagrees with anything I have to say.
Obviously, I am a barrister, as are many of the contributors this evening. I practised in the employment tribunal and in human rights, and I am a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. The Joint Committee wrote to the Government in respect of the Bill, expressing concerns that were reflected by the Equality and Human Rights Commission: in particular, the potential for a conflict between the right to freedom of expression, guaranteed by Article 10—as we have heard from various noble Lords—and the Article 8 right to a private and family life. That balancing exercise would be difficult for many employers to carry out.
The previous iterations of measures of this type included safeguards which have been omitted from the Bill, as the noble Lord, Lord Young, pointed out. In the Worker Protection (Amendment of Equality Act 2010) Act 2023 there was a measure that sought to place a duty on employers to take reasonable steps to prevent sexual harassment of their employees, and which is now Section 40A of the Equality Act. During its passage through Parliament, that Bill included provisions which sought to introduce a duty on employers to prevent non-sexual harassment of their employees by third parties. That was Clause 1 of that Bill, as brought from the House of Commons. That provision failed. It would have required all reasonable steps to have been taken to prevent harassment of the employee, solely because they did not seek to prevent the expression of an opinion in circumstances where the conduct constituting harassment involved a conversation in which an employee was not a participant.
In short, the Government have so far failed to answer the question from the Joint Committee about their reasoning for not including a similar carve-out for overheard opinions in the new duty in Clause 20. That was echoed in the original iteration of the Equality Act 2010, passed by the previous Labour Government, under Section 40(2) to (4). That would have required an employer to be liable for third-party harassment where they had failed to take such steps as would have been reasonably practicable to prevent the harassment. However, to be liable, the employer would have had to have known that the employee had been harassed by a third party on at least two other occasions.
The Government have decided not to adopt the same three-strike policy taken in the equivalent provisions or in the earlier potential measure proposed in the 2023 Act. Instead, we have a rule-making power that is said to provide what steps are to be regarded as reasonable. To my mind, that sits uneasily with the mandatory terms set out in new subsection (1A). For those reasons, it should not be part of this legislation.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friends Lord Young of Acton and Lady Noakes very much for their expert, valuable and important introductions to and insights into this group. I also thank my noble friends Lady Meyer, Lady Lawlor, Lady Cash, Lord Strathcarron, Lord Ashcombe and Lord Murray for their practical, legal and philosophical objections to Clause 20, which, as noble Lords will perhaps not be surprised to know, I do not regard as straw-man arguments. It was also wise of my noble friends to note that these amendments have the support of UKHospitality. They also have the support of the British Beer and Pub Association.
These amendments are vital in ensuring that we do not inadvertently restrict fundamental rights of free expression in the workplace and beyond. We all recognise the importance of protecting employees from harassment. It is not about not caring about their plight, as the noble Lord, Lord Fox, implied; it is about also ensuring that we are not creating a framework that stifles open and honest conversation. That is especially true in matters of political, moral, religious or social debate.
Clause 20 as it stands is, as my noble friend Lady Cash pointed out, poorly drafted and therefore risks leading to unintended consequences. In fact, I agree with the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, about the speech from the noble Baroness, Lady Carberry, who made a very persuasive case that Clause 20 is superfluous in its current form.
The inclusion of speech or conversation that simply expresses an opinion on a political, moral, religious or social issue would lead to significant restrictions on individuals’ freedom to speak openly. This could lead to employees feeling that they cannot express their thoughts and ideas or, perhaps worse, would be penalised for expressing an opinion that someone else may find uncomfortable or offensive. As my noble friend pointed out, we must be mindful of the unintended consequences that could arise from an overbroad definition of harassment. Both he and the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, gave strong examples from the footballing world. If I may speak as a fellow West Ham United fan, I am very aware that being a supporter of that august club can be a very testing experience that can drive one to the occasional profanity.
It is not just in sports that these concerns arise. Think about public spaces such as pubs, about which we have been hearing. If an individual overhears a conversation that they find offensive or upsetting, where does the line lie? What happens if somebody misunderstands something that is said and it is taken to an employment tribunal as a case of harassment? In such situations, the burden placed on employers would become unreasonable. Would they be required to intervene every time someone overhears an opinion that they find discomforting or just dislike?
If I may ask a genuine question, how are people supposed to judge, to quote the noble Baroness, Lady Carberry, whether a conversation is obviously fake or not? As my noble friend Lord Young and the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, argued, are we expecting publicans to make finely calibrated judgments on ECHR Article 10 in particular? We should remember that even senior police officers, who are trained in these matters, often struggle to make such judgments. Employers will inevitably err on the side of caution and that is chilling.
I believe that we must ensure that harassment in this context remains focused on behaviours that are truly indecent or grossly offensive, not on speech that is merely uncomfortable or challenging. People must have the right to engage in conversations, to express differing opinions and to debate issues of public importance without the fear of being accused of harassment. To allow an employer to be forced or encouraged into silencing this kind of expression would be a serious violation of freedom of speech, which is a cornerstone of our democracy and society.
The amendments before us offer balance. They ensure that employers are not required to protect their employees from hearing or overhearing expressions of opinion, provided that those opinions are not indecent or grossly offensive. This is a reasonable and sensible approach. It respects individuals’ rights to express their views without creating an environment where every opinion has the potential to be deemed harassment.
Moreover, these amendments recognise the specific context in which such protections should apply. By excluding certain sectors, such as the hospitality industry, sports venues and higher education, we acknowledge the diverse nature of these environments where debate, disagreement and the expression of differing opinions are often the fabric of daily life. To apply the same strict rules in these settings as we would in an office environment or a more controlled space would be misguided. The noble Lord, Lord Fox, may well say that this is not the purpose of Clause 20. However, as my noble friends Lady Cash and Lord Murray pointed out, the drafting means that that is unlikely to be the effect.
The requirement for repeated instances of harassment before an employer must take action, as outlined in Amendment 86, aligns with the principle of proportionality. We should not expect employers to become the arbiters of every comment or opinion expressed, especially when such comments are made in good faith. The amendment rightly recognises that harassment should be defined as something that occurs repeatedly, not something that might result from a single isolated incident of disagreement or discomfort. I agree with my noble friend Lord Young of Acton that this is a solution in search of a problem or, based on his statistics, a sledgehammer in search of a nut.
When the Minister responds, can she please answer my noble friend Lady Noakes’s point on territorial extent? These issues are clearly not going away, so I urge the Government to take them very seriously. As it stands, Clause 20 is garbled and needs rewriting.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
I thank all noble Lords who have spoken. I hope I can reassure the Committee of the Government’s approach, as well as set straight some considerable misunderstandings on how the provisions will operate. I stress at the outset that the provisions in the Bill will protect employees while preserving existing human rights, such as freedom of speech, which I hope we can all agree are core British values. Also core to our identity is the belief that with rights come responsibilities.
I will first address the noble Lords, Lord Young of Acton and Lord Strathcarron, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, who oppose Clause 20. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Young of Acton, for meeting me to share his views. When we met, he pushed his position that our proposals are anti-banter, and he has reiterated that today. I make it clear that we are anti-harassment, not anti-banter, and this is what Clause 20 delivers.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Fox, that I feel that we have been subjected to a wave of synthetic rage by many on the other Benches this evening, who have given examples that simply would not be covered by the harassment provisions in Clause 20. Removing Clause 20 would not only go against the manifesto on which this Government were elected but deprive employees of protection from all types of harassment by third parties under the Equality Act 2010. This Government are committed to tackling all forms of harassment in the workplace. In order to make workplaces safe, we must require employers to create and maintain workplaces and working conditions free from harassment, including by third parties.
For example, if a woman is sexually harassed by a customer at work today, she has very few effective options by which to seek legal redress, even if her employer has made no effort whatever to address the issue. The only possible employment law action in this scenario at present is for the Equality and Human Rights Commission to exercise its unique enforcement powers against the employer. However, such powers can be used only very selectively and strategically by the commission, and would be unlikely to be used in anything other than an exceptional case.
Sexual harassment is, sadly, not the only type of harassment that is experienced in the workplace. Employees can experience racial harassment or harassment related to their disability or other protected characteristics. In the case of non-sexual harassment, not even the possibility of enforcement exists at present. As such, Clause 20 is required for employees to be able to seek legal redress where they have experienced third-party harassment, and to ensure that employers are clear about their responsibilities.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
I would like some clarity. There is some confusion over what the definition of harassment is in law. If you asked whether I was for the harassment of employees and workers, I would of course reply that I am not, but we have to look at the way the law defines harassment, particularly indirect harassment and some of the issues that were raised.
Despite the noble Lord, Lord Fox, imagining that we have all been whipped up into some synthetic rage by the noble Lord, Lord Young, because we are incapable of working out for ourselves what we think about a piece of legislation, there is concern about free speech. I am confused about what the Minister is saying free speech is. She keeps saying that we cannot allow unacceptable behaviour. Is that part of the legislation? What unacceptable behaviour is she referring to? Is it detailed in the law? Which things is she talking about? It is one thing to say that a football team has rules, but have the Government come up with a new behaviour code in this Bill that society must adopt? If they have, I have not seen the details.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
There is harassment, and what we are debating now is third-party harassment. Obviously, tribunals would have to take into account the practicality of enforcing third-party harassment, and I have been trying to set out the grounds on which it would be considered either reasonable or unreasonable. That would have to be considered case by case, but nevertheless the issue is very different from an employee’s absolute right not to be harassed directly in the workplace.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
I am a bit puzzled as to how the tribunal will measure this alleged harassment, given the different interpretations that could be put on it. There are some conflicts, as we have heard today.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
I thought I had explained that in my description, and I do not really want to have to repeat it. I explained the grounds that would be considered when comparing harassment with acceptable behaviour.
Amendment 85 also seeks to significantly reduce the scope of Clause 20 by excluding the hospitality sector, sports venues and higher education. This would create a disparity and a hierarchy of protections across employers and sectors, leaving swathes of employees without equal protection. This cannot be justified, given that employers in these sectors will be required only to do what is reasonable, and this will depend on their specific circumstances.
Amendment 86 seeks to reinstate the three-strike rule that was repealed in 2013. However, as I have explained, an isolated or one-off incident is much less likely to amount to harassment than continuing acts. The recent Free Speech Union campaign against this clause stated that
“when the Equality Act was originally passed, it included a clause making employers liable for the harassment of employees by third parties, but it was repealed in 2013 because it proved to be so costly and difficult for employers to comply with. We mustn’t make the same mistake again”.
We agree that we should not make that mistake again. We cannot see why the noble Lord, Lord Young of Acton, would wish to impose on employers the unnecessary costs and burdens that this amendment would bring. By contrast, the Government’s approach will make it simpler for employers to understand their obligations and will ensure that victims can be confident that they are protected by law.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
In relation to the last passage of the Minister’s speech, it appears to be the Government’s position that it is not accepted that carve-outs for three strikes are necessary because that would impose a burden on business. The Explanatory Notes to the Bill, and to the Equality Act, specifically state that in determining the effect of the unwanted conduct, courts and tribunals must balance competing rights on the facts of a particular case—the point that the Minister has just made. Will she not accept that the effect of the provision, as presently drafted, will be for a sensible employer to take overly defensive approaches to prevent actions being brought against them under these provisions? It is that reaction which will cause a stifling of free speech, and this Committee should be very worried about that.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I cannot see why we should carve out some of the most customer-facing sectors, where the sorts of harassment we are talking about are probably more prevalent. I cannot see the point of that. Surely every employee in this country has the same right to be protected from harassment, and that is what we are attempting to achieve. Most of the pubs and sports grounds that I frequent already have these policies, so it is a minority of pubs—obviously the sorts of pubs that the noble Lord, Lord Young, likes to go to—that do not have them. I think most people would like to frequent places where they feel that the employees are treated with respect and are protected.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, can the Minister explain why Clause 21 gives power to the Secretary of State to make provisions in relation to reasonable steps only for sexual harassment and not non-sexual harassment? I think she said something about it being an area in which there is evidence that this would be useful—I cannot remember her exact words. I cannot understand why the Government have not extended the logic of giving assistance in this area to tribunals beyond sexual harassment, especially given the broadening of the extent of non-sexual harassment by including third parties.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I can say only that it is for the reasons I have outlined previously in my speech. We want to make sure that where we broaden the protections, it is done on a very careful basis and achieves the desired effect.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
We are not talking about broadening protections; we are talking about setting out what constitutes reasonable steps in the case of sexual harassment, which is included in Clause 21, and other kinds of harassment, which, incomprehensively, are not included. I am simply asking why the Government have gone down that particular route.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, the easiest thing is for me to write to the noble Baroness to explain this. It is obviously based on previous experiences of case law and so on. I will write to the noble Baroness.
Her previous question was about the Bill’s jurisdiction over overseas employees. While I cannot necessarily speak to the example that she raised, the Bill does not broaden the jurisdiction of employment tribunals beyond their current jurisdiction over any overseas employees. The situation will remain as it stands.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
Can the Minister explain what the current jurisdiction is? What is the current territorial extent for all tribunal cases?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I presume that it is where employees are based here in the UK, but if I am wrong I will write to the noble Baroness and clarify that.
In conclusion, I am grateful to all noble Lords for tabling these amendments but, for the reasons set out, the Government cannot support them. The Government are on the side of workers, not abusers. We will ensure that workers have the fair protections at work that they deserve. I therefore ask that Amendment 83 is withdrawn and that Clause 20 stands part of the Bill.
Lord Fox (LD)
I asked the Minister to set out in detail how future regulations and these clauses will work in practice. I hope she is able to take that on board between Committee and Report.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I will attempt to update your Lordships’ House on these issues at the time the noble Lord has suggested.
Baroness Deech (CB)
Can I ask the Minister about one very troubling case, which I am sure is known to everybody? Professor Kathleen Stock of the University of Sussex faced three years of undoubted bullying and harassment because she held and still holds gender-critical views. She was bullied and harassed by students and other staff, which resulted in her resigning. The university was fined by the OfS for breaches of freedom of speech but still believes, according to the vice-chancellor, that being fined was wrong and that free speech was being hindered by—presumably—Professor Stock having to resign. How would Clause 20 affect this well-known situation—Professor Stock bullied for three years because of her gender-critical views? The university, like all universities, has signs everywhere saying, “We do not tolerate abuse” et cetera, but I do not know whether that does much good.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I do not think it is appropriate to talk about an individual case, but can I make it absolutely clear here that we are committed to defending free speech and upholding academic freedom? The significant penalty showed that the Office for Students will take robust action where universities fail to do so. If you go to university, you must be prepared to have your views challenged, hear contrary opinions and be exposed to uncomfortable truths. We recently announced that we are giving the OfS stronger powers on freedom of speech. The sector needs to take academic freedom and freedom of speech seriously. We hope that the OfS report and regulatory action will incentivise providers to fully comply with their freedom of speech duties.
Lord Young of Acton (Con)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords on all sides of the Committee who have contributed to an excellent debate. Just on the final point made by the Minister, the Government’s commitment to academic freedom and free speech and upholding them in universities was not particularly clear at the beginning of the Government’s term. Bridget Phillipson torpedoed the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act within days of getting her feet under the desk and agreed only reluctantly to implement some of the clauses that were due to be implemented last year, on 1 August, thanks to a judicial review brought by the Free Speech Union.
I am not sure that the Minister responded to the very good question that my noble friend Lady Noakes asked about whether the liability of employers for third-party harassment would extend to their employees overseas.
I would like to respond in a bit of detail to the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Carberry of Muswell Hill. One of the safeguards she mentioned against the overapplication of Clause 20 is that only an employee with the relevant protected characteristic could sue if they had been offended or upset—if they felt harassed—by virtue of that protected characteristic. But that is not quite accurate. You do not have to have the protected characteristic in question to sue your employer for failing to protect someone with that protected characteristic from being harassed, as established in the case of English v Thomas Sanderson Ltd, in which someone successfully sued their employer in the employment tribunal for not protecting a notional employee with the relevant protected characteristic, when she herself did not have that protected characteristic.
The noble Baroness also said she thought it very unlikely that an employee could sue their employer for failing to take all reasonable steps to protect them from overhearing remarks, jokes, expostulations et cetera made by customers or members of the public. But in the case of Sule v Shoosmiths in the employment tribunal, a woman did successfully sue her employer, Shoosmiths, for a conversation she overheard about immigration. She was a Nigerian lady and she overheard a conversation —not directed at her—which she found upsetting or offensive by virtue of her protected characteristic. If that woman had been employed in Downing Street and had overheard a conversation between the Prime Minister and his aides last week about the speech the Prime Minister was about to give about immigration, it may well be that she could have sued the Civil Service for not taking all reasonable steps to protect her from being harassed in that way—overhearing a conversation about immigration that she found offensive or upsetting.
If the noble Baroness, Lady Carberry, sincerely believes that Clause 20 is not intended to be invoked to ban banter, why not accept Amendment 88, which would exempt employers from being sued for indirect third-party harassment? We have heard the argument over and over again on the other side of the Committee that the amendments that my noble friends and I and other noble Lords have suggested as ways of improving the Bill and clarifying exactly what steps employers would need to take to protect their employees from third-party harassment are completely unnecessary because the clause is not intended for things such as overheard conversations—banter—to be in scope. But it seems a little naive to imagine that the clause will be applied only in ways that the Government currently intend. What about unintended consequences? The noble Baroness said that she was not anti-banter, just anti-harassment. I am anti-unintended consequences. If you want to avoid those unintended consequences materialising, these vexatious complaints being brought in the employment tribunal or eccentric decisions being made by the tribunal, why not clarify exactly what the limits of employers’ liability are by accepting some of these amendments?
The noble Lord, Lord Fox, accused me of erecting a straw man and said that I was trying to generate synthetic rage about the risks I claim arise from this clause. Well, it is not synthetic—it is real. I know this because the Free Speech Union has taken on at least five cases in which people have been silenced because of a misunderstanding about the scope of the Equality Act due to a belief that the Equality Act, as it stands, requires employers to protect their employees from third-party harassment.
The noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, mentioned that one of the likely consequences of this clause is that gender-critical feminist groups might find it difficult to book spaces in pubs and other venues for fear that trans and non-binary employees of those venues might object that merely inviting women with those views into the pub would constitute a form of harassment. That has happened three times. We have cases of gender-critical feminist groups being ejected from pubs because the managers have misunderstood what their responsibilities and legal duties are under the Equality Act. They believe that those duties extend to protecting their trans and non-binary employees from being harassed by allowing third parties to discuss views they find offensive, deeply upsetting or disagreeable.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)
My Lords, I respectfully point out that we have now had more than two hours on this group of amendments and that we have just come up to 12 minutes for the response to this long debate. A fair person would say that this is excessive free speech. I respectfully ask the noble Lord to bring his remarks to a conclusion, so that we can make some progress.
Lord Young of Acton (Con)
I will bring my remarks to a conclusion. Sorry, I thought I had 15 minutes. I misunderstood.
Lord Young of Acton (Con)
Oh, I do, apparently—and there have only been 12 minutes. But I will not use my allotted time of three more minutes.
I conclude by saying that the risk of over-application of this clause—by hospitality sectors, in football grounds and in our universities—is not a straw man. We see that risk materialising due to a misunderstanding— an imagining—that third-party harassment is already part of the Equality Act, when it is not. That risk will multiply when this clause goes on the statute book. It is not a straw man or confected rage. If the Government think it is a straw man—if they are absolutely convinced that none these risks will actually materialise—at the very least they should make that clear by accepting these amendments. They are losing nothing if they think they do not rule out of scope stuff that they do not want to be in scope in any case. I urge them to accept the amendments for the sake of clarity and for the sake of employers.
I will make one final point. When the noble Baroness—
Lord Cromwell (CB)
I think the noble Lord has misunderstood that his 10 to 15 minutes were for his earlier contribution, not for responding to the Minister. He has made some really good points a number of times now. Can we have a break, please?
Lord Young of Acton (Con)
Okay, I will wind up.
I will make just one final point. The Minister said that, in due course, the employment tribunal will make it clear that reasonable steps with respect to protecting employees from harassment will not be the same steps that employers are expected to take to protect their employees from third-party harassment, as opposed to employer-employer harassment. That may well be the case, but what that amounts to saying is that the jurisprudence in the employment tribunal, when it comes to the definition of harassment, will not be a particularly reliable guide for employers, when it comes to how they should define harassment when protecting their employees from third-party harassment. What she is saying, in effect, is that, if you cannot rely on the definition of what a reasonable step is in the ET hitherto, employers will be in the dark. They will have to chart these uncharted waters. Would it not be helpful to employers—and a boon to the beleaguered hospitality sector industry in particular—to make it clear, by accepting these amendments, what their liabilities are and are not?
Finally—
Lord Young of Acton (Con)
I was going to say the final words: I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Employment Rights Bill
Monday 19th May 2025
(10 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Employment Rights Act 2025 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 81-IV(Corrected)(a) Amendments for Committee (Supplementary to the Fourth Corrected Marshalled List) - (19 May 2025)
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
“Employer duties on harassment: impact assessment(1) The Secretary of State must carry out an assessment of the likely impact of sections 19 to 22 of this Act on employers.(2) The assessment must report on the extent to which the prevalence of third-party harassment makes the case for measures in sections 19 to 22 and—(a) include an assessment of the impact of sections 19 to 22 on free speech;(b) include an assessment of the likely costs to employers of sections 19 to 22;(c) include—(i) an assessment of which occupations might be at particular risk of third-party harassment through no fault of the employer, and(ii) proposals for mitigations that can be put in place for employers employing people in such occupations.(3) The Secretary of State must lay a report setting out the findings of the assessment before Parliament.”Member's explanatory statement
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to assess the impact of the provisions of Clauses 19 to 22.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 97 stands in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom. I am delighted that my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, have also signed this amendment.
As we look back over the debates we have had on Clauses 19, 20, 21 and 22, we quickly reach the conclusion—as the Minister said in winding up the last debate—that there is a great deal of misunderstanding about the effect of these clauses. That is because the Government’s impact assessment is simply not fit for purpose. This proposed new clause would require the Secretary of State to assess the impact of the provisions of Clauses 19 to 22.
In many ways, I am only repeating what I have said on several other occasions throughout the passage of the Bill: there has not been enough homework done on the impact of the various clauses. That is particularly true in relation to the clauses concerning the requirement for employers not to permit the harassment of their employees by third parties.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Fox, that my noble friends Lord Young of Acton and Lady Noakes have not exhibited synthetic rage but genuine concern. They have raised a number of important and serious concerns about the clauses as drafted. Yet the Minister, although I was hoping she might, failed to commit to undertaking a comprehensive and robust impact assessment. That is just not good enough.
In fact, on all three of the standard criteria used to evaluate regulatory proposals—rationale for intervention, identification of options and justification for the preferred way forward—the Regulatory Policy Committee has given a red rating to the Government. That should be deeply concerning to all of us in this Committee.
The Government are, of course, absolutely right that harassment in the workplace is unacceptable. That is a point on which there is strong consensus right across the Committee, and rightly so. Many noble Lords have spoken powerfully and persuasively on this matter during our debates, including many, very eloquently, on the Government Benches. Given that, it is all the more baffling that the Government should have taken such a lacklustre and superficial approach to the impact assessment for these specific clauses.
The assessment surely needs to provide a much more rigorous analysis of the risks. There is, for example, no mention at all of the very risks and impacts that led to the Worker Protection (Amendment of Equality Act 2010) Act 2023 being amended during its passage through Parliament. That legislation originally included provisions around third-party harassment, which were dropped after those serious concerns were raised, particularly in relation to freedom of speech and the cost burdens on employers. Surely no justification is offered here for ignoring those previous conclusions.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, I rise to support the amendment ably and comprehensively moved by my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral, which would, as he explained, insert a new clause. It is an eminently sensible amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Fox, described the arguments put by this side in the previous debate as straw man arguments. He was like Don Quixote tilting at windmills, because his claim that they were straw man arguments was comprehensively eviscerated by my noble friend Lord Young of Acton. They were substantive arguments and substantive concerns, notwithstanding the noble Lord’s comments and those of noble Lords on the Government’s side.
Clause 20 could be described as a hologram or a chimaera because it does not provide very much in the way of detail about the practical ramifications and impacts of this clause on businesses, particularly smaller businesses. The amendment is very sensible. In section 10 of the cost-benefit analysis in the Employment Rights Bill: Economic Analysis that the Government published last October, one is hard pressed to see any detailed empirical evidence from reputable economists or other academics which would sustain the likely costings that the Government have prayed in aid in favour of this part of the Bill. We are told that the universal cost of the Bill to business will be a very speculative £5 billion, but the source of that figure is not very clear; in fact, it is quite opaque. I do not believe that figure. For a number of reasons, the data is suspect, which is why we need the proper impact assessment so persuasively argued for by my noble friend on the Front Bench. We have not had a proper analysis of the detail in a risk assessment of section 10 of the cost-benefit analysis.
We also have not had a proper consultation process on the Bill. We have not had the opportunity to look at the likely impacts that flow from this clause. I say at the outset that, like my noble friend Lord Young of Acton, I am a proud member of the Free Speech Union, which has made a similar case about consultation.
We also do not know anything about the opportunity cost. Not everyone is an economist, but opportunity cost is what may have happened if this Bill had not come along. I suspect that employers, including smaller employers, would have taken on more staff, had there not been the encumbrances in this clause. In other words, they will be risk averse: they will not wish to run the risk of taking people on, given the litigation and vexatious claims which may well arise from this clause.
The figure the Government have put forward for the number of employment tribunals does not stand up to scrutiny, given the pressure that this will put on the tribunals themselves, as well as the other courts that will be responsible for adjudicating on this litigation. Indeed, as my noble friend said, this will exacerbate the already very significant problem of backlogs in the employment tribunals.
I turn to the kernel of this amendment. If I take the Minister and, indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Carberry, who supported her from the government Benches, at their word, I do not know why they would not wish to support the free speech caveat in this amendment. Although they have not properly identified what harassment is—they have not defined it—they are going after people who are committing acts of harassment. They are not seeking to stifle or curtail free speech.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I would suggest that the so-called “free speech caveat” is Section 6 of the Human Rights Act, which requires all public authorities, including courts and tribunals, to interpret all other legislation in a way that is compatible with convention rights, including—for the purposes of the present debate, as I understand the noble Lord’s concerns—Article 10 of the convention on human rights.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
I defer to the noble Baroness’s expertise on human rights legislation, but we are considering this specific, bespoke legislation. There will not necessarily be a read-across between that and—
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
Well, the noble Baroness will not be present at every employment tribunal and hear and adjudicate every case. As my noble friend Lord Young of Acton has said, there is a significant threat of inadvertent issues arising from this legislation, which, as my noble friend Lady Cash has said, is very poorly drafted. As subsection 2(a) of the proposed new clause sets out, it is important to look through the prism of free speech at Clauses 19 to 22.
It is also important to look at the likely costs to employers. This is the central point of my remarks: we do not know what those costs will be. It is certainly appropriate that Ministers be required to tell Parliament what the ramifications are in terms of cost. This is a Government who are committed to growth and to supporting businesses in all their endeavours. Therefore, it would be sensible to consider a review of how these issues impact on businesses.
On proposals for mitigations, there have been no ideas, no protocols, no concordats, and no policies put in place to give any guidance to smaller businesses—I am not necessarily referring to the smallest micro-businesses—to cope with the problems deliberately arising because this Labour Government have chosen to put these encumbrances and burdens on businesses. They are not giving any support to businesses to help cope with this. The costs will fall on the shareholders, on the businesses, and ultimately on the workforce—and it will cost jobs. For that reason, I support the amendment. It does not detract from the important commitment to protect ordinary working people, who deserve to be able to go to work without being bullied, harassed or treated unfairly or egregiously. We all agree with that, on which there is a consensus. It would not detract from that to make an amendment that would provide extra protections against people who are vexatious or malicious, or who cause difficulties in the long run, for no apparent reason. It is a sensible amendment that would protect business and would also protect the workforce.
Lord Hendy (Lab)
Can the noble Lord indicate what he thinks the value of an impact assessment is that does not weigh the benefits that ensue from the legislation but only the costs?
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
I think that is a slightly odd question coming from the supporter of a Government who are not coming forward with either intangible or tangible benefits in monetisable ways. Were that in the impact assessment or the economic analysis of the Bill, I would defer to the noble Lord’s argument, but neither of them are there. Frankly, it is difficult for us to make a value judgment on the balance of obligations and responsibilities between the workforce and the employer when the data is not provided. I think the noble Lord has probably made my case. With that, I support the amendment from my noble friend on the Front Bench.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
My Lords, I support my noble friends Lord Sharpe of Epsom and Lord Hunt of Wirral in proposing this impact assessment and thank my noble friend Lord Hunt for making the case so persuasively from the Front Bench. I shall simply pick up on a few points that were made in the amendment and his speech. The amendment asks for an impact assessment on free speech. Proposed new subsection (1) asks for an assessment of Sections 19 to 22 of this Act on employers. Proposed new subsection (2) says:
“The assessment must report on … the impact of sections 19 to 22 on free speech”
and include
“an assessment of the likely costs to employers”
of these sections, which must include types of occupations at risk and proposals for mitigations.
I want to comment on this amendment in the context of universities. I spoke earlier in Committee about the mitigations a university might take in its rules and in the checklist that it hands out to potential candidates for a place who want to come to that university to study and who are asked to abide by certain arrangements or rules. These rules will, if the employer and the university follow what they are required as trustees of a charity to follow, protect the costs: whatever endowment of funds the university has, it will have to follow caution. I have no doubt that undergraduates or graduate students coming in for postgraduate work will be asked to promise not to complain, or be overheard doing so, or speak ill of lecturer A, whose lectures they may not approve of, may think are no good or whatever, as happens in normal intercourse in a university.
One of the standard things you will hear as undergraduates leave the room is, “What a rotten lecture that was” or “Isn’t it interesting that such a subject didn’t touch on the kernel of the matter?” or whatever they think is important. This is the sort of education we want to impart. We want students to question and challenge. We want them to make the case against what they have heard and to think about it. To make an employer liable for a student doing what a university education should encourage—we encourage it at school too—seems to me silly. We should have an impact assessment of what will happen and what sort of steps a university will take to curtail that freedom to argue or to criticise an employee of the university. We should ask for an impact assessment. It would not be very difficult to consult universities and find out exactly how they would get around this potential liability as employers.
The same goes for mitigation and the costs which will be incurred. For example, take the costs to an institution such as a university of fighting a claim in an employment tribunal. The member of staff concerned, against whom the criticism has been made, will be on tenterhooks all the time. They may be distracted, may have to continue to give evidence to the employer, and so on, with a lot of back and forth. As for the employers, think of the staff costs, counsel charges, legal charges, administrative costs and committee costs they will incur, and the time that will be spent on that rather than on running their universities to do what they ought to do—to educate undergraduates and do research. This is the most moderate request for an impact assessment that I have heard. Noble Lords would be well advised to agree that we need an impact assessment, both on free speech and the likely costs—particularly the costs of going to a tribunal and waiting for all that period.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I, too, have my name on Amendment 97, which would introduce yet another impact assessment. I know that so many impact assessments have been proposed in relation to the Bill that it has become a bit of a cliché, but I am especially concerned that this one is taken seriously because the third-party harassment sections of the Bill are ill thought out in a way that could lead to unintended consequences.
One noble Lord a few moments ago asked why there was a desire for an impact assessment rather than thinking of the potential positives of the Bill. The response of the Government in relation to concerns about Clause 20, for example, which is to say that there is nothing to see here—no problem at all—is an insufficient way of responding to some quite detailed scrutiny that has been put forward. If there is any exaggeration of the potential problems, an impact assessment should be able to resolve that for us.
I will focus largely on Clause 20, looking first at its potential cost to employers. That is especially important given that the Minister’s counter to my remarks earlier was that Clause 20 will be good for business. The Government’s own assessment advises that the total economic impact of complying with Clause 20 will be under £10 million and will have negligible economic impact on businesses. That is irresponsible; some might go so far as to call it misinformation. For example, that assessment says that the cost of familiarisation with the Bill and its ramifications will be £30 per medium business and only £19 per small microbusiness. I am not sure where these woeful underestimates come from or what they are based on, but if noble Lords have never met an employment lawyer, I can assure them that that is an unlikely figure.
We need a serious cost-benefit analysis. Let us consider what this section of the Bill requires businesses to do. Employers must show that they have taken all reasonable steps; that sets a high threshold for preventive action, as we heard earlier. Let us think what that means. There are direct costs for the initial implementation of anti-harassment policies, including familiarisation with the new regulations and checking exactly what their legal liabilities will mean. As we have seen during this debate, it is not necessarily as clear as day what the Bill requires.
As we have been arguing, if you are a small microbusiness trying to concentrate on being a business and trying to grow bigger, having to study the Bill and work out what your liability will be could be quite time consuming, nerve-wracking and so on. They will have to seek out third-party and legal advice—no doubt, there will be lots of consultants queuing up—because, as responsible businesses, they will want to safeguard themselves from the financial risks of not complying. One of the main risks they will be trying to ensure they do not have to deal with is the possibility of employment tribunals.
In what seems like an entirely arbitrary figure, the Government predict that only 30 employment tribunals a year will come from these clauses. There is no explanation as to how the Government reached that figure, and it is certainly completely at odds with industry experts who expect that Clause 20 alone will see an increase in employment tribunals of 15%—in other words, an additional 14,750 cases a year. As we heard earlier in a different context, already in 2023-24, employment tribunal courts received 97,000 cases, up from 86,000 the year before. That is an increase of nearly 13%. More and more people are forced into employment tribunals for a variety of reasons.
This Bill threatens to create even more cases—an unknown figure because it is a new provision. The Government are saying that it will be only 30 a year, but that is just making it up. There is, at least, an attempt in this amendment to try to work it out. According to the chambers of commerce, the cost of one employment tribunal is, on average, about £8,500, and if a claimant is successful, there is no financial limit to the compensation in a harassment case. Imagine you are a business worried about what is going to happen: this clause will lead to risk-averse and overcautious behaviour, not detailed in the Bill, to try to avoid being held liable. Some of us fear that this is what this kind of over-regulatory, precautionary approach will lead to.
Businesses will not be able to be slipshod about their potential liability. Smaller SMEs and microbusinesses —often with no dedicated HR or EDI offices—will need to think about employing new staff dedicated to protecting them from claims and giving them advice. The idea of a whole new generation of HR and EDI staff roles in every business in the country is frightening enough, but, anyway, it has nothing to do with their core businesses. Let us also note that the average salary of an EDI officer in the UK is £42,084.
I want also to stress why an impact assessment must include which occupations might be at particular risk of third-party harassment claims through no fault of the employer and the impact, specifically, on free speech. These parts of the amendment are very important because we were asked earlier in a different group why there had been a focus on hospitality, sport and universities. There may be other sectors but, in a way, this is an assessment to see which sectors would be affected. It also asks for an impact assessment on free speech. As we have heard, the Government simply deny that there will be any impact in relation to free speech. I disagree, but let us scrutinise it.
The noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, made the point that we should not worry about free speech because it is protected by the convention on human rights. She cited a number of clauses. It is true that, on paper, none of us should be worried about free speech; our free speech in this country is fully protected. And yet, daily—I stress, daily—there are more and more instances, as the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, who is not in her place, indicated earlier, in which free speech is under stress in this country. More and more people are walking on eggshells and are, in many instances, getting sacked or disciplined for speaking their minds in workplaces, so I am not convinced by “Nothing to see here, don’t worry about it, all is well”.
Earlier, the noble Baroness—
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness; I will be brief. I want just to respond to her point, because she referred to what I said earlier. I am not trying to suggest that there are not challenges and there is not, on occasion, over-policing of people’s freedom of expression. Believe it or not, I probably read the same newspapers as the noble Baroness. I was trying, perhaps inadequately, to make the point to the noble Lord earlier that we have overarching legislation in the Human Rights Act which guarantees free speech and does so in a way that is legally and constitutionally stronger than any amendment noble Lords could pass to the current Employment Rights Bill. If that is not working, then we need to enforce it better. I am just suggesting that, as a matter of law, we have the protection for free speech; we just need to enforce it.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
I am all for enhancing in any way the free speech duties required by the law, and I am happy to talk to the noble Baroness in a moment about how we can do that.
Earlier, the Minister said that the Government were on the side of workers and not the abusers, and she got a lot of, “Hear, hears!”. I would like to point out that the people who are worried about these clauses are not on the side of the abusers against the workers. That characterisation is not particularly helpful in a Committee in which we are trying, in good faith, to understand the implications of this set of clauses. Imagine that you are an employer and you hear these proposals; you will think, “Oh, my God, if I don’t completely over-comply, I’m going to be accused, demonised, as on the side of abusers, not on the side of my employees”.
It is therefore very important that this impact assessment is done to reassure those of us who are worried. If the Government feel that we are over-worrying, then a detailed impact assessment, which we have not had for these clauses, would help to reassure us properly, with facts and evidence, rather than assertion and soundbites.
Baroness Verma (Con)
My Lords, I have a brief point to make about the impact on minority businesses, which may need extra assistance, and to ask whether the cost has been taken into account in an impact assessment. If it has not, I highly recommend that the Minister consider the many thousands of businesses across the country which will have to comply. If there is not a fully programmed impact assessment incorporating all those businesses, she will undoubtedly find that a lot of them will come out on the wrong side of implementation.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, as a proprietor of a small business, I can say that anything with the words “all reasonable” in it is going to meet with some very careful consideration. Of course, I am going to take advice and spend a good deal of time internally looking at the consequences. For me, and I would expect for most businesses like mine, there are going to be costs. As the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, said, employment lawyers do not come cheap, and I expect that this is going to cost a great deal more than the Government say it is.
Of course, I can also see the benefits. If I read Clauses 19 and 20 together, and apply them to the way schools are run, I think we are going to get discipline at Katharine Birbalsingh levels, because schools will have an active duty to make sure that their staff are not harassed by pupils or parents. They will be required to come up to the best standards, so I can see the Government’s ambitions in this. Amendment 97, which proposes a really accurate look at the benefits and costs of this part of the Bill, would be therefore helpful so that we all understand how to make the best of what are undoubtedly, at their heart, some very good intentions.
In case the noble Lord, Lord Fox, is reaching for his matchbox again tonight to light his straw men, here are a couple of examples from my experience. One is from visiting someone my age in hospital who was recovering from a serious operation. A couple of other people on the ward, under the influence of the shock of the operation and the drugs they were on, had reverted 50 years; the way they were treating the black nurses was quite extraordinarily horrible. The nurses were taking it on the chin and carrying on giving the best possible care. The other example is a disabled woman in a wheelchair who asked for help getting on a train at a station but was refused for reasons she thought condescending. She got a bit cross, and the station manager said, “Right, we’re not putting you on any train today”.
Those situations would both be impacted by Clause 20 in particular. How will this Bill work in practice? Looking at those two circumstances, will it be possible for the NHS, or indeed other caring organisations, to offer care where patients have become, for reasons that are not to do with their conscious selves, completely unreasonable? Is it reasonable to leave a disabled woman marooned in London just because she had a disagreement with a member of staff who got upset about it? How is this going to work? A really good understanding of that—rather than us all having to worry about what the impact of this section might be —would be a really helpful thing to find in this Bill.
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, this has been a very thought-provoking debate, and I thank all noble Lords who have contributed. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, for tabling Amendment 97. The noble Lord is seeking to add a new clause that would require the Secretary of State to assess the impact on free speech and on employers of Clauses 19 to 22 when the Bill becomes an Act. We have already produced and published an extensive set of impact assessments. Indeed, we have produced and published no fewer than four impact assessments covering provisions in the scope of the noble Lord’s amendment.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
In order to get his speech off to a really good start, can the Minister include his defence of the red rating given to those impact assessments by the Regulatory Policy Committee, a completely independent assessment?
Lord Leong (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for reminding me of this; we covered it last week. The RPC did not question the policy of the Bill. It just questioned the evidence—and I will go further on this Bill.
These assessments are based on the best available evidence of the potential impact on businesses, workers and the wider economy. We plan to further define this analysis in the future, working with a range of stakeholders including businesses, trade unions, academics, think tanks and the Regulatory Policy Committee to do so.
The Government are steadfast in their commitment to tackle all forms of harassment in the workplace. We know that harassment at work can have a huge impact on affected individuals, as well as broader economic impacts. The burden of holding perpetrators to account and of driving change is too great to be shouldered by employees alone. These measures send a clear signal to all employers that they must take steps to protect their employees from harassment, including from third parties, to encourage a cultural change.
We know that the vast majority of employers agree that harassment is unacceptable and are working to ensure that their employees are treated with respect. We will work in partnership with them towards this shared goal and will support them with these changes. We will publish an enactment impact assessment once the Bill receives Royal Assent, in line with the Better Regulation Framework. This will account for amendments made to primary legislation during the Bill’s passage through Parliament that would significantly change the impact of the policy on business. This impact assessment will be published alongside the enacted legislation. Additionally, we will publish further analysis, alongside carrying out further consultation with stake-holders, ahead of any secondary legislation, to meet our Better Regulation requirements.
According to our best estimates, across all our harassment measures the monetary cost to businesses will not be significant. Other than the initial one-off familiarisation cost, repeatable costs to businesses are very low. All three measures will also bring benefits to businesses in avoiding the harassment of staff.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
I hear what the Minister says, but even the economic analysis says there will be a 15% increase in individual enforcement cases in employment tribunals arising from litigation because of the Bill. The analysis says:
“The exact impact on the enforcement system is difficult to predict because the number of cases that enter the system each year fluctuates”,
and that
“final policy decisions taken at secondary legislation will alter the number of workers in scope of protections and likelihood of a worker making a claim. These decisions are still subject to consultation and further policy development and therefore cannot be assessed with confidence”.
Later it says that the
“initial analysis on the impact of the Bill on enforcement is subject to change as policy development continues”.
The Minister is asking us to wave this clause through on the basis of information that has not been presented to this House.
Lord Leong (Lab)
No, I was not saying that. What I said is that we are carrying out consultation and we will conduct further impact assessments. We are not saying that we are finished with it and that this is it. We have already assessed the impact of provisions about third-party harassment on SMEs in our impact assessment on third-party harassment. In all our impact assessments we assess the impact on SMEs, and the Bill is not expected to have a disproportionate impact on SMEs.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, “all reasonable steps” is serious stuff. You not only have to employ someone who has a breadth of experience that goes beyond yours as an SME to advise you as to what “all reasonable steps” are; you also have to work out, in conversations with your staff, how those are to be expressed in practice. I reckon it would cost me £1,000 in year one. In year two the cost does not go down much, because things change: the law clarifies and develops, and you have to go back to the expert. Internal conversations may be clear, so it may be £500. Multiply that across SMEs—we are not a huge SME—and you get a much bigger figure than the Government are talking about. I would really like to know where they are getting their figures from.
Lord Leong (Lab)
This is precisely why we need to have consultation and to talk to the stakeholders out there. The more information we have, the better it is for us to assess the impact. Let me carry on, and I will come back to various noble Lords’ questions.
The proposed amendments would not add value, given the expansive impact assessments the Government have already committed. Some 27 impact assessments have already been done.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, asked for evidence. The ONS figures have been published, so I do not need to repeat them. They state that some 21.8% of the people aged 16 years and over who say they have experienced sexual harassment in person in the last 12 months experienced it at their place of work. On third-party evidence, the ONS states that some 9.2% of the people aged 16 years and over who say they have experienced non-sexual harassment in the last 12 months had been harassed by a client or a member of the public contracted through work.
Before I conclude, let me share a personal story which I still find it very difficult to talk about and share. Like the noble Lord, Lord Fox, I also worked in a pub in my student days. That time is a period that I would rather not remember, but because of the nature of the debate today, I am sharing this with noble Lords for the first time—including some of my colleagues. This is a very personal story. Every day that I worked at the pub, I was harassed. I was called “Kung Fu Fighter” and “Ching”; I was called everything under the sky. Every time they wanted to ask for a pint, all names were shouted at me. I complained to the manager then and he said, “Oh, it’s the British culture. It’s a bit of banter”. It was not a bit of banter, because until today I still find it very difficult to talk about. This is perhaps my contribution to whatever impact assessment the noble Lords want. I left the pub after, probably, two weeks because I just could not take it anymore. When I made some money, I wanted to buy the pub so that I could sack the manager, but, unfortunately, the pub was closed.
This is a very personal story, and I just want noble Lords to reflect. I am just one of millions of people affected in this way. I therefore invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
We are all very grateful to the Minister for sharing that personal experience. I believe he can be comforted by knowing that there is a shared desire right across this House to ensure that all workplaces are safe, respectful and free from harassment. I hope that he would also expect, in the light of his personal experience—and I think several of us could probably share our personal experiences—that we must, however, act as a Parliament should act, which is that well- intentioned legislation has to be workable, proportionate and underpinned by clear evidence.
The noble Lord, Lord Hendy, made the point about the benefits, but any impact assessment will not be restricted to looking at the costs but will also look at the benefits. Any proper impact assessment should give the full picture, so that when the legislation is presented to Parliament, we can adjudicate on it. In many ways, the consultation he instanced is coming the wrong way round. The consultation should accompany the intention to legislate. Then, once the consultation is complete, we are subject to parliamentary scrutiny. Consultation is no excuse for lacking accountability to Parliament. That is, I think, where the issue divides us.
Lord Leong (Lab)
I take on board every contribution made by every noble Lord. This is a very important aspect, and we need to get it right. Rather than me reading a couple of sentences provided by my officials in the Box, I make an offer to all noble Lords that I will organise a meeting so that we can sit down and go through this in more detail.
Lord Hunt of Wirral
There is no need for me to say any more. Thank you very much. I accept that offer, and I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Kramer
“Non-disclosure agreements: harassment(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, make changes by regulations made by statutory instrument to ensure that an agreement to which this section applies is void, or may not be entered into, insofar as it purports to preclude the worker from making a relevant disclosure.(2) This section applies to any agreement between a worker and the worker’s employer (whether a worker’s contract or not), including—(a) any proceedings for breach of contract,(b) a non-disclosure agreement, or(c) a non-disparagement agreement.(3) Regulations made under this section must―(a) not prevent a worker from being granted confidentiality protections associated with a settlement agreement, but only if those protections are made at the worker’s request and not the employer’s;(b) replicate the protections offered to workers by section 1 of the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023, with respect to non-disclosure agreements and harassment, but must apply those protections to all workers;(c) ensure a worker can access independent legal advice, including on alternative forms of confidentiality agreements;(d) ensure any confidentiality agreement can only be of a limited duration;(e) require any agreement to be in plain English;(f) not permit a confidentiality agreement to be made in a situation that would —(i) give rise to any risk of harassment to a third party in the future, or(ii) pose any danger to public interest. (4) For the purposes of this section—“harassment” means any act of harassment as defined by section 26 of the Equality Act 2010;“relevant disclosure” means any disclosure of information which, in the reasonable belief of the worker making the disclosure, shows that harassment has been committed, is being committed or is likely to be committed, by a fellow worker or a client of the employer.(5) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”Member's explanatory statement
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to make regulations to void any non-disclosure agreement insofar as it prevents the worker from making a disclosure about harassment (including sexual harassment), with relevant exceptions at the worker’s request.
Baroness Kramer
My Lords, I am privileged to speak first on this group of amendments, which is an opportunity I enjoy just by the luck of the numbering. I acknowledge the intense campaigning done by others in this House over many years—many of them will be speaking later in this group of amendments. I also express the apologies of the noble Lord, Lord Wills, who had intended to speak on a number of amendments that are in his name in this group. He has been called away by caring duties which he could not avoid. I am afraid that I will be taking a little more time than usual to speak, because I am attempting, as it were, to channel his comments on the amendments that sit with him as the lead name.
This group focuses on a series of amendments on speaking out. I will start with Amendment 98, which is not just in my name but in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Goudie and Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, who have both worked tirelessly on these issues. A similar amendment was supported widely in the Commons. It focuses on preventing the use of non-disclosure agreements, known in the UK as confidentiality agreements, to silence people subject to or speaking out on harassment as defined under the Equality Act. However, it does allow confidentiality agreements where the person speaking out wishes to protect their anonymity, and that is important.
The amendment requires that the regulations replicate the protections under Section 1 of the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023. In other words, it is a protection that currently exists for a limited few, and we know that it works in law. A driving force behind this amendment has been Zelda Perkins, who, with extraordinary courage in 1998, exposed Harvey Weinstein. She is the co-founder of Can’t Buy My Silence, and that organisation’s petition for action on NDAs has over 70,000 signatures.
If the Minister says we cannot consider such an amendment without a consultation process, I will remind her that there have been numerous consultations by BEIS and the EHRC; it has even been addressed by the Treasury Committee. Ireland and 27 US states already have such legislation. If she looks at the many examples of the use of NDAs to silence abused women that were cited in that Commons debate on this Bill, she will realise that the need for action is urgent.
Amendment 101 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, and Amendment 101C in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Goudie, cover similar territory with some differences, and I am sure they will speak to them. Amendment 101A in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Morrissey, includes a clause providing for some degree of legal aid, recognising that legal costs are a major obstacle for harassment victims. I have added my name to all those amendments, but what we really want is for the Government to bring forward an effective amendment. I will say to the Government that I predict that this Bill will not leave this House without a substantive version of these various amendments in place.
Amendment 281, in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Chakrabarti and Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, would effectively ban NDAs that cover up illegal conduct. It highlights a very real issue. People accept financial assessments with NDAs attached because their lives have been destroyed by retaliation for daring to speak out. The NDA itself basically says that, if they speak out again, they must repay the settlement with interest added. The NDA does not provide an exemption for speaking to a regulator or investigator, and nor is there any protection or exemption in statute. The only protection that tells a woman or man who speaks out that they can speak freely to a regulator despite having signed an NDA is in case law. Remember: many of the people who have spoken out are very vulnerable. They find that case law feels weak, they do not trust it and they remain silent. That is a situation that we must end.
I will move on to Amendments 125, 126 and 147 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Wills. They look much more broadly at the issues of whistleblowing and seek to change some of the most egregiously inadequate features of the existing Public Interest Disclosure Act—I have added my name. The last Government initiated a review of the whistleblowing framework covering many of these issues, but it has never been published. I ask the Minister: will she publish it now?
PIDA—that is the short form—sits within employment law. It identifies certain prescribed people to whom a whistleblower can confidentially disclose information, but when a whistleblower is exposed, as often happens, PIDA uses the employment tribunal as its mechanism to protect whistleblowers. That protection is available only for whistleblowers who are also workers.
Amendment 126 seeks to expand the definition of a worker to include self-employed contractors, sub-postmasters, the judiciary, non-execs, trustees, trade union reps and job applicants. I suspect that most people in this House have been unaware of how many people are not covered by the current whistleblowing framework. This improvement can stretch the definition only so far because PIDA is an employment law, so clients, suppliers, relatives and associates—I could go on—will still not be covered, but some improvement is better than none.
When a whistleblower is covered by PIDA and becomes a victim of retaliation because of their whistleblowing, they can take a case to the employment tribunal. However, in tribunal, the whistleblower must prove to a very high standard that they received detriment because of their whistleblowing. That is why 96% of whistleblowers acknowledged by the tribunal as whistleblowers still lose their cases or are forced to settle and sign an NDA. To win, they have to produce evidence such as an email trail, which is usually wiped clean, or a manager involved in their dismissal who will testify definitively. Amendment 125 reverses that burden of proof and says, “If you are a whistleblower, it should be assumed by the tribunal that you have been fired because of your whistleblowing, unless the employer can demonstrate otherwise”.
Lastly, on the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Wills, I address Amendment 147, which requires an employer to take reasonable steps to investigate information disclosed by whistleblowers. This follows on from the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Morrissey, in an earlier group. There are some brilliant companies and agencies that will leap on a piece of information and check it out seriously. Usually, however, the wagons are circled to protect a reputation and sometimes profits. Every survey of whistleblowers shows that their number one concern, even above their own well-being, is investigation.
I turn now to Amendment 130, which is in my name and attempts to deal with every one of these issues and many more by setting up an office of the whistleblower that would sit alongside PIDA. The language has been developed by legal practitioners in the field under the umbrella of WhistleblowersUK, to whom I owe much for its hard work and insight. Protect, a well-known civic society group, supports the OWB concept, which I also very much appreciate.
Such an office would provide a hub for the many spokes of regulators and informants’ agencies. It would protect and support whistleblowers, oversee whistleblowing processes and enforce compliance with standards. It could safely be used by whistleblowers to make disclosures. If whistleblowers are subject to retaliation, including dismissal or blacklisting, it could bring action. It could prevent the wrongful exercise of NDAs, make sure that disclosures are investigated and deal with complex issues such as reward schemes, which I believe some noble Lords intend to speak on.
I really do not have time to make the case for this because I am covering so much ground, but we know from the USA that offices of the whistleblower have an enviable track record of cracking down on wrongdoing: they deter crime, which is crucial, and they more than pay for themselves.
Whistleblowers tell regulators and investigators where in the haystack the needle is buried, and they provide the critical evidence. Many regulators and investigative agencies are now on board with the idea of an office of the whistleblower. I admit that it does not belong in this Bill, which is why I am limiting my comments, but it would be complementary to it.
I have heard some people say that if a whistleblower belongs to a union, they are protected when they whistleblow, and in an employment tribunal. Sadly, the protection is very limited, and it is not the union’s fault. First, a trade union rep is not a prescribed person—they can be required to disclose any information they have been given. Secondly, while a union member has access to insurance, which indemnifies against the cost of legal services in a case before the employment tribunal, the insurance company can and does refuse to pay where it believes the likelihood of a win is less than 51%.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 101 in my name, in which I am joined, as we have heard, by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, but also by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, who, of course, was the leader of the TUC, and by the noble Baroness, Lady Morrissey, from the world of finance and business. Many people in this Committee are going to support some way of dealing with the misuse of non-disclosure agreements.
I make it clear that there is no suggestion here of banning NDAs generally. There is a role for NDAs—people leaving employment should not be able to take with them the secrets of the company or its client list, for example. What we are talking about is the misuse of non-disclosure agreements to silence complainants, particularly women complaining of sexual harassment and abusive conduct by employers, supervisors, the boss, fellow workers or the client of an employer. I remind the Committee that since NDAs came into existence, complainants have been coerced into signing such an agreement on bringing a complaint in the workplace. Often, it is a way of waving people out and into non-employment in that workplace.
I emphasise that the amendment would not ban all NDAs. It is not preventing the use of NDAs in such proper cases as I have mentioned. But if the complainant requests a non-disclosure agreement because that is what, let us say, she would like to have, the amendment requires that she be offered independent legal advice. I am very supportive of the suggestion made by the noble Baroness, Lady Morrissey, that there be some way in which that might be funded, certainly in the corporate world, by the employer. We may be able to talk through in this Committee how provision might be made for the employee to be given that kind of independent advice, separate from the lawyers for the firm.
The independent advice has to involve advising on more than just a non-disclosure agreement but also on all the other alternatives that might be available to a worker who has experienced harassment, sexual harassment, abusive conduct or bullying. There has to be full consent if the exemption is going to work. In general, what we are calling for is that a non-disclosure agreement should not be used to silence complainants. I make that simple and clear. I cannot understand why that would be resisted by a progressive Government seeking to create good workplaces.
This amendment lists persons whom a worker may be allowed to speak to. I advised Zelda Perkins, who was just mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer. She had signed a non-disclosure agreement all those many years ago relating to Harvey Weinstein, because of something that had been done not to her but to her coworker. She was encouraged to sign it and she and the coworker, who had been seriously abused, were ushered out of Miramax with a payment. They were in their early 20s at the time and accepted the settlement, knowing no better. In the years that followed, they often felt deeply regretful about the way in which that happened and that they were put in the hands of lawyers chosen by the employer. They signed non-disclosure agreements which said they could not speak to their doctor or to any lawyer or therapist, and that they could not take support from any other source.
That is why my Amendment 101 mentions the kind of people one ought to be allowed to turn to and confide in. People need to be able to do that. Non-disclosures should not prevent people taking support from a family member, spiritual counsellor, community elder or the many other people I have listed.
This amendment deals with one of the problems that takes place. The reason why Zelda Perkins eventually breached her non-disclosure agreement and spoke out—with great fear, because she thought she would then be sued by Miramax—was the public interest that arose at the time. She wanted to support the many other women who had stepped forward and were being disbelieved, because she could explain that she had been subjected to that kind of pressure when she was speaking to the abuse that had been experienced by her colleague at work. She ended up fearful and took legal advice because she was worried that she would be sued for speaking out.
That is why we are asking that non-disclosure agreements should not be misused in this way to silence women. I have had the experience over the last few years of chairing inquiries in a number of different circumstances. One of the shocking things that comes to light is the frequency with which non-disclosure agreements are used for this purpose and the number of times that these agreements are used basically to usher somebody out of the business. The person with power, who is more senior in the organisation, gets away with it and there is no way of remedying it.
Non-disclosure agreements and their misuse should be addressed in the Bill. I urge the Government to do so. I hope that, at the end of all this, we will be able to come together with the Government to find an amalgamation of the number of somewhat similar amendments here to really deliver justice for women in the workplace.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I will speak to several amendments in this group that I have signed, which are all very good.
Non-disclosure agreements can be exceptionally toxic and corrosive, because they can be used to cover up wrongdoing by an employer. It is a very dangerous game. They are not simply a contractual arrangement between two willing parties; the employer’s wrongdoing could affect other employees as well, so their effect is much wider than on the employee who is party to the agreement. I very much support Amendments 98 and 101, and I hope that—as the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, says—we can find common agreement on them. The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, did a very thorough skate-through of all of this, so I will mention only three of the amendments that I have signed.
I feel very strongly about this. Whistleblowers save public money and expose bad practice. They should be celebrated, yet they are treated as traitors by professions, public services and corporations. Amendment 147 would turn that around by placing a duty to investigate on those organisations. My own experience of a whistleblower was when a police officer came forward and told me about the domestic extremist database that I was on. Thousands of other people were on that database as well, including journalists, MPs—such as Caroline Lucas—and local councillors. There were all sorts of people on it, but the two things we all had in common were that none of us had committed a criminal act of any kind and that we had all said things that challenged the status quo. That was enough to get us on to that domestic extremist database.
I cannot imagine how much it cost. The police were tracking all of us and keeping details of what we were doing, such as when I spoke in Trafalgar Square or went on a cycle ride. All these things about me were kept on that database—what an absolute waste of police time and taxpayer money for pointless spying. I put everything out on social media, so they could have just followed me there. Ex-spy cop Peter Francis blew the whistle on how the special demonstration squad was spying on the noble Baroness, Lady Lawrence, when she and her husband were campaigning to get justice for their dead son.
Whistleblowers need reassurance that they will be taken seriously, and giving the company or organisation they work for a duty to investigate would provide that. It would also combine with the Government’s new duty of candour to help change the culture of many organisations. I know the Minister is keen to speed up the Bill’s progress, and I do not think that this side of the Chamber is helping in any way, but the current laws are outdated and inadequate, so rather than spending ages examining the whole subject, it would be good just to adopt the very modest Amendment 147.
Amendment 126 would ensure that those whistle-blowers left out by the existing framework finally receive legal protection. The last 25 years have seen a massive rise in self-employment and subcontracting. There are now many more people in workplaces who may spot wrongdoing or risks who have no legal remedy if they blow the whistle. The Post Office Horizon scandal saw hundreds of sub-postmasters wrongly accused and sometimes imprisoned for fraud and false accounting. Lots of people knew that the Horizon system was going wrong from very early on, but the sub-postmasters did not have the legal protection to blow the whistle.
This amendment also grants whistleblowers strong protection from blacklisting when applying for work. At present, only job applicants in the NHS are protected from discrimination as whistleblowers. We encourage those NHS workers to speak up because it saves lives, but we allow workers in the building industry to be blacklisted for raising health and safety concerns that would stop deaths on dangerous sites. Some of those in the building trade had to emigrate to find a job; this amendment would have helped protect them. I understand the Government saying that they need to consult first, but a lot of that legwork was carried out by the previous Government. It seems ridiculous not to publish that whistleblower framework immediately so that we can make change happen faster.
Amendment 281 seeks to make express provision for court discretion to void non-disclosure clauses in employment contracts. The growth of the use of non-disclosure agreements is a big concern. Recent allegations that gagging clauses contributed to the cover-up of decades of sexual abuse by former Harrods owner Mohamed Al Fayed have once again led to calls to ban them here in the UK. Last September, the BBC revealed that five women claimed that the billionaire Mohamed Al Fayed raped them while they were working at Harrods department store. We have already heard that, as others were, they were forced into signing an NDA to prevent their speaking out. These agreements, as I described them earlier, can be corrosive, toxic and immensely damaging to the individuals who sign them and then regret doing so.
This is a really important group. I hope the Minister can meet some of us to discuss a way forward to incorporate some of the sense of these amendments into the Bill.
Baroness Morrissey (Con)
My Lords, it is telling that so many amendments have been tabled from across the Committee for discussion. Amendments 98, 101, 101A and 101C all aim to restrict the use of non-disclosure agreements in sexual harassment cases. There has already been considerable debate in the other place on this as well, led by Louise Haigh MP. I hope and believe that the strength of feeling and the rationale behind it are encouraging the Minister to consider tabling the Government’s own amendment to the Bill. The Bill provides such a wonderful opportunity to address a practice that has gone on for far too long, as others have talked about. Of course, this is not an academic issue. It has a real cost and causes real detriment to people’s lives and, of course, to their careers.
I speak in support of all these amendments and have added my name specifically to the one tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, because it sets out clear limitations on the silence that has, to date, been able to be bought through NDAs, while enabling workers to request an NDA, since that can help them move on with their lives, but under only certain conditions, including receiving “independent legal advice”. I want to clarify my additional Amendment 101A, which seeks to strengthen this provision by requiring employers to contribute to legal fees. We know that fees put many women off seeking advice: it seems very daunting, and then they have to pay for it at seemingly unlimited cost. I note that Ireland, which has been mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, has already adopted this practice of allowing NDAs for sexual harassment cases only in what are described as “excepted circumstances”. In those cases, employers are required to cover the employee’s reasonable legal costs.
I have suggested quite a specific figure, although I stress that it is the principle rather than any specific amount that is important. I note that I came up with that figure after consulting lawyers specialising in these matters. The key is that such costs would be borne only by those employers that have reason to enter into such agreements. Firms with good cultures that do not have sexual harassment cases will not need to enter into NDAs. They will have nothing to pay—another incentive to encourage companies to prevent harassment occurring in the first place.
As has been mentioned by others, those of us who have tabled our various amendments and supported the views of others will be very pleased to consolidate our suggestions into one amendment that is simple and workable, and will achieve the goal of limiting the use of NDAs so that they are not misused but used to help victims move on. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s thoughts and again urge the Government to use this opportunity to finally end a practice that has gone on far too long and been completely unchecked.
We all know about the #MeToo scandal and the causes célèbres, but until the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, talked about her experience as chair of inquiries and explained that the ones we hear about are, effectively, the tip of the iceberg, I would have said that we do not actually know much about the scale of the problem. No data is reported at present on the use of NDAs for sexual harassment and, of course, the nature of these agreements means that there are no revelations about the underlying issues. From personal experience, I have heard from women working in finance who sometimes use a third party to tell me their story because they are keen to see something done about it. I can only surmise that there must be many more in other sectors who do not come forward.
My final conclusion is: enough is enough. I urge the Government to seize the opportunity afforded by the Bill to restrict this misuse of NDAs.
Baroness Goudie (Lab)
My Lords, I support Amendments 98, 101 and 101A, and Amendment 101C, which is in my name. Also, I support my noble friends Lady O’Grady, Lady Kennedy and Lady Chakrabarti, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Morrissey and Lady Kramer, and the work they have done on these issues over the years. I thank Members of the other place for their support, including the meeting they called for us with Zelda Perkins last week, which was really helpful, and the organisations outside that have written to us all over a long period asking for support on this issue.
These amendments are all about harassment, which, surely, we are all against. If not, it is about time we were. Harassment includes sexual harassment and, surely, we are all very concerned about sexual harassment. It is obvious that we cannot combat sexual harassment effectively, which is what is required, if it is hidden from the light of day by being covered up by, or on behalf of, the perpetrator. We know that perpetrators get away and get jobs in other places. It is pernicious that all too often it is covered up and deliberately hidden from sight by so-called non-disclosure agreements. The title does not sound as objectionable as cover-up agreements, but that is precisely what they are. They are cover-up agreements, in intention and effect. They impose a positive obligation not to disclose what should otherwise be disclosed. They are pernicious, and bad apples in character. They perpetuate harassment. You can get away with harassment if you can secure a non-disclosure agreement by paying a bribe. Nothing could be more anti-social. Nothing represents a more toxic workplace culture or better ensures its continuation. Whistleblowers are silenced. If a disclosure is relevant, it should be disclosed—that is, a disclosure about harassment that has been committed, is being committed or is likely to be committed. They are all highly relevant exposures, which would thereby avoid harassment.
This is about ethical standards and workplace misconduct—indeed, gross misconduct. It is not about protecting confidential business information. I say that because that is important. We understand those non-disclosure agreements. This is about sexual harassment. On one hand, transparency and freedom of expression are virtues. On the other, confidentiality, privacy and the protection of personal data are virtues. There can be tensions between legitimate considerations that may tug in different directions. Balances have to be struck but—and it is a big “but”—that may not work well when one party is more powerful than the other. In the case of, for example, Harvey Weinstein, there may also be an important public interest in a disclosure. Non-disclosure agreements need to be properly regulated and not permitted to continue in the way they have and to have their chilling effects. This is especially so when the disclosure ban arises in the context of an employee and employer and/or relates to harassment, bullying or discrimination, including, importantly, sexual harassment, and intellectual property rights and competition considerations are not engaged. It is time to act to prevent the misuse and abuse of NDAs, which should not continue. It has continued for too long. I very much hope that the Minister will meet a group of us to see how we can consolidate a small amendment to the Bill that would strengthen it greatly.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
There we go. We have had the adjudication. It was a very good speech. I am very grateful to my noble friend Lady Jones of Whitchurch. She demonstrated the patience of a saint in earlier, more contentious groups, if I can put it like that. If there needs to be further evidence of her patience, I was very grateful for the significant time that she and her Bill team and other experts gave me to discuss this issue and a later issue in the Bill.
Numerical accidents aside, I have to commend the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, on her impeccable opening to the debate. I think we can all agree that it was a fabulous tour de force around the issues.
In contrast to the Bill as a whole or previous groups, there is some serious room for non-partisan and cross-partisan consensus in this area. I really do believe that, for reasons that ought to be self-evident from what we have heard from Members of the Committee already.
We have heard from noble Lords—actually, it may be a total accident but I think it has been noble Baronesses so far—and we know that there is a place for a certain type of non-disclosure agreement to protect commercial confidences and client lists, et cetera. We are trying to be more balanced and more forensic than that in this group, and we know why. We want to protect those things, to have a decent employment relationship and to have commerce and so on, but not to have the abuses. I suggest that the abuses have to go broader than harassment; that is why Amendment 281 in my name is drafted in terms of illegal activity more broadly. I will say more on that in a moment.
I support the thrust, the intention and the aspiration of all the amendments in the group. At this stage I consider them all probing amendments. Realistically, I suspect that what the Committee, or everyone who has spoken so far, wants is a government amendment, informed by these discussions, that we can all get behind. That is the way to do it, obviously.
I will speak in favour of Amendment 281, or of the drafting approach that I have taken, having listened to other Members of the Committee and tried to take on board their Second Reading speeches and their considerable work, over many years in some cases. I commend Amendment 281 because it aspires to some simplicity, some versatility, some breadth and the avoidance of unintended consequences.
For example, it is broader than harassment. The approach I have taken is based on my understanding of what the common-law position was anyway. Like everyone else in the Committee and beyond, I watched the scandals around Harvey Weinstein and #MeToo, et cetera. When they began to erupt—and, goodness me, do they not keep on coming?—my analysis, my view, was that these contractual agreements were all voidable in the public interest in any event. As a matter of common-law principle, they should all have been voidable in a court and therefore unenforceable in any event. The problem with relying on just my understanding of the common law is that it does not send a signal to the wicked employers—not all of them, but the ones who are wicked—nor give confidence to victims, whistleblowers and so on.
This is one of the areas where there is some value in putting some common-law principle clearly, succinctly and non-exhaustively on the face of a statute, to give confidence and clarity so that people know that abusive non-disclosure agreements—not the ones that we think are valuable, but abusive ones—which are being used to silence and cover up revelations of illegal activity, broadly, will not be enforceable in court, whether or not you have shelled out some money in the first place. That was what I attempted to do in the drafting approach that I chose with Amendment 281.
Members of the Committee who have come armed with the actual Marshalled List, which I know is a novel thing to do, will find Amendment 281 on page 114. The approach I have taken is to say that non-disclosure agreements are voidable. They are not automatically so, but they are voidable—that is, in those circumstances, unenforceable—if they prevent disclosure of conduct that may be contrary to law.
When a court is considering whether to void such an agreement—to make it unenforceable—there are certain factors that ought to be taken into account. The severity of the allegation of proven or admitted conduct, including the veracity of those allegations, would come up in an attempt by the former employer or current employer to enforce this agreement. The second factor is whether all parties to the contract were in receipt of independent legal advice. This means that an employer trying to construct one of these agreements and to get an employee to agree to it will have to realise that if that independent legal advice is not evidenced and not provided, later, the whole thing will be an expensive waste of time, because it is likely to be voided in the public interest by a court or tribunal. Therefore, they had better do what employers often do in standard consent agreements, which is pay for independent advice and have that witnessed.
Baroness O’Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti and to support Amendment 101 in the names of my noble friend Lady Kennedy and the noble Baronesses, Lady Kramer and Lady Morrissey. I think that many of us are speaking in support of all the amendments that are trying to achieve the same result, and it is a real tribute that the strength of support is so broad across the Committee.
I have warmly welcomed the whole Bill, including the Government’s commitment to ensuring that employers take reasonable steps to prevent sexual harassment. I thank the Minister for meeting with me to discuss the issue of non-disclosure agreements. My concern is that the Government’s current proposals to deal with the scandal of abusive non-disclosure agreements under whistleblowing legislation fall short of the fundamental principle, for me, that every victim/survivor should have the right to speak up and seek support.
The use of NDAs to cover up abuses of power, we all know, happens in every walk of life. This is not just about Westminster, the City of London, the media and entertainment industries, trade unions, the church or higher education. Let us not forget the all-male Presidents Club charity dinner for captains of industry at the Dorchester Hotel, and the 130 young women, paid £150 for a 10-hour shift, who were handed five-page non-disclosure agreements just moments before they went out to serve. According to a CIPD survey, one in five employers have used NDAs in cases of sexual harassment.
My worry is that the public interest test contained in whistleblowing legislation sets a very high bar for protected disclosure, and that most victims will remain silenced. What about, for example, if the perpetrator is not prominent in public, business or cultural life? Can the Minister confirm whether a disclosure by workers would meet the public interest test in those circumstances? Or what about one individual worker who is harassed and does not know whether other workers are at risk? Will that satisfy the criteria for public interest under whistleblowing law? Perhaps the Minister can also confirm whether government proposals cover only sexual harassment? Or do they also cover racism and all forms of harassment faced by those with protected characteristics under equality law? Will misconduct such as bullying on those grounds be included?
I thank the Minister for that meeting and for writing to me afterwards. I agree that there will be lessons to learn from new legislation in Ireland and elsewhere, but I cannot agree that that is a reason for holding back. If ever there was a case for going further and faster, then this is it. Women and all those suffering in silence have waited long enough.
The TUC—I should declare that I am a former general secretary—has long held a position that NDAs should not be used in any case of harassment, discrimination or victimisation. According to a report published this year, again by CIPD, nearly half of employers would support a ban on the use of NDAs, with only 18% opposing such a ban. Can’t Buy My Silence and other campaign groups enjoy huge public support. There is a broad cross-party consensus for action that unites both sides of industry.
Will the Minister reassure us today that the door is still open for the Government to strengthen the Bill along the lines proposed by my noble friend Lady Kennedy and, importantly, send a message to all those who have suffered alone and in silence, and to all those who, as a result of that silence, have been put at risk, that real change is on its way?
Lord Cromwell (CB)
My Lords, as the first boy to speak tonight, I want to say what a pleasure it is to follow such a powerful and persuasive group of speakers. I support all the amendments in this group.
I turn first to the NDA amendments. NDAs can be appropriate in sectors where intellectual property, commercial confidentiality or security issues apply. In fact, I should declare that I have recently signed one in a commercial context. These documents are typically pre-contract or part of terms of employment and signed up to by a worker at the start of their employment. Usually, they apply to everyone in a relevant area rather than being targeted at an individual.
By contrast, the NDAs these amendments address are very different; they generally arise during employment and act retrospectively—in other words, when something happens that should not have done.
I was always taught that you cannot contract out of the law: that an agreement or contract that enables or conceals something illegal is potentially itself illegal, and at least void and unenforceable. Under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, harassment is a crime. Therefore, it seems to me that an NDA in respect of —as Amendment 101 points out—harassment, sexual misconduct, retaliation and discrimination or any other crime comes very close to trying to contract out of the law.
I would broaden the definition, as the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, has done in her amendment, to void any NDAs that cover any form of illegality. Indeed, a wrongdoer requesting an NDA in such circumstances feels tantamount, to me, to an admission of guilt. NDAs being put forward by the powerful to protect themselves from publicity around a wrongdoing is, at the very best, contrary to the HR policies of any decent employer.
While these amendments seek to prevent the misuse of NDAs, they also provide—as others have spoken about—for workers themselves requesting an NDA. Consequently, NDAs do have a place with proper advice to both parties: what Amendment 101 calls “fully-informed consent”. In short, voiding NDAs that amount to an abuse of power while recognising that a worker may themselves seek an NDA feels like the right balance.
Finally on NDAs, to date there has been a superabundance of consultations and inquiries— as the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, pointed out— into the misuse of NDAs from a very wide range of organisations. Now, and I hope the Minister will agree, we need action—no more discussions and consultations. We know what the problem is; we just need to sort it out. I therefore ask the Minister to confirm that the Government will either present or support a suitably consolidated amendment on Report, as others have requested.
I also support the amendments on whistleblowing. Amendment 125 would close what amounts to a loophole. On Amendment 126, something that has bedevilled whistleblowing for a very long time is the overly tight definition of who can be a whistleblower. The amendment is therefore a welcome step in expanding that category, though it does not go as far as it needs to, as the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, has shared with us tonight.
Amendment 147 concerns the crucial point of a duty to investigate. Many companies—particularly larger ones—have on paper, somewhere in their files, a well-drafted policy intended to support whistleblowers. However, many people who become whistleblowers typically do not see themselves as such initially. Often, they are simply trying to point out where something is wrong and needs addressing. It is what happens next that turns them into a whistleblower.
The corporate reaction to highlighting problems or concerns is often viscerally and personally hostile. Such people are seen as troublemakers, snitches or even traitors. They are often, almost from the outset, isolated, stigmatised and persecuted. To deal with that reaction, there is a need, as Amendment 147— another great amendment—sets out, for an automatic duty to investigate properly, which means having well-delineated and well-understood processes recognising and incorporating whistleblowing that are actually followed in practice with action, and to pick up issues and deal with them constructively and, if possible, before they escalate into a whistleblowing incident.
On Amendment 130, an office of the whistleblower would have both a systemic role in improving and monitoring whistleblower treatment, standards and processes, and a much-needed personal role in supporting whistleblowers as individuals, as again the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, so eloquently laid out.
I will touch quickly on two related points. First, investors have a role here, although they often get forgotten in these discussions. They have a clear interest in knowing what is going on inside organisations they are entrusting with their money. I know from talking to them that they support better engagement and using their considerable leverage to get matters improved. Secondly, in the UK we do not compensate or reward whistleblowers. Being a whistleblower is expensive, sometimes ruinously so. Legal bills, loss of income and being made completely unemployable often follow. Yet the UK attitude to date has been that doing the right thing should not be rewarded—as if it was somehow vulgar—or even the personal losses incurred recouped. That correlates with the lower reporting of problems in the UK compared with the US and other jurisdictions. This has changed a little recently, and both the current director of the Serious Fraud Office and his predecessor have spoken in public in favour of paying whistleblowers. The FCA has stated that it is not in principle against this—a very British statement—and HMRC and the CMA already give modest payments for information on, for example, tax fraud.
The UK needs to catch up. I hope that the role of investors and whistleblower compensation are things that we can come back to, but for now I support all the amendments in this group and I sincerely hope that the Minister will do the same.
Baroness Whitaker (Lab)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell. This group of amendments, in particular those dealing with non-disclosure agreements, deals with issues that are of cardinal importance in making workplaces safe for in particular but not only women. I support them and will speak briefly to Amendment 101 and others.
I cannot add to the comprehensive and telling introductions by my noble friends Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, Lady Chakrabarti and Lady O’Grady, the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, and indeed all the others, but I will just remind the Committee of the fact that my experience of employment tribunals confirms the need for these amendments to the Bill. It is not only the high-profile cases that we hear about which are representative of the problem. I got to know of very many instances of women in low-paid, insecure work, often from minority-ethnic backgrounds or even disabled, who could not afford legal advice, which was addressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Morrissey.
When this issue was raised at Second Reading, my noble friend the Minister answered very positively, but I share the opinion that more must be done and I hope she will do it. If we can make our universities safer by banning NDAs in cases of sexual harassment, then the least we can do is to mirror those safeguards for employment.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I very much agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell. That a Lucas can agree with a Cromwell demonstrates the healing power of time—it has taken only 400 years.
I support the amendments in this group, particularly Amendment 101. I very much like the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, because it would draw in what happened to my friend who went through the NDA process. I like Amendment 147 because, as the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, said, this should all be about producing better behaviour. You want an incidence of bad behaviour to lead to better behaviour, not to disguise and cover-up. That ought to be the fundamental drive of the process.
To add a couple of sidelights, I am told it is very much current employment practice to ask, when taking a reference from a previous employer, whether an NDA has been signed. If the answer is yes, you take that employment no further—so NDAs can be really damaging things to sign. It is therefore important that someone signing one has achieved the fully informed consent that the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, referred to.
Another aspect of obscurity is in tribunal awards. I note, for instance, that tribunal awards that really criticise what has gone on in a school remain private. They never get sent to Ofsted. We ought to be using that tribunal process and what it has discovered to produce change. Where these things cannot be made public, as is often the case, they ought none the less to get into the system in a way which encourages better behaviour in future.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, this has been an important debate. As the noble Baroness, Lady Goudie, said—I apologise if I have mispronounced her name—most if not all speakers have worked on these two important and connected issues for years. That has been reflected in the quality of the speeches we have heard. It also reflects the fact that progress has not been made. We need to make progress here.
The traditional approach from Ministers in situations such as this is to say, “These are important issues and we agree something needs to be done”, and then either “We need more consultation”, as my noble friend pointed out, or “This is not the right vehicle for these issues”. Those are the two excuses that will be given. The point on consultation has been well made by my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell. As for whether this is an appropriate vehicle, just look at this Bill. It is well over 300 pages and covers almost every aspect of employment. To say there is no room in this Bill—I am pre-empting what may or may not be said—would be wrong. There is more than enough space in this Bill to cover these issues.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Morrissey, said, this was debated in the Commons and my honourable friend Layla Moran also had an amendment on this issue, but the Bill came here without it. The safe way of making sure that this can survive contact with a very large majority at the other end is for the Minister to take this on and put it in the Bill on the Government’s behalf. We have heard a lot of excellent speeches from the Minister’s own Benches, as well as across the Floor. Clearly, we can all agree on both these issues. The Minister should stand up and say “We will take this on, work with all interested parties and produce two amendments for both of these issues” to address what has clearly been going on for too long without being resolved in legislation.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I agree that this has been an extremely interesting debate. I thank all noble Baronesses—they are mostly Baronesses, with some noble Lords—for their contributions. In particular, the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, deserves singling out for her very thought-provoking introduction to this group.
As my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral pointed out in the previous group, every individual should feel safe and supported in their working environment. We recognise that NDAs have deviated from their original purpose, which was to protect trade secrets and intellectual property, as the noble Baronesses, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws and Lady Goudie, pointed out. They have been abused in some circumstances, particularly where they are used to silence the victims of misconduct, which includes sexual harassment.
However, we must also acknowledge there are some cases where NDAs may serve a legitimate purpose. Some individuals may wish to resolve disputes privately, without the need for public disclosure. It is important, therefore, that we do not take a blanket approach but instead consider the context in which NDAs are being used. Many of the amendments acknowledge those simple facts. Having said that, we also need to consider the wider impact that NDAs might have—for example, in cases of medical malpractice. How can society and the medical profession learn from mistakes that are not made public?
It is clear that further scrutiny of NDAs is essential. The potential for abuse cannot be ignored, and we must ensure that any agreement entered into is fully informed and entirely voluntary. I will briefly speak as a non-lawyer, because I was particularly taken by Amendment 281, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti. Like the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, I was rather shocked that such an NDA might exist even under the current regime. How can one sign a legally binding document that prevents the disclosure of a breach of the law? With apologies to my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral, I say that only the legal profession could manage the perverse logic to invent such a thing.
As we have seen, particularly in the NHS, whistle-blowers are often the individuals who bravely speak out against wrongdoing, misconduct or unethical practices that might otherwise go unnoticed. Their courage in raising concerns is critical to maintaining trust and ensuring that the organisation remains committed to the highest ethical standards.
Both noble Baronesses, Lady Kramer and Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb, referred to the NHS. I looked into this earlier, and in one high-profile case, the NHS spent over £4 million on legal action against a single whistleblower, including a £3.2 million compensation settlement. This sparked criticism from Professor Phil Banfield, the chairman of the British Medical Association, who argued that whistleblowing is often not welcomed by NHS management. He emphasised that NHS trusts and senior managers are more focused on protecting their reputations than addressing the concerns of whistleblowers or prioritising patient safety. That is clearly a very unacceptable state of affairs, and that example alone suggests that the Government should take these amendments extremely seriously.
I am sure that the Minister is about to stand up and offer to have further discussions on this subject. We will pre-empt her and volunteer to take part in those discussions. There is clearly much more work to be done in this area. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s remarks.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Information and Technology (Baroness Jones of Whitchurch) (Lab)
My Lords, I genuinely thank all noble Lords—they have mainly been noble Baronesses—who have taken part in this excellent debate, in which we have addressed some important, salient and highly concerning issues about the misuse of non-disclosure agreements. We have heard some very moving and completely unacceptable examples that have no place in the modern workplace.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, and my noble friends Lady Kennedy of The Shaws and Lady Goudie, for their Amendments 98, 101 and 101C, which seek to restrict the use of non-disclosure agreements that prevent workers disclosing certain misconduct. My noble friend Lady Kennedy’s amendment looks to apply this to a broader category of misconduct, including harassment, retaliation and discrimination. I also acknowledge that the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, and my noble friend Lady Kennedy make it clear that workers should still be able to request confidentiality protections in agreements between a worker and employer, if they so choose. A number of noble Lords have reiterated that that is an important principle.
I also thank my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti for her Amendment 281, which makes express provision for a court to void an NDA in the public interest if it seeks to prevent the disclosure of illegal conduct by the employer. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, that my noble friend made a very compelling case on that issue.
I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Morrissey, for Amendment 101A and her contribution today. Her amendment would void any provision in an NDA that prevents a worker making a disclosure about sexual harassment. However, it would allow NDAs in settlement agreements to stand where the victim of sexual harassment requests them and where they have received independent legal advice. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, for his comments in support of that amendment.
Today’s debate on NDAs demonstrates the best elements of your Lordships’ House. Points have been well made by all noble Lords, and we have listened carefully to their arguments. I was grateful to have the opportunity to meet with a number of noble Lords in recent weeks to reaffirm the Government’s position on the misuse of NDAs and to understand the intention behind these amendments. Let me be clear: NDAs should never be used to silence victims of sexual harassment and other forms of misconduct in the workplace.
My noble friend Lady O’Grady asked whether the proposals extend beyond sexual harassment. The whistleblowing measures in the Bill cover only sexual harassment. However, the whistleblowing framework already covers disclosures about criminal offences, breaches of legal obligations and endangerment of health and safety. In many cases, harassment and discrimination in the workplace will fall within those categories.
While the Government agree that NDAs should not be misused by employers to conceal misconduct in the workplace, any restrictions on their use must be carefully considered to avoid unintended consequences. For example, confidentiality can allow employers and workers to resolve a dispute and move on without publicity and expensive legal proceedings. It is vital that we take the time to consider any impacts on a worker’s ability to choose the right outcome for themselves, including the option of an NDA.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, did I catch the sense that the Government are looking to see what changes they can make now—for instance, picking up on the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, made about the virtue of making it clear that you cannot enforce hiding criminal acts through a non-disclosure agreement? I absolutely agree that this would be something that would work well. The importance of people taking truly independent advice seemed to me to be another example. If indeed that is the case, could she apply the same logic to the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron?
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)
May I just add to that? My concern is that my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti is right that, in law, one should not use contractual agreements to avoid criminal processes. However, you do not have criminal processes unless you have a complainant, and often women do not want to go through that process. They would rather have a settlement, but they want to be in control—it is about giving power to the person who is at the receiving end of abusive conduct. That is why we are asking that these amendments be considered, so that, in the light of the Government’s great commitment to the protection of women and girls, women and girls in the workplace have the opportunity of saying, “I would like an agreement, but I want it on my terms” and may choose anonymity so that it does not remain the case, as happens now, that women then carry it forward—they are the ones who bear the burden of having to go public with a complaint. Often, it affects their employment possibilities in the future.
This is about women being in the driving seat when there is a complaint of bad behaviour in the workplace. That is why just having a bland thing saying, “This is criminal conduct, if somebody squeezes a woman’s breast in the workplace or keeps patting their behind and so forth” is not good enough. Women should be allowed to say, “I do not want this to continue. I want to remain in my job. I want protection for my employment, and I want it to be dealt with by way of an agreement where I am in the driving seat”.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, the answer to both noble Lords—and I think I said this during my response—is that the amendments are all raising really important issues. There is an issue about the breadth of the issues and the extent to which we need to legislate or perhaps amplify things that are already the law but are not understood to be the law. We have more work to do on this, but we are working at pace on it. We still have time before the Bill passes through your Lordship’s House, so I hope we can make some progress during that time.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I am sorry to intervene on the noble Baroness once more. Does that mean she intends to talk to interested Peers before Report?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
I have already had one meeting and, as noble Lords will know, I seem to be in perpetual meeting mode. I certainly am very happy to carry on having those discussions.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
I would love to join such a meeting. I lost count of the number of times the Minister said “consider”. I hope we are going to do more than consider and are going to act. In addition, her long list of things that are already available just highlights that there is a whole piece of work to be done here about making people aware of what their rights are, what they can access and what is illegal. That, law or no law, is part of the process.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister both for the meeting that many of us had before Committee and for her response today. I hope I am not being overoptimistic, but I am reading some positivity in her comments that progress could take place before Report.
Employment Rights Bill
Wednesday 21st May 2025
(10 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Employment Rights Act 2025 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 81-V(a) Amendments for Committee (Supplementary to the Fifth Marshalled List) - (20 May 2025)
Baroness Smith of Llanfaes
“Duty to prevent violence and harassment in the workplace(1) Section 2 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 (general duties of employers to their employees) is amended as follows.(2) After subsection (2)(e) insert—“(f) the adoption of proactive and preventative measures to protect all persons working in their workplace from violence and harassment, including—(i) gender-based violence;(ii) sexual harassment;(iii) psychological and emotional abuse;(iv) physical and sexual abuse;(v) stalking and harassment, including online harassment;(vi) threats of violence.”(3) After subsection (3) insert—“(3A) It shall be the duty of every employer to prepare, and as often as may be appropriate revise, an assessment to identify potential risks of violence and harassment in the workplace and implement policies and procedures to eliminate these risks so far as is reasonably practicable.(3B) It shall be the duty of every employer to provide training to all employees on recognising and preventing violence and harassment in the workplace, with a focus on gender-responsive approaches.(3C) In subsection (3B) a “gender-responsive approach” means taking into account the various needs, interests, and experiences of people of different gender identities, including women and girls, when designing and implementing policies and procedures. (3D) In this section, “persons working in their workplace” includes—(a) employees,(b) full-time, part-time, and temporary workers, and(c) interns and apprentices.(3E) In subsection (2)(f) and subsections (3A) and (3B), a reference to the workplace includes remote and hybrid work environments.””Member's explanatory statement
This new clause will amend the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 to place a duty on employers to protect all those working in their workplace from gender-based violence and harassment.
Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (PC)
My Lords, I thank both the noble Lord, Lord Russell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for signing Amendments 99 and 100. As I open the debate on them, I look forward to hearing from all Members who would like to engage on this very important topic of tackling workplace gender-based violence and harassment.
First, I thank the Minister for meeting me ahead of today to discuss these amendments. I am grateful for the engagement on this matter and hope that it continues. I also thank a number of organisations for their support in the drafting of the amendments: the Suzy Lamplugh Trust, Rights of Women and the Workers Policy Project. The formation of the amendments began with the Private Member’s Bill to the same effect tabled by my Plaid Cymru colleague in the other place, Liz Saville Roberts, who is below the Bar today. Finally, I thank Mr Richard Spinks for sharing his personal story. Mr Spinks has experienced the most devastating consequence of the inadequacy of protections against gender-based violence in the workplace in the tragic loss of his daughter, Gracie, and I am thankful to him for showing his support for these amendments.
Amendments 99 and 100 attempt to tackle those very inadequacies in employee protections. By amending the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, Amendment 99 would introduce clear, actionable duties for employers to protect workers from violence and harassment, including risk assessments and policy development. It would provide recognition and prevention training to all employees. Amendment 100 would mandate the Health and Safety Executive to develop and publish an enforceable health and safety framework on violence and harassment in the workplace and issue guidance for employers in collaboration with relevant bodies.
The prevalence of sexual harassment and violence in the workplace across the UK shows that interventions such as these amendments are unfortunately absolutely necessary. The Government Equalities Office’s survey in 2020 found that 29% of those in employment reported having experienced some form of sexual harassment in their workplace or workplace environment in the previous 12 months, and only 15% reported it. A 2024 study by Sheffield Hallam University found that sexual harassment is particularly high in traditionally male-dominated and female-dominated industries, and highest in hospitality. Given that workers may be unlikely to recognise some of their experiences as sexual harassment, these numbers are probably much higher in reality. This is also true of gender-based violence, psychological and emotional abuse, physical and sexual abuse, stalking and harassment, and threats of violence. In fact, 56% of calls to Rights of Women’s sexual harassment at work advice line are made up of reports of sexual assault, rape, stalking and coercive control.
However, despite the UK ratifying ILO Convention 190 in 2022 to enhance worker protections against workplace violence and harassment, there are significant gaps within our legal framework to protect workers from those kinds of harm. The status quo is deeply lacking, and we are currently failing our women as a result, such as in the case of some 100 women, according to the police, who have accused Harrods owner Mohamed Al Fayed of offences including multiple counts of rape and attempted rape. Despite being owner of the Ritz Paris hotel and Fulham Football Club at the time, he was never held to account.
My mind turns also to those eight people, most of them current or former BBC staff, stalked by former BBC radio presenter Alex Belfield, who was also sentenced to a five-and-a-half-year term for harassing four people online, and Gracie Spinks, who was killed by a former male colleague, Michael Sellers, after having reported his obsessive behaviour towards her to her employer, Xbite. The inquest into Gracie’s death found that seven other Xbite employees had received unwanted attention from Sellers, with most consequently leaving their jobs while he continued to work for the company until dismissed in February 2021. Many said the company was aware and had spoken to him about his inappropriate behaviour.
Incidents such as these show the dangers of employer inaction under current regulations, and His Majesty’s Government are not absolved of this, with sexual assault, harassment and abuse having taken place at the Ministry of Defence, according to 60 senior women in 2023. The reluctance of employers—and that includes public bodies—to address such behaviours directly endangers people’s lives.
I understand that it is His Majesty’s Government’s belief that the worker protection Act 2023 has addressed some of these regulatory gaps. I, however, disagree. That Act was introduced to tackle the issue of sexual harassment in the workplace by creating a preventive duty requiring employers to take reasonable steps to prevent sexual harassment in their workplaces. That is a commendable effort, but there are key issues with that legislation.
First, an automatic investigation into a breach of this duty takes place only after an individual successfully brings a claim of sexual harassment. This severely limits the preventive function. Secondly, it excludes other forms of gender-based violence in the workplace, including physical, psychological and emotional abuse, which form part of the recommendations of the ILO 190. It is clear that there is real need for legislation that requires employers to proactively create a safe work environment, one that addresses wider gender-based violence. The Employment Rights Bill is a good vehicle to bring about this change, cementing further the need to address sexual harassment and violence in the workplace as the employment-related issue that it is.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I am very happy to add my name to the two amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, having worked for many years before she came to the House on domestic abuse issues.
Nobody would disagree with the Government having this priority to reduce violence against women and girls; it is a no-brainer, given where we are starting from. The examples in the workplace of things going wrong, often in plain sight, are embarrassing, and the list the noble Baroness put before us, which I will briefly repeat in part, demonstrates that it is just the tip of the iceberg.
When I was a head-hunter, for many years I specialised in HR—sometimes known as “human refuse” or “human remains”, but otherwise known as personnel—and Harrods was known as a revolving door for HR directors. Any personnel director who looked at an offer of employment from Mr Fayed—he actually was just Mr Mohamed Fayed; he added the “al” because it makes you sound posher in Egypt—and who had done their homework knew what they were in for. Even people who took a deep breath and, for a large amount of money, took on that role rarely lasted more than 12 months. It really was supping with the devil, and it was widely known, but nobody did anything about it.
The BBC has been mentioned, as well as the NHS. The fact that female employees, surgeons included, in the NHS have reported rape—both allegations of rape and actual rape—over many years is inconceivable in principle but is and has been taking place.
The case of Gracie Spinks was mentioned. I too had the privilege of listening to her father as he spoke of his anguish at the death of his daughter. That is an interesting example. The company where the person who killed her, and who then killed himself, worked, Xbite, had a grand total of 140 employees. So, as we think through how to deal with this, how can we help organisations such as that, which had started up only five years before, to understand the co-responsibilities they have with their employees to try to protect them in the working environment? But also, how do we make that practical and effective?
I was involved, with others, in the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill which has just left your Lordships’ House. Part of the reason that the Government brought that in is precisely because of issues of abuse in the workplace. The well-known tragic case of Jaysley Beck, who took her own life after years of repeated harassment by, shamefully, a series of her superiors, is a case in point. The Ministry of Defence itself also has a major issue in this regard.
The fact is that, as many of us will know, many of us—some of us—will indeed have married, gone out with or, heaven forbid, had affairs with people that we have met through interactions at the workplace. The workplace, outside of the home, is a major cause and focus of social interaction between people, and most of us spend a significant part of our lives there. To expect that to exist in a separate bubble and compartment and not recognise the issues that can often be engendered and amplified by the intensity of a working environment is to ignore the obvious.
So, should we ignore this in this Bill? I think we all agree that this is an issue that needs to be tackled. I think we all agree that we need to do better, but I think we need to ask ourselves: is this the right vehicle by which to try and do something about it? I have come to the conclusion that the answer is probably yes, not least because of the timing of the Government’s current focus on reducing violence against women and girls. What is clear at the moment is that there is a real lack of clarity and guidance, and ownership and responsibility, on how to respond in these kinds of situations.
We have a tangle of different laws and regulations dating back as far as 1974, with the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act. We have the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999. We have the Domestic Abuse Act 2021. We have the remit of the Equality and Human Rights Commission. We have the Health and Safety Executive, and we have the International Labour Organization’s Convention No. 190. That is a complicated thicket to try and work your way through, and there are many inconsistencies in the way it is applied and an almost total lack of understanding by those employers who are perhaps trying to respond to some of the issues that their employees are raising as to how best to deal with it, because there is no clear path or clear outline of how to respond. Creating clarity in this area for both the victims and the employers is an opportunity we should not miss.
I look forward to the Minister’s response. I hope that he/she and their colleagues will sit down with Jess Phillips and Alex Davies-Jones to try and look at this in the round, because, in a way, it would fit in very neatly with some of the other laudable initiatives of the Government to reduce violence against women and girls. I ask the Front Benches: please can we work together, politics out of the window, to try and work out between now and Report whether there are ways we can try and pull all this together, give greater clarity and improve on the unacceptable status quo?
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I am speaking in place of my noble friend Lady Bennett, who is not able to be here today, and she has signed both of the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Llanfaes.
The noble Baroness made an excellent opening speech and has covered almost everything, but I think it is worth repeating that what we are trying to do here is provide workplaces that are safe, free from violence and free from gender-based harassment. As we heard during an Oral Question earlier, sexism and misogyny are on the rise in our society, and that impacts on women and girls—probably girls, particularly—of all ages. It is crucial that the Government take this seriously.
We are not asking employers to sit down and think what they have to do from scratch, because this research has been done before. There is an excellent project conducted by the Fawcett Society that identifies five key requirements to create a workplace that does not tolerate sexual harassment: culture, policy, training, reporting mechanisms and the way that employers respond to reports. Successful and lasting change needs sustained commitment, and the Fawcett Society shows the way forward—or a way forward. Of course, that, with a great deal of other existing research, is something that the Health and Safety Executive could draw on.
The size of the problem is probably indicated by research from Scotland; there is no reason to think that the issue there is larger than anywhere else on these islands. Last year, a study reported that 70% of women in Scotland reported having experienced or witnessed sexual harassment in the workplace and that 80% of those never reported it to their employer. Those are absolutely terrible statistics. I am sure that the Government want to do something about this, not least because lower-paid and younger workers are particularly vulnerable. This is something that the Government will surely want to address because there are an awful lot of votes out there from younger people and, at the next general election, this Labour Government might need them.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I rise with some trepidation to raise some problems with these amendments. I have to say that the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Llanfaes, made an absolutely brilliant, compelling case for her amendments and has been amply backed up by others. However, I still think that, if you look at what these amendments would do, there is a danger here.
We have already discussed, in our debates on recent groups, mission creep in relation to the concept of harassment; we have talked about it a great deal. I am concerned about subsection (2)(a) of the proposed new clause to be inserted by Amendment 100, which relates to
“the prevention of gender-based violence and harassment of those in the workplace including the prevention of physical, emotional, and psychological abuse”.
Bringing that into the law would introduce a very wide and broad set of rules into the workplace.
I am absolutely sympathetic to taking on some of the problems that we have seen in workplaces—for example, people being stalked at their workplace or being stalked by fellow workers, as well as the kinds of domestic abuse that have been described, with the Harrods example of rape and so on—because all of those things are terrible. However, we should not shy away from the fact that it will be quite difficult to legislate on every aspect of every intervention between employees in a workplace if we are going to broaden it out to emotional and psychological issues. That is one problem: it is overly subjective.
The use of the phrase “gender-based violence” is in danger of confusing us as well, because we now know that there is a confusion between gender and biological sex. We should not shy away from the fact that that language has been confusing for some time. We need some clarity, not muddying. If we call it “gender”, this could turn workplaces into sites of perpetual ideological grievances and finger-pointing.
Let me give noble Lords an example. Proposed new subsection (3C), which would be inserted by Amendment 99, says that the aim is a “gender-responsive approach”. This, it says,
“means taking into account the various needs, interests, and experiences of people of different gender identities, including women and girls”.
I point out that women and girls are not a subsection of gender identities. Gender identities are, “Have ’em if you want ’em”, in my view. If we are serious about tackling violence against women and girls, do not throw them into this mix. We certainly cannot have gender identity created as a legal category by a well-intentioned amendment that would, in fact, undo the clarity we have recently had. These amendments completely conflict with the Supreme Court’s clarification of the distinction between biological sex as fact in law and gender identity, which is, I am afraid, often not just what people choose but part of an ideological activism that has, I would argue, been incredibly damaging to sex-based rights for women—often in the workplace.
We need to be very careful about proposed new subsection (3B) in Amendment 99. It talks of
“the duty of every employer to provide training to all employees on recognising and preventing violence and harassment in the workplace, with a focus on gender-responsive approaches”.
I get worried when the bosses are asked to provide training that is not about how you do your job, because training has become the vehicle that is often used not to protect employees from harassment but for viewpoint conformity and as an insidious form of harassment of anyone who does not conform.
We have to consider what this training consists of. I do not want to just say, “Oh yes, training, that is a good idea then”. The danger of training is that it can introduce all sorts of problems; and, in fact, training was the way that in most workplaces we now know that people misunderstood equality law. It was via training, informed by third-party organisations involved in the gender issue, that they started to adopt what has been called, by some KCs, “Stonewall law”. That is why so many organisations are now saying, “We were doing what we thought was legal”.
To finish, I will show the Committee how complicated it is. I hope noble Lords have read that incredibly moving and harrowing interview with Karen Danson, one of the eight Darlington nurses who are taking legal action against their employer, County Durham and Darlington NHS Foundation Trust, after they were forced to share a changing room with a male nurse who identifies as a woman and calls himself Rose.
As Karen explained in the interview, she had been abused as a child. She goes to work, where, as a nurse, she has to get to changed. In walks Rose, wearing only boxer shorts that are full of holes—details do matter in this instance—who keeps asking Karen why she is not getting changed. Karen, understandably, feels very disturbed. These amendments are about sexual harassment in the workplace. Karen and her colleagues go to their bosses and HR and say, “This is our changing room. We do not want to get changed in front of this man, however he identifies. What will you do about it?” What did HR say? It said that the nurses were the problem, called them transphobic and said they needed to be re-educated in trans inclusion; in other words, they were about to be sent on a training course.
I make my point that if you are the wrong kind of victim in a workplace in an ideological sense, you could be the victim of the training which tries to get you to accept “right” things, rather than protects your rights. I really admire the spirit of the way that the amendments were introduced. However, they are absolutely wrong-headed and we should reject them.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
I will just say to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, that the greatest danger we have is that the Bill passes and yet we have groups of people in the workplace who are not in any way protected, or not sufficiently protected, either from violence or from harassment. I thought the case was brilliantly made by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Llanfaes, backed up by the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb.
I say to the Minister: carpe diem. Here is an opportunity to make sure that there is not a gaping omission in the work that the whole Bill is attempting to do to provide proper protection in the workplace. I find it quite ingenious that the approach here is to try to use the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act. If the Minister has a better way of doing it, I am sure that everyone will be very eager and willing to listen. It contains within it the capacity for both investigation and enforcement. When we talked in previous groups, it was very evident that investigation and enforcement are very often the vital missing elements in the arrangements that we have set in place today. This seems to me to have been a very sensible approach to try to find an organisation that is appropriate and has the relevant kind of teeth.
I will not attempt to expand on the case as it has been made so eloquently. I am sort of filling in on this Bill when others have been called away—in this particular case to a NATO meeting. But I would have been very pleased to add my name to these amendments.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I join the general congratulations offered to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Llanfaes, on her very comprehensive introduction of these amendments; she deployed some incredibly powerful examples.
We are all in agreement that violence and harassment, particularly sexual harassment and gender-based abuse, have absolutely no place in any workplace. Every worker, whether in an office, on a site or working remotely, deserves to feel safe, respected and protected. Tackling those issues must remain a top priority.
The amendment before us seeks to introduce stronger duties on employers to prevent and respond to these harms. Measures such as risk assessments, training and clear reporting systems can be important in building a workplace culture where abuse is not tolerated and victims are supported, so we absolutely understand the intention behind the amendment.
Although we agree that there is a need for action, we do not believe that the Health and Safety Executive is the right body to enforce these new responsibilities. That is not meant as a criticism of the Health and Safety Executive; it is simply a recognition that there are fundamentally different areas of concern that we think require a different kind of regulatory response. That is not the same as saying that we do not support the intentions of the amendment.
We do not support Amendment 100. We need solutions that deliver real protections to address sexual harassment. Finally, I have to say, from a very personal point of view, that I completely agree with my friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, and her reservations about proposed new subsection (3B).
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Leong) (Lab)
My Lords, first, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Llanfaes, for her patience and apologise to her that it has taken until our fifth day in Committee for her to introduce her amendments. I thank her again for Amendments 99 and 100.
I assure the noble Baroness and all noble Lords that the Government are fully committed to protecting workers from workplace violence and harassment. This is a top priority for this Government, with our manifesto commitment, as mentioned earlier by the noble Baroness, to halve violence against women and girls in a decade. In response, I am happy to say that we already have a strong and, in the Government’s view, appropriate regulatory framework in place that ensures that workers are protected from such risks.
I refer to the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act. Under the statutory provisions made under the existing Act, employers have a very clear duty to protect their workers from health and safety risks, including workplace violence. Employers are required to assess and take appropriate steps to eliminate or reduce this risk. The Health and Safety at Work etc. Act, along with other related legislation, also mandates employers to take measures to reduce the risk of workplace violence.
As part of this, the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 require employers to assess risks in the workplace, including the potential for violence, and to take suitable action to reduce or eliminate this risk. The Health and Safety Executive—HSE—and local authorities are responsible for enforcing the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act and carry out both proactive and reactive measures to ensure that employers are complying with their duties. This includes ensuring that employers assess risks and implement appropriate measures to protect their workers and anyone else affected by their work from workplace violence. The HSE has also published accessible guidance on its website to help employers comply with their legal obligations. It also works very closely with other regulators to promote co-operation, share intelligence and, where appropriate, co-ordinate joint activities.
In the noble Baroness’s proposed amendments, there is a request for HSE to publish a health and safety framework specifically focused on violence and harassment in the workplace. Employers already have duties under the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations to ensure they have sufficient arrangements in place to manage health and safety risks in the workplace, including violence and aggression. Although workplace harassment could be addressed under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act, the HSE does not intervene where there is a more appropriate regulator or where more directly applicable legislation exists.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
I am grateful to the Minister for laying out the plethora of different types of Act and instrument that are meant to be woven together into a seamless whole to stop abuse in the workplace happening. He started off by mentioning an Act passed 51 years ago. He then talked about regulations enacted 26 years ago. He then spoke about the harassment Act of 18 years ago and the Equality Act of 16 years ago. With the greatest respect, if the combination of these regulations has been in force for as long as they have been and we are in the situation we now find ourselves in, with the evidence of what is happening in a variety of workplaces, large, medium and small, clearly all is not well.
The idea of bringing forward amendments such as these is not that they are word perfect from the word go. Everybody in the House knows that perfectly well. Committee is to probe; to try to see if we can come to agreement across the Chamber that it ain’t working and we need to do something better. With the best will in the world, standing up and trying to defend the status quo, when the status quo quite clearly is not working as it is meant to do in theory, is not helping anybody. So, I again ask and suggest—and I am sure the noble Baroness will say this when she responds to the Minister—that we accept that it is not working properly and that it would be a no-brainer to try to work together, across this House and with another place, to see if we can use this Act as a way to improve on what clearly is not working at the moment.
Lord Leong (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, for that, and I hear what he says. But I stress here, with all the current legislation in place, that there must have been cases before us that we can learn lessons from. What we need to do, and do better, is use “black box thinking”, where we can learn from what has happened and hopefully share with other regulators what works and what may not have worked, so that we can address a problem rather than bring in more legislation. We can look at what has been successful and share those successes among other enforcers as well.
I conclude by saying that the Government remain committed to raising awareness of this important issue. I can confirm that the Minister, my noble friend Lady Jones, has already met with Minister Jess Phillips and Alex Davies-Jones, and we continue to work with them to try to see how we can come together on this. I therefore respectfully ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (PC)
My Lords, I thank everyone who has spoken in this debate. I am grateful to those who have shown support for these amendments and also those who support the outcome these amendments are trying to achieve. I will reflect on what we have discussed in this debate today, ahead of Report.
On the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, about a “gender-responsive approach”, I can clarify what that entails. The amendment addresses the different situations, roles, needs and interests of women, men, girls and boys in the design and implementation of activities.
As we have hit on during this debate, the status quo is clearly not working. I know that the Minister outlined in his response the preventative measures being put on to employers. But, as I have explained, those preventative measures are not actually preventative, because you have to prove your sexual harassment claim in order for it to be a breach. Even in the language we use about what is currently in place, it is not preventative. I welcome further discussion with the Minister following this, and hopefully we can come to an agreement on how we can bring this forward within the wider approach.
I will withdraw my amendment today, but I retain my right to bring back further amendments on Report. I hope that His Majesty’s Government reflect on this debate and that we can engage further on this matter. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Young of Acton
“Protection from discrimination on the basis of political opinion or affiliationAfter section 40A of the Equality Act 2010, insert—“40B Employees and applicants: political opinion or affiliation(1) An employer (A) must not, in relation to employment by A, discriminate against, harass or victimise (in a manner prohibited by sections 39 or 40), a person (B)—(a) who is an employee of A’s;(b) who has applied to A for employment;in relation to their political opinion of affiliation.(2) For purposes of this section—(a) “political opinion” means any political opinion and a reference to a political opinion includes a reference to a lack of a political opinion;(b) “political affiliation” means membership of any political party, group or organisation which is not excluded by subsection (2)(c);(c) political opinion or affiliation does not include any opinion or affiliation which—(i) would be unworthy of respect in a democratic society,(ii) is in conflict with the fundamental rights of others, or(iii) is affiliated with any political party, group or organisation which is proscribed for the purposes of the Terrorism Act 2000.””
Lord Young of Acton (Con)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 101B, which seeks to amend the Equality Act 2010, I will also speak to Amendment 141A, which seeks to amend the Employment Rights Act 1996. I declare my interest as the general secretary of the Free Speech Union.
These amendments would protect job applicants and employees from being discriminated against by employers for their political opinions or affiliations, provided those opinions are not
“unworthy of respect in a democratic society”,
incompatible with
“the fundamental rights of others”,
and are not connected to a
“party, group or organisation which is proscribed for the purposes of the Terrorism Act 2000”.
In the Telegraph on Monday, a government spokesperson said these amendments are not necessary because:
“Any employee dismissed because of their political opinions can already bring a claim of unfair dismissal at any point”.
Well, they can. But whether they are successful or not depends on whether their political beliefs satisfy the Grainger test—a reference to a case in which an employee sued his employer, Grainger PLC, for discriminating against him because he believed in manmade climate change. It was established in that case that, in order to enjoy protected status under the Equality Act, a belief had to satisfy five separate conditions. This is the Grainger test:
“The belief must be genuinely held … It must be a belief and not … an opinion or viewpoint based on the present state of information available”—
remember that one because I am going to come back to it.
“It must be a belief as to a weighty and substantial aspect of human life and behaviour … It must attain a certain level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance … It must be worthy of respect in a democratic society, be not incompatible with human dignity and not conflict with the fundamental rights of others”.
Noble Lords will notice that the test I am proposing is a simpler alternative to the Grainger test. It is, in essence, just the fifth limb of the Grainger test.
So what is wrong with the Grainger test? For one thing, it is overcomplicated and leaves too much room for the personal political views of the members of a tribunal panel to creep in. That is why it has led to some arbitrary and biased decisions. For instance, the tribunal has ruled that anti-Zionism is a protected belief, while a belief in Zionism has not been granted that status, at least not yet. A belief in manmade climate change is protected—that was the judgment handed down in Grainger plc v Nicholson—but climate scepticism is not, and that has been tested in the tribunal. A belief in democratic socialism is protected but a belief in conservatism is not, and that too has been tested. In the case of Ms K Sunderland v The Hut.com Ltd—a Free Speech Union case—the tribunal ruled that a belief in a small state, low taxes, freedom of expression and as few controls on an individual’s freedom as are consistent with human rights was not protected.
That is one reason why the Free Speech Union currently has five cases in which employees have been dismissed because of their links to Reform UK. One such case is that of Saba Poursaeedi, who is in the Gallery as I speak. He lost his job at the Hightown Housing Association because he was due to stand as a Reform candidate. He was told that Reform’s policies on immigration, net zero and housing were “in direct conflict” with the values of the Hightown Housing Association—as clear a case of discrimination against someone for their political views as you could hope for. He is taking Hightown Housing Association to the tribunal but, given the judgment in Ms K Sunderland v The Hut.com, he may not be successful. That is one reason to accept these amendments: to level the playing field so that many people with right-of-centre political beliefs enjoy the same protection as people with left-of-centre political beliefs.
Another difficulty with the Grainger test is that it disadvantages open-minded people who, as the late Lord Keynes did, change their minds when the facts change. Remember the second limb of the Grainger test:
“It must be a belief and not … an opinion or viewpoint based on the present state of information available”.
Do we really want the Equality Act to encourage dogmatism and punish open-mindedness in this way? Why should someone’s belief be undeserving of protection if it is susceptible to changing if the facts change?
The amendments would bring the Equality Act into line with the European Convention on Human Rights. Articles 9, 10, 11 and 14 provide a higher level of protection than that granted by the Equality Act, particularly Article 10, which protects freedom of expression, including the expression of political views. As the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, would no doubt point out if she was in the House, if there is a discrepancy between the Equality Act and the convention then its shortcomings will be corrected by the courts eventually, since, as per the Human Rights Act, our courts must interpret legislation in a way that is compatible with convention rights.
However, bringing a claim before the employment tribunal is a time-consuming process and one that can be extremely expensive. The Free Speech Union helped a man to bring a case for unfair dismissal against Lloyds Bank to the tribunal two years ago, and it cost over £85,000. Not only can it be eye-wateringly expensive but it takes a long time, given the current backlog of cases. Mr Poursaeedi’s case has been scheduled for July 2027, more than a year hence. In the meantime, he and other victims of discrimination based on their political beliefs are awaiting justice. Why not short-circuit that process, bring the Equality Act into line with the convention and ease the burden on the tribunal at the same time, as well as protect people now from being discriminated against in this way, by accepting my amendments?
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I put my name down on Amendments 101B and 141A, tackling employment discrimination on the basis of political opinions, because I wanted to probe whether the Government can see that it is a real, contemporary issue that needs to be tackled, however they do it. We know from the history of the labour movement that in the bad old days, as it were, attacking people’s employment rights, sacking them and suspending them were used by employers to discipline the workforce, and they were often focused on people who had the wrong views in the workplace. Often, the trade union organisers who were involved in left-wing parties and so on were the ones who were targeted, and we had McCarthyite-type purges, red scares and anti-trade union blacklists of individuals in workplaces—shocking, but those were the bad old days and it would not happen today, except that I think we are witnessing something similar today even if the political opinions of the victims might be very different and it might take a different form. This is an under-discussed phenomenon, and I hope the Government will see that the Bill is a way of tackling it.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, I support the excellent amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Young of Acton. It is hard to adequately follow the tour de force and the passion and energy of—I will call her my noble friend— Lady Fox of Buckley. I would make the point, and it bears repetition, that free speech is worth defending on all occasions and, in many respects, transcends party- political affiliations.
As my noble friend Lady Fox alluded to, there was a time many years ago—until quite recently, historically—when people who represented labour versus capital were discriminated against for organising in the workplace. If people who worked in factories and mines, and on farms, tried to organise a trade union—which was perfectly reasonable—to improve their conditions and pay, they were politically discriminated against, suspended or fired, and their very livelihoods were put in question. That is a fact. We know that was the case.
We have made good progress. Those people who were, for instance, organising the Workers’ Educational Association classes for manual workers, in order to improve their education and their life chances, were discriminated against. That was wrong. We have gone full circle now, and those people who may support a right-of-centre position—pro-capitalism, pro-tax cuts, pro-lower regulations—are discriminated against.
The importance of this amendment is that it distinguishes what is respectable, moderate, mainstream opinion, which noble Lords may or may not agree with, from the extremes. The caveat in this amendment is very nuanced, in that it defends free speech for respectable political debate and discussion. That is very important.
The other reason why I support this amendment is that we have a very unfortunate phenomenon these days with the advent of social media: doxing. If you are a pernicious, unpleasant, vexatious, litigious person and someone on social media appears to have a view with which you disagree, you are no longer going just to take issue with them on social media and let the matter drop; you are going to identify where they live, where their children go to school and, more importantly for our purposes today, where they earn their living.
A good example—and a proud member of the Free Speech Union—is Mr Ben Woods, who was employed by Waitrose at Henley as a wine specialist. He had unfashionable views, certainly unfashionable in the Liberal Democrat citadel of Henley-on-Thames, being against immigration. But actually, he represented the majority of people in that he was gender critical and believed that women are biological women and men are biological men, and he put that on his social media. Maybe he was a bit exuberant in his opinions, but someone decided to contact John Lewis Partnership and Waitrose to dox him. He was suspended, investigated and lost his job, and that is now going to an employment tribunal.
That is a good example of a very regrettable modern phenomenon. This amendment would seek to protect people like this, who have perfectly respectable views and are entitled to earn a living and to try to get on with their fellow workers in their place of work—who may disagree with them—but not lose their job unfairly. On that basis, this is an excellent amendment. I certainly urge the Minister to give it some consideration, because it would not detract from the Bill. Above all, it is a fair amendment, and I believe she should support it.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, I would join with anyone who wants to speed up employment tribunals and cut the costs of going to them. I hope that is an agenda the Government will take on rapidly. We heard an unfortunate case of someone who is waiting until 2027; some people are waiting four years. I hope the Government will address that issue, but I cannot see that it is central to this Bill.
I am not a legal expert, and many of the cases quoted are not ones that I know—I do not know any of them intimately. In my experience, at least with employment tribunal judgments, it is very unsatisfactory to sum them up in a single sentence. They usually have within them a great deal of complexity and a fair amount of nuance. Without going through those, I am in no position to assess the evidence that has been put before us today.
I remain somewhat sceptical. I hope that we can get reassurance that people are genuinely protected because of their political views. I do not think anyone in this Committee would think it was right for someone to lose their job because they belong to one particular affiliation or another. I will look for the Minister to make that case and to explain the legal situation in far more depth than I can. I do not feel qualified to be more than somewhat sceptical.
Lord Monks (Lab)
My Lords, it is commonplace for individuals who express personal views that clash with the ethos of a particular company or institution to run into some trouble. Gary Lineker is the latest and most topical example, for displaying material that is considered to be antisemitic. My first experience, age 12, was my father refusing to let me display a political poster at a general election. If I had known about the Free Speech Union, maybe I would have joined the noble Lord, Lord Young, at that stage—maybe he should send Gary Lineker a membership form.
Lord Monks (Lab)
Oh, he has already done it—very good.
Let us be real about this. A lot of situations call for tact and diplomacy, and for us to be careful about the way we express difficult thing. A lot of people do not do that; they say what they like, thinking it is totally justified, and they get into difficulty. Unions spend a lot of time helping people get round those kinds of situations when they have got into trouble with their employer.
I do not think the argument coming from the other side of the Chamber is a convincing one. Let us remember a bit of common sense, and that tact and diplomacy are still required in many organisations, not just the BBC—and not just with my old dad, who did not like the fact that I had a “Vote Labour” poster in the window.
Baroness Verma (Con)
My Lords, I did not want to intervene on this group, but, listening to the noble Lord, I became slightly worried that we are getting into censorship. This country is a proud country because of its ability to speak out and speak up. I would be incredibly nervous if we felt that we could not demonstrate our political views openly without being penalised for it. The unions do their own work, but it is incredibly important that people are able to demonstrate a political affiliation or a particular viewpoint without having to feel that they are going to be censored. That would really worry people like me, who often are the recipient of things that we do not like to hear, but we tolerate it because we think the country enables us to have the debate.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Young of Acton for his expert introduction to the amendments in this group. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Monks, about common sense, but I fear that went out of the window of an employment tribunal some years ago. As my noble friend Lord Young laid out in an earlier group, this Bill threatens to restrict free expression in some cases with its provisions. It is for this reason that I support the amendments, which seek to safeguard political opinion and affiliation within our employment laws.
At the heart of any thriving democracy lies the freedom to hold and express political beliefs without fear of retribution. In a democratic society, freedom of speech and freedom of belief are not luxuries; they are fundamental rights that underpin our entire system of governance and civil life. The workplace, where so many of us spend a significant portion of our lives, must be a space where individuals can hold and express their political views without fear of unfair treatment or dismissal. As it stands, our existing laws provide only patchy protections for political beliefs, and they leave many workers vulnerable. My noble friend Lord Young’s examples are truly shocking, and I would like to take this opportunity to wish, in particular, Mr Poursaeedi well in his ongoing battles.
We should draw upon the timeless wisdom of John Stuart Mill, who was one of the great architects of liberalism. He argued in his seminal work On Liberty that the truth emerges only through free and open debate, and he warned against the suppression of any opinion, because no one person or group holds a monopoly on truth. Even opinions that we may find mistaken—perhaps such as democratic socialism—or indeed offensive, must be heard and challenged openly, for only through such dialogue can society discern truth from error. Voltaire was right on this. I must admit I find it a bit disappointing that the Liberal Democrat Benches are not more enthusiastic about these amendments.
By protecting employees from dismissal or discrimination based on their political opinions or affiliations, these amendments would ensure that the workplace remains a forum where diverse ideas can be expressed, scrutinised and debated. Suppressing political expression risks silencing valuable perspectives and preventing the emergence of truth through robust discussion.
We in this House pride ourselves on opening our minds to a broad range of political views. Obviously, that involves robust engagement, challenging each other and refining our positions through vigorous debate. If such diversity of opinion is essential to the functioning of this Chamber, why would it not apply beyond these walls, and particularly in other workplaces? Workers, like us, should be free to express their political beliefs without fear of losing their jobs or being discriminated against.
In conclusion, I urge the Government to accept my noble friend’s amendments. To go back to the great liberal John Stuart Mill, he also said:
“A person may cause evil to others not only by his actions but by his inaction, and in either case he is justly accountable to them for the injury”.
This is not the time for inaction. These amendments not only would protect workers from unfair dismissal and discrimination but would uphold our fundamental democratic values. By embedding these protections into our laws, we would reaffirm our commitment to free expression. I am afraid saying just that they are not necessary is not good enough. They clearly are necessary, as we heard in the examples from my noble friend.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Information and Technology (Baroness Jones of Whitchurch) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken. I think it would be helpful if I first clarify where the law stands on this.
On Amendment 101B, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Acton, let me make it clear that religious and philosophical beliefs are already protected by the Equality Act 2010, including in the workplace. However, political belief—in the sense of a party-political affiliation or opinion—was not included as a protected characteristic in the Equality Act 2010. The noble Lord referred to the Grainger case. That case and the definition that the noble Lord read out referred to the issue of philosophical belief, which is already protected by the Act.
In 2015-16, the Equality and Human Rights Commission reviewed whether Great Britain’s equality and human rights legal framework sufficiently protects individuals with a religion or belief and the distinction of a religion or belief organisation while balancing the rights of others protected under the Equality Act 2010. The review found that the definition of religion or belief in the Equality Act is sufficiently broad to ensure wide protection for many religions or beliefs. It recommended no change to the definition of religion or belief or to the approach that the court should take in deciding whether any particular belief is protected under the Act.
We are not convinced that a political opinion or affiliation should be specifically protected by amendment to the Equality Act 2010 in contrast to other religions or beliefs. The extent of protected beliefs has been developed in case law, and we have not been presented with strong evidence that any legislative amendment is necessary. The amendment the noble Lord is proposing would potentially cause legal uncertainty over its relationship to the protected characteristic of religion or belief in Section 10 of the Equality Act, which has a much wider application than just the workplace.
The Government frequently receive calls for new protected characteristics—there have been over 21 suggested to date. While some of these carry merit, it simply would not be practical to include these all in the legislation, which would quickly become unmanageable for employers and service providers to follow, and for courts and tribunals to process and judge.
The noble Lord referred to the European Convention on Human Rights. The courts and tribunals will always be required to balance competing rights on the facts of a particular case, including the rights to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, and freedom of expression under Articles 9 and 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, as well as academic freedom.
Noble Lords have referred to a number of individual cases. They will appreciate that I cannot comment on individual cases. However, I can assure them that free speech is a cornerstone of British values. We are firmly committed to upholding the right of freedom of expression, which is protected by Article 10. I also absolutely agree with my noble friend Lord Monks that, in many cases—and preferably in all cases—it is ideal for these issues to be resolved by common sense at the workplace.
Turning to Amendment 141A, I seek to reassure the noble Lord that further legislative provision on this matter is not needed. Through the Bill, the Government are creating a day one right against unfair dismissal. As the noble Lord, Lord Young, acknowledged in his explanatory statement, additional protections for employees already exist under Section 108(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, which currently ensures that claims for unfair dismissal on the grounds of political opinion or affiliation are not subject to any qualification period. I can reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, that, while dismissal on the grounds of political beliefs and affiliations is not automatically unfair, if brought to a tribunal, the tribunal could find that it was unfair based on the circumstances at hand.
As we have said, these issues will very often have to be decided by a tribunal, based on the facts of the case. This will obviously also have to apply to the noble Lord’s amendment as well. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, that the delays in employment tribunals are a very real challenge that we are very conscious of, and we have already reported elsewhere in other debates on the Bill that we are taking steps to address this.
Relevant case law sets out the circumstances where political beliefs may constitute a philosophical belief for the purpose of the Equality Act 2010. In these cases, discrimination provisions could apply. Following a judgment from the European Court of Human Rights, the qualifying period for bringing a claim of unfair dismissal relating to political opinions or affiliation was removed, further strengthening employees’ access to justice in instances of unfair dismissal based on political views. The Bill ensures that claims for dismissal on this basis continue to be treated in the same way as claims for automatic unfair dismissal by carving them out in a new Section 108A from the requirement that any employee must have started work before a claim can be brought.
We regard this as the right approach. Making dismissal for political opinions automatically unfair, as this amendment seeks to do, would fundamentally change the way that free speech is considered in relation to dismissal for the holding of views or the expression of views that the employer regards as unacceptable. It could sweep up such a wide range of views as to be unworkable. As sufficient protection against dismissal for political beliefs already exists, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw Amendment 101B.
Lord Young of Acton (Con)
I thank all noble Lords who spoke in support of my amendments. I echo the tribute made by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, to the journalist Patrick O’Flynn, who has just been taken from us so ahead of his time. I appreciate the remarks from the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, who I note did not oppose the amendments, although she was a little bit sceptical about the case I had made. I also thank my noble friend Lady Verma for her intervention.
In response to the Minister’s remarks, as she says, some political beliefs are protected by the Equality Act. The issue is that not all political beliefs are protected by the Equality Act. I gave some examples and I will give just one more: an employment tribunal decision that a belief in Scottish independence is protected, but a belief in unionism is not. There is often not much rhyme or reason to these employment tribunal decisions, because the Grainger test leaves so much room for bias, interpretation and subjective judgment. I am merely asking the Government to bring the Equality Act into line with the European Convention on Human Rights. Article 14 lists the characteristics that should be protected and includes the words “political … opinion”. That means all political opinions, not just those you disagree with.
Finally, I come to the intervention from the noble Lord, Lord Monks, and point out that Saba Poursaeedi did not lose his job at the housing association because he was tactless or undiplomatic; he lost it because he was intending to stand as a candidate for Reform UK. The association had no misgivings about his performance in his role; indeed, it promoted him. He was a model of tact and diplomacy when dealing with the residents managed by the housing association. That was not the reason he was fired. The noble Lord is, of course, welcome to join the Free Speech Union, and I hope that he does. I have reached out to Gary Lineker, not to defend him in any case he might want to bring against the BBC—which I do not think he intends—but because the police have said they may now be investigating his remarks. I reached out to him and said that, if that happens, we will provide him with a solicitor and, if necessary, a barrister.
Lord Aberdare
“(2) The provisions of Schedule 3 do not apply to apprentices during any probationary period of up to six months, as specified in an apprenticeship contract signed by the apprentice and the employer and where the apprentice is less than 21 years of age at the time the contract is signed.”
Lord Aberdare (CB)
My Lords, I rise to move Amendment 102, in the name of my noble friend Lady Wolf of Dulwich, who much regrets that she is unable to be here today to move it herself. I was delighted to add my name to this very specific amendment, addressing what I am sure is an unintended consequence of the Bill. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Knight of Weymouth, and the noble Baroness, Lady Garden of Frognal, both of whom have enormous expertise in apprenticeships, for adding their names as well.
Apprenticeships are key to developing the skills we need for achieving our national goals, including all the Government’s missions. The value and importance of apprenticeships is increasingly recognised, not least by young people and their families, but there are not enough apprenticeships available, and the majority are used by employers for upskilling or reskilling older people already in the workplace. We need many more apprenticeships for younger people, but the number of 16 to 24 year-olds starting apprenticeships has been declining. Only one in four young people in this age group who seeks an apprenticeship gets one, and the number of apprenticeships going to young people has declined from 41% in 2008 to 23%.
Small businesses have a crucial part to play in providing apprenticeships for young people. Some 70% of existing apprenticeships are in small businesses, and there is huge scope for small firms to offer many more apprenticeship opportunities. But it has proved consistently hard to persuade small employers to take on apprentices. One reason is cost, despite the extra payments available from government for small firms employing young apprentices, particularly if they have special needs. More important disincentives include the extra workload involved in training and supervising young apprentices, the amount of bureaucracy involved in navigating the apprenticeship system and, sometimes, the uncertainty about whether a firm will have a sufficient pipeline of work for the full term of the apprenticeship. There have been various schemes aimed at addressing these issues—group training associations, apprenticeship training agencies and now flexi-job apprenticeships—but in none of these cases has much impact been made on convincing more SMEs to offer more apprenticeships.
I believe there is a real danger that the day 1 employment rights set out in Clause 23 and Schedule 3 to the Bill could actually exacerbate this problem rather than helping to resolve it, by acting as a further significant disincentive to small employers considering taking on apprentices. My noble friend’s proposed amendment provides a closely targeted exemption for apprentices under 21 during a probation period of no more than six months, with a contract agreed by both the apprentice and the employer. This seems to me to be fair to both the employer and the apprentice.
For the employer, it helps to offset the high risk involved in taking on a young person who may—indeed, probably will—never have been employed before, and who may themselves decide within the first few weeks or months that the apprenticeship is not right for them. The existing risks and unknowns for an employer in taking on the costs, workload and duties of apprenticeships are hard enough to overcome without the additional burden of taking on full employment responsibility for an untried young person, probably in their first job, who may or may not turn out to have the attributes for or interests in that particular job.
These are not, after all, people with experience from previous jobs and a track record for a new employer to assess. Many of them may be among the almost 1 million young people currently defined as NEET—not in employment, education or training—whom the Government quite rightly are desperately keen to get into employment, for example through the planned youth guarantee. The amendment does not relate to people changing jobs, so it has nothing to do with labour market mobility, which this clause seems designed largely to promote.
I hope the Minister will be able to tell us what specific assessment the Government have made of the likely impact of this part of the Bill on the willingness of businesses, especially smaller businesses, to take on young apprentices. You would not need to talk to many small business employers to conclude that it could be very damaging. That would be bad news for such firms themselves, for our national skills needs, for the wider economy and, above all, for the potential young apprentices, who might miss out on attractive opportunities. This amendment would help to counter that, and I beg to move.
Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)
My Lords, I added my name to this amendment, which was tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, but has been very ably spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare. He and I tend to find ourselves in the same Lobbies for just about everything to do with apprenticeships.
We only very recently debated a Bill abolishing the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education so that this amazing new body Skills England could emerge. We still know remarkably little about Skills England. It has a proud remit, but we do not yet know what it is going to perform.
As the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, set out, this amendment is really important because there is a real problem in attracting youngsters into apprenticeships. An apprenticeship was always something for somebody starting out in a career, but the vagaries of the apprenticeship levy mean that they are increasingly being given to people mid-career, for advancing their careers. Unless there is more incentive to enable young people to access the workforce, we will be in an even more dire state. We have nearly a million NEETs now—young people not in education, employment or training—and, if they cannot access apprenticeships, that figure is only set to go up.
We know that, in other European countries, apprentices have a specific distinctive legal status, but they do not in the UK; they are simply employees who have received an apprenticeship learning contract. The Bill will apply to them all, whether they are an 18 year-old or a 50 year-old. This cannot be desirable. I beg the Government to look again at this, because it is hugely important that we do not deter employers from taking on youngsters.
I went with the social mobility committee up to Blackpool and The Fylde College recently, and we were talking to employers there who were already bemoaning the fact that it was incredibly difficult for them to take on apprentices. There was so much bureaucracy and burdensome stuff that they had to follow. They were all saying that, if this came in and if the apprentices had full employment rights from day 1, that would deter them even more. That really cannot be right, and I beg the Minister to listen to this amendment.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)
My Lords, I briefly add my support for Amendment 102 and will pick up on the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, on her committee’s recent visit to the Blackpool and The Fylde further education college. I declare an interest as a commissioner at the Social Mobility Commission, the chair of which is also the principal of the FE college that the committee went to visit. From the perspective of social mobility and the importance of apprenticeships, any measure that would deter the creation of quality apprenticeships that are successful is a bad one, and I therefore support this amendment.
Lord Londesborough (CB)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 102 in the name of my noble friend Lady Wolf of Dulwich and pitched so perfectly by my other noble friend Lord Aberdare—I realise that that sounds as though I only have two friends in this House, which I hope is not the case.
This amendment addresses a consequence of the Bill that will significantly reduce the willingness of employers to hire young people as apprentices—a consequence that I am sure was neither anticipated nor desired by the Government or indeed the Bill’s drafters, which is strange because this Government are acutely aware of the skills shortages facing this country and the need to address them. It was notable that, in introducing the Government’s new immigration strategy last week, both the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary emphasised the need to invest in skills so that the immigration system
“no longer ignores the millions of people who want the opportunity to train and contribute”.
They also highlighted that, in sectors like engineering, apprenticeships have “almost halved” in recent years.
We only very recently debated the Bill, now an Act, that abolishes the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education. That change was not introduced because the Government are against apprenticeships; on the contrary, this is part of a reform that is creating a new integrated strategic body, Skills England, as we have heard, to meet, in its own words,
“the skills needs of the next decade across all regions”,
and apprenticeships are a central part of Skills England’s brief.
Young people do not need persuading of the value of apprenticeships. On the contrary, there is huge excess demand, as we have heard. Of those 17 to 18 year-olds who make a serious effort to find an apprenticeship, only 25% succeed. Young people typically start off on what are called intermediate apprenticeships, but these are in decline too, in absolute numbers and proportionally —crowded out by so-called higher apprenticeships, which are equivalent to university qualifications.
Today, more and more of our apprentices are older. Around half of apprenticeship starts now involve people over the age of 25. Critically, large numbers of older apprentices were already working for their employer before they became an apprentice. This is especially true of large employers who pay the apprenticeship levy, who account for a growing proportion of apprenticeships. So, if the Government are going to achieve their aims, we need to have far more openings for young apprentices —but there is a serious danger that the Bill will make large employers even more inclined to give apprenticeships to existing employees, with whose employment they take no risks, rather than hiring new young apprentices.
What about the young people who make up the growing number of NEETs? SMEs are the main employers of young apprentices and absolutely central to the economies of less-advantaged areas. But their apprenticeship recruitment has been plummeting. SME business owners complain that apprenticeships, as we have heard, have become more and more burdensome and bureaucratic, and just too expensive. So if, on top of this, young apprentices are entitled to full employee rights from day 1, many more employers, especially SMEs, will surely just walk away.
Taking on an untested person is always risky, and this Bill will make it much more so. In many other European countries, apprentices have a specific distinctive legal status. In the UK, they do not; they are simply any employees who have received an apprenticeship training contract. This Bill’s provisions will apply to them all, whether they are an 18 year-old training as an electrician or a 50 year-old on a leadership apprenticeship. These are the dangers of a one-size-fits-all approach, as I have already pointed out numerous times in Committee.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I did not put my name to Amendment 102, because I do not agree with it entirely, for reasons I will set out, but the general approach is absolutely right.
We do not need to get into the rights and wrongs of the apprenticeship levy and higher-level apprenticeships, particularly level 7, but it is important to recognise that the number of people starting apprenticeships—particularly down in levels 1, 2, 3 and perhaps even 4—is a challenge, and is holding young people back from getting into work. Indeed, it is not just young people, and that is my broader point: getting people—many of whom, for a variety of reasons, may have been out of the job market for a long time—into work. It is exactly this approach, through apprenticeships, which means that, usually for SMEs, the larger elements of the levy are not being used by the larger employers and are instead being used to help provide 100% of the cost in order to train people.
There are a number of different factors there. People have talked about the different elements of costs. There is also the opportunity cost. It is important that employers get involved in identifying and helping the supply chain of their own workforce. I am sure I am not the only person who has been somewhere where I just got fed up doing the hard yards on training and the extra work, and, as I said, the opportunity cost, only for someone else to come along and poach that person, or for that person, once they had fully qualified, to leave. I have seen the frustration that this sometimes brought.
One of the adjustments I would have made to this builds on the discussion about NEETs. The definition of NEETs is those aged 16 to 24. My suggestion is that the amendment be amended, to cover an apprentice who is less than 25 years of age at the time that the contract is signed.
On the consideration of a probationary period, it is fair to say that people will want to give those new to a sector, and new to the world of work, more than a week or so to see if it is going to work out. There is a mixture of elements that need to be considered when people take on apprentices. One is their capability in work and college, and seeing how that evolves, because it is not always such a straightforward translation. Nor should apprenticeships be considered as work experience; they are proper jobs, admittedly a training job, and we should bear that in mind if we see a further drying up of apprenticeships.
We can debate at other times how, sadly, unemployment seems to be rising, which I believe will be exacerbated by this Bill more generally, but the Government should be specific about how we give more people a chance. I know we will debate probationary periods in general later. Apprenticeships should not be seen as, “We will just see if they work out or not”. It is supposed to be more of a commitment.
The Government could accommodate this. They will be aware that, already, on wages—if not some of the other rights—there is an apprenticeship rate which is not the same as the national minimum wage in the first year of an apprenticeship. There is already a precedent in legislation and practice that apprentices can be treated differently. I appreciate that people do not necessarily want two-tier elements like that, but we need to give special consideration to apprenticeships, recognising the special status they are given by the Government in contributions towards training and given the risk that employers may take on.
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)
My Lords, I support this amendment and declare my interest as the chair of a small housing association, Look Ahead, where we employ a lot of care workers and are encouraging apprenticeships to keep people in care work and to develop proper careers. We have not yet got the Casey review on care workers, but we know that the Government intend to reduce visas for overseas workers in this area. However, when you go into care work, you always find a small proportion of people who, when they realise some of the challenges of giving intimate physical care, feel unable to go on with that particular work. That is perfectly appropriate for both the apprentice themselves and the people they are supporting. I urge us to try to reach an agreement on this that is more flexible, so that people can have the opportunity of an apprenticeship in care, while recognising that, sometimes, a different kind of work is more appropriate.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, this has been such a valuable debate, for a number of reasons. We are grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Aberdare and Lord Knight of Weymouth, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Wolf of Dulwich and Lady Garden of Frognal. In many ways, it gives us an opportunity just to see where we are going, and to identify the fact that, for many of us, apprenticeships mean something deep and profound.
I am delighted to see the noble Lord, Lord Monks, in his place. He probably will not remember but, 32 years ago, he came to see me when I had responsibility for this area of policy. Accompanying him was the noble Lord, Lord Jordan, and they said to me, as Secretary of State for Employment, that apprenticeships needed to be brought into the modern age and that there had to be something deeper, wider and more productive for the individual than the idea of standing by a machine for five years and then qualifying. They were talking particularly of young apprentices. I was persuaded, and, slowly but surely, modern apprenticeships have evolved.
I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Monks, remembers this, but that was followed by a cartoon in the Guardian, which my children still show me—I should not talk like this on my birthday. The cartoon demonstrates me getting into a large four-poster bed with the noble Lord, Lord Monks, who was in the form of a large cart-horse—the cart-horse had the face of John Monks. This gives me an opportunity to apologise to the noble Lord. I suppose that the Guardian was saying that it looked as though the Conservative Government were listening to the TUC. We did, and modern apprenticeships have taken off ever since.
The levy though, as the noble Baroness, Lady Garden of Frognal, reminded us, has shifted the emphasis and the whole intention, which was to encourage younger people to get more involved. In a way, we need to identify that—and I hope that the Minister will recognise that apprenticeships are the lifeblood of the new economy, in particular, provided that they receive that special status. It was very helpful that my noble friend Lady Coffey reminded us about age, and that perhaps 25 is a better age in this regard. My noble friend Lady Stowell of Beeston also put it much more into context, and the noble Baroness, Lady Watkins of Tavistock, gave an additional dimension. It has been a valuable debate.
I remind the Minister that we are talking about specific instances where there has to be an apprenticeship contract containing often wide-ranging provisions but giving security and opportunity. So it is a balanced and measured amendment that acknowledges the critical reality that apprenticeships are not just simply jobs—they are a structured training programme, often the very first experience that a young person has of the workplace. For many of these individuals, particularly those youngsters, an apprenticeship is a gateway not just to employment but to the habits, responsibilities and expectations of adult working life.
We are already in a time, as many of my noble friends pointed out, when young people are struggling to access secure employment. The noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, reminded us about the serious problems affecting NEETs, which have cropped up several times in this debate already—and also the fact that, in other European countries, apprentices have a special legal status. In many ways, that is recognised in this amendment, because it talks about a contract. We can identify that we are talking about a very special situation, and I hope that the Minister sees that.
I will just add that, without legal clarity around probationary periods, particularly in the case of apprenticeships, many employers will be left uncertain—and uncertainty breeds hesitation. It becomes less likely that they will take on the risk of hiring an inexperienced young person, especially under a regime of day one unfair dismissal rights, with no allowance for the formative nature of apprenticeships. I shall be very interested to hear the Minister’s response on that matter, on how the Government seek to balance the protection of apprentices with the practical realities of probationary periods. I support the amendment.
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, first, I take this opportunity to wish the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, a very happy birthday. It is a fine way to spend a birthday this evening.
I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate, notably the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, for speaking on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf of Dulwich. I thank the noble Baroness for her amendment and for all the work that she has done in primary and secondary education—especially her book, The XX Factor, which should be read widely by every person involved in education policies.
This group relates to apprenticeships; a later group delves deeper into unfair dismissal and probation. The Government recognise the significant value of vocational learning, and on-the-job training will continue to be fundamental to building the skills that the economy needs to grow. We recognise that employers value building knowledge and skills through apprenticeships, and this Government are committed to apprenticeships.
The Government are providing day one protections against unfair dismissal to all employees, including apprentices. Maintaining a qualifying period for apprentices will leave them open to being fired without any recourse to legal challenge on the grounds of unfair dismissal during their apprenticeship. This amendment would not create a probation period, as the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, said; it would deny young people their day one rights. The Government’s preference is for statutory probation to be a period of nine months; in some instances, when an apprentice completes their apprenticeship, an employer may not have a permanent job for them. Most apprenticeship contracts are around two years in duration; in this case, the apprenticeship contact will expire and the normal tests for unfair dismissal will apply.
Lord Aberdare (CB)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken to this amendment. I add my good wishes to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for choosing to spend his birthday in support of my amendment, and I hope the rest of it is equally enjoyable. I thank the Minister for his response. I think all the speeches were in favour of the amendment, and the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, made some interesting comments on how it could be further improved.
However, to me, one of the most important messages that came across—which many of your Lordships mentioned—was that apprenticeships are different; they are not the same as a standard contract of employment, as many other countries have recognised by having different legal frameworks for apprenticeships. I believe that flexibility is needed. I think it was my noble friend Lord Londesborough who talked about an unduly rigid, one-size-fits-all approach to employment laws. There needs to be some flexibility to cater for the special needs and features of apprenticeships.
I am concerned that we are looking at two options. One is apprenticeships with day-one employment rights—jolly good; the other is no apprenticeships at all, because the employers will not offer them on that basis. I hope that, between now and Report, we can do some more thinking. The Government may come up with more thoughts about how we can ensure that we balance the advantages of having full employment rights on the one hand and the necessity of having firms—particularly small ones—offering apprenticeships on the other. Hopefully, we can have further discussion of that on Report, but meanwhile I beg leave to withdraw the amendment in my noble friend’s name.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
My Lords, we now come to the general subject of unfair dismissal rights from day one, which we have just touched on in relation to apprentices. Many of the same arguments are going to apply more widely. For me, this is most damaging part of the Bill because the unintended, but well understood, consequence is that it will damage the life chances of the young and the most vulnerable. I thank the Ministers for their time last week; I am not sure if I persuaded them, but I will try again now.
At Second Reading, I asked why these changes are required. What is the evidence that there is a genuine problem, or that the qualifying period of two years is being abused in any material way? The Minister did not answer the question, so I have therefore given notice that I intend to oppose the question that Clause 23 and Schedule 3 stand part of the Bill, so that I can probe further into what problem these changes are intended to solve.
Rather than hearing my views on the subject, I am going to tell noble Lords what the Government’s views are, and what they think the impacts of these changes to the qualifying period will be. According to the impact assessment,
“it is likely employers will make changes to hiring, dismissal and management practises to minimise the risk of litigation for dismissal and minimise unproductive employee-job matches. The burden of these changes could be in the hundreds of millions per year”.
It goes on to say:
“The impact on businesses is expected to be negative and driven by familiarisation costs, and administrative costs from providing a written reason for dismissal, as well as the costs associated with additional early conciliation and tribunal cases, which is also likely to create additional burdens for the Employment Tribunal system”.
So, the Government agree that there will be a substantial cost to business, an increase in litigation risks and additional burdens on the tribunal system. They also state that these impacts will fall disproportionately on smaller businesses. I assume that nobody in this Chamber thinks that any of those are a good thing.
More importantly, what are the impacts on employees, especially those who are trying to find work? The impact assessment is pretty clear on that too. It says that
“there is some evidence of a negative relationship between stronger dismissal protections and hiring rates … this suggests that if not implemented with care ‘Making Unfair Dismissal a Day One Right’ could damage the employment prospects of people who are trying to re-enter the labour market, especially if they are observed to be riskier to hire (e.g., younger workers with less experience, ex-offenders, etc.)”.
It later says that
“there is evidence that the policy could negatively impact on hiring rates. For example, employers may be slower to take on workers due to the liability and increased protections, particularly for those that are seen as riskier hires”.
Again, I cannot believe anyone thinks those are good things.
The Government accept that this policy will create costs in the hundreds of millions for businesses, add burdens to the already stretched tribunal system and, most importantly, damage the hiring prospects—the life chances—of the very people we should be helping to get into employment. I hate the term NEETs, but we have heard a number of comments about the nearly 1 million young people who want to get into work. It goes directly against the Government’s admirable policy to get people off welfare and into work. So, why do this? Surely there must be some hard evidence that the current two-year qualifying period is causing some genuine problems, or evidence of material abuse, to justify these changes that will have all the damaging consequences that the Government themselves accept.
However, the impact assessment makes no such claims. It provides no evidence whatever that there is a problem. It simply makes a number of very vague and unquantified statements about people benefiting from increased job security. For example, it suggests a direct benefit to households driven by the welfare benefit arising from increased job security, with absolutely no attempt to quantify it. It also goes on to say that there are benefits from
“additional settlements and awards from additional early conciliation and employment tribunals”.
That last one really is extraordinary. This Bill has been described as a bonanza for employment lawyers; the Government appear to be confirming that, and actually seem to be suggesting that it is a good thing.
To read or listen to what the Government say, noble Lords would be forgiven for understanding that there are currently no protections from unfair dismissal for employees during the qualifying two-year period. That is quite wrong. There is a whole list of reasons for dismissal that are automatically unfair from day one. I will give a few examples, rather than go through the whole list—I do not want to keep everyone here all night. They include dismissal for reasons of a protected characteristic, such as age, disability, race or religion, et cetera; for being pregnant or on maternity leave; for being a trade union member or representative; for taking part in industrial action; and for being involved in whistleblowing. There are many others. So, let us stop this idea that new employees are unprotected from day one. It is just not true.
I ask the Minister, as I did at Second Reading, when she did not answer: why are the Government doing this? What evidence do they have that the qualifying period is really a problem? Presumably, there must be some tangible benefits from the policy to justify all these disadvantages that the Government have described. What are they?
The amendments in the name of the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe and Lord Hunt—and happy birthday to him—would require impact assessments of the changes, which I support, but surely it would be better to get this right in the first place. The impact assessment does say:
“The impact of hiring and labour mobility will ultimately depend on the final regulations on what is permissible in the ‘initial statutory period’ of employment”.
That is absolutely right, and that is what the rest of this group tries to deal with: to reduce the negative impacts of this change.
Paragraph 3 of Schedule 3 says that the Secretary of State may make regulations about dismissal during the initial period of employment, which is generally called a probationary period. My Amendment 104, along with Amendment 334, is intended to make it a requirement that the Secretary of State “must” make, rather than “may” make, such regulations. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Morse, for his support on this and other amendments. He sends his apologies that he is unable to be here tonight.
As the Bill stands, the two-year qualifying period can be abolished and not replaced with anything. I understand that is not the Government’s intention, and we heard earlier about the nine-month preference, but it is what the Bill says. Having no probationary period at all would be extremely damaging, so it is important that it should become a requirement that these regulations are issued, and not just a “may”.
My Amendment 108 would ensure that any probationary period is at least nine months long. What is important is that the employer should have adequate time to assess whether the new employee is right for the business, including by giving them a good chance to get up to speed through training and so on. I agree that the current two-year period is very long, and from discussions I have had with business groups and from my own experience in business, I am confident that the shorter period would be acceptable to most businesses. I think the Government’s suggestion of nine months is workable, and that is what I have proposed in the amendment, so I hope it is not particularly controversial from that point of view.
The other critical factor for a probationary period is that it must work in a way that enables an employer to give the person the benefit of the doubt, rather than acting as a disincentive to hire them, especially for the riskier hires that the Government described and that I mentioned earlier. For that to be the case, it is essential that the employer can dismiss them without having to give a reason during the probationary period.
Lord Sentamu (CB)
My Lords, I find myself wanting to support the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Vaux. The reason is this. We arrived in Berwick-upon-Tweed, which, by the way, according to the Guardian a few days ago, is the most loving, caring place—the best in the country. Yes, maybe since I arrived it has become that; none the less, that is what it said. It is the most peaceful place to live in. Sometimes, we do not even lock our doors when we go out for a short period. In other places, they would know, word would get round, and you would be visited by people who think they should acquire your property, outside the law.
We had to find a plumber. The plumber was wonderful, the best in the town, and people said that to get him was quite costly. He was costly because, once you agreed to let him do the work, he would say, “I have an apprentice. I could pay him as the Government say and give him the national living wage. But he is at college and doing very well, and I would like him to graduate, and to succeed”. So, he said that a fee would be charged to the person who hires him. He showed that in his receipts—the amount you paid for the wonderful apprentice. That apprentice, Oscar, has grown in his job since being there for four years. When he graduates, he will be one of the best plumbers.
Apprentices need to be protected. My plumber will never just immediately say that the job is coming to an end, because he has been very wise. He is a single employer who works alone, and out of his business he is willing to pay the amount of money the Government have allocated. However, he suddenly realised that some of us would like to put in a little bit more for this apprentice. So, there will never be a day when he has not got money to keep that apprentice, even if business may not be coming in.
This is an example of an employer who employs an apprentice, and I am sure he is going to get another one. His apprentice learnt very fast: for three days a week, he had to go to college in the morning, and then come back to do the apprentice work—
Captain of the King’s Bodyguard of the Yeomen of the Guard and Deputy Chief Whip (Baroness Wheeler) (Lab)
I think the noble Lord is speaking to the previous amendment, which is about apprentices.
Baroness Wheeler (Lab)
This is the clause stand part notice. The previous amendment was about apprentices, which I think the noble Lord is speaking about.
Lord Sentamu (CB)
I am supporting this one, but also the amendments which come later, which are mentioned. That is what I said at the beginning.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendments 105 to 107 and 109 to 112 in my name, and I am delighted to have the support of my noble friend Lady Noakes and the noble Lords, Lord Morse and Lord Vaux of Harrowden, who has already spoken so eloquently as the mover of the first amendment in the group.
I agree with the noble Lord that this is the most damaging part of the Bill, which is why I have joined proceedings today. I support all that he has said, including his Amendment 334. The approach in Amendment 334 may reflect the Government’s intention on timing, so I look to the Minister to support this clarificatory amendment. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, for a very useful online meeting and for a speedy response to my queries from her excellent office.
My main current concern is the promotion of economic growth. It is also the Government’s stated main objective, with the Prime Minister saying that:
“Growth is the defining mission of this Administration”.
Yet, the need to drive growth conflicts with their manifesto promises on employment rights. These will slow growth and increase bureaucracy and inefficiency across the economy, especially the proposal to specify reasons if employees are let go in the period immediately after appointment, which is the subject of this group.
The Government cannot have it both ways, and with growth prospects so poor next year, changes must be made to the Bill. There is evidence to support this. The noble Lord, Lord Vaux, has already quoted from the impact assessment. Careful reading of the DBT economic analysis of 21 October, written to support the Bill, admits in section 16, on unintended consequences, that:
“There is some evidence that employment reforms make employers less willing to hire workers, including evidence specific to the strengthening of dismissal protections. For example, the OECD”,
an external body,
“noted that more stringent dismissal and hiring policies involve an inherent trade-off between job security for workers who have a job, and firm adaptability to changes in demand conditions or technology”.
In other words, it implies lower growth.
Noble Lords will know of my own background in retail and wholesale, working for many years at Tesco, a company that had a unique partnership with the trade unions. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Hannett of Everton, and I worked together, and I am delighted that he now sits on the Labour Benches and only sorry that he is not here today.
Retail is a sector that leads the way in employing the economically excluded and those who need flexibility in their hours and location of work.
The noble Lord, Lord Hannett, is sitting there, just not in his usual place.
However, I understand from the BRC, which has recently surveyed HR directors, that there could be a significant impact on hiring decisions, particularly for those starting in or returning to the workforce after a period of leave or inactivity. That includes those coming back from parental leave or those who have been unemployed for an extended period. The changes could reduce opportunities for entry level jobs—27% of the retail workforce is under 24—and for those from disadvantaged backgrounds.
As our birthday boy, my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral has already explained, it also jeopardises the vital increase in our apprentice population, which is desperately in need of a simpler and more flexible system —another reason to think again.
All this uncertainty is bad for the Government’s wider objective of growth and, very important, for getting hundreds of thousands off benefits and into work. Without a genuine probation period, employers, especially smaller employers, will no longer be willing to take a chance on people for fear of being stuck with bad or unsuitable employees or facing unaffordable compensation bills after a very short time.
Baroness O’Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)
The noble Baroness mentioned the OECD. Is she aware of the OECD’s employment protection index, which shows that countries such as Germany, Poland and Japan have stronger protection than the UK on dismissal, yet they have lower unemployment? I think it would be helpful if she agreed that there is no direct association between employment protection on dismissal and unemployment.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I am not sure that I agree. I have sat on a German company. Growth is very poor in Germany at the moment. A company I worked in exited France because of the difficulty with employment protections. Employment protection is not the only issue we are talking about. In my opinion, we are trying to find the right employment protection mix to make sure that the economy continues to flourish.
Before closing, I highlight two of the less obvious perverse effects. The provisions will require significant extra internal resources to ensure compliance, in addition to the cost of the various measures in the Bill. If anyone has been through the sad process of sacking someone, they will understand this point. It is necessary to be extremely organised and have a cast-iron paper or email trail to avoid losing in a tribunal. This approach will now be necessary for the 9 million employees who currently work for less than two years in a job. Even if the Government introduce a lighter touch probationary period—now expected to be nine months—it will still be necessary to implement cumbersome administrative procedures across all businesses for all employees, including in the public sector. It will make the introduction of Making Tax Digital, deferred a number of times because of the difficulties businesses faced, look extremely easy in comparison. Above all, it will increase costs, thereby reducing investment and growth.
The second perverse consequence, as the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, has already said, will be the increase in traffic through employment tribunals. There is already a tremendous backlog of 50,000 cases in the system. I met someone yesterday whose case has been listed in 2027. The changes look as if they will plunge the employment sector into the sort of chaos we saw in the past on passports and in several other areas as a result of Covid.
I am extremely keen to find a way out of this unfortunate set of circumstances and am open as to how the problem is resolved. The fact is that sometimes appointments do not work out and it is no one’s fault. I accept that that should normally be clear within nine months. If the changes on unfair dismissal are to be workable, let alone a success, the Government must listen and come forward with firm proposals before Report. These can be consulted on in parallel, as has already happened in other parts of the Bill. This House cannot agree to delegate this vital matter to the Executive in a statutory instrument that we have not even seen in draft.
The proposed nine-month probation period is a welcome start. However, so far, the only way forward I can see is to amend the Bill to allow the termination of employment during a probation period without giving rise to an unfair dismissal claim, as proposed in our amendment.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, I have added my name to the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe, but I also support all the other amendments in this group. Both the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, and my noble friend have already fairly comprehensively treated the issues that concern a number of us, so I will not repeat all those points.
I just underline three brief points. We are trying to look for a balance between the legitimate expectations of employees and employers, because we need those to work in harmony. At the end of the day—as my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe pointed out—employers will be producing the growth that the economy needs, so their hiring plans will be critical and anything that harms this balance will damage the economy.
From an employer perspective, anybody who has undertaken recruitment as an employer knows that most employers approach this extremely responsibly—it is not a cheap process to get the right people into the jobs—but we also know that, however diligent you are in screening, interviewing and assessment processes, you do not always get it right. You can usually test whether a person has technical skills, although sometimes you need to see them in practice before you know whether they really have them. The important area is whether an employee fits with an organisation. That is really difficult to tell until the person turns up and starts working. Do they share the same values as the rest of the workforce? Do they have ways of working that are just not compatible with the culture of the organisation? This is particularly important for small organisations: if you have one employee who does not fit in a very small organisation, that is a significant proportion of the workforce and can be very damaging to the business of a small business.
The last point that I underline is that this Bill will make it much more difficult for the difficult categories of people who want to find a job but cannot. There has been much talk about NEETs, and ex-offenders are another case. Why would any employer want to take on an ex-offender with day-one rights? We know some of them make excellent employees but quite a lot of them do not. They can become quite difficult to handle in the workplace. If employers fear that they will not be able to easily overcome mistakes in recruitment they simply will not hire, which will harm people who want to work.
Baroness Verma (Con)
My Lords, as an employer who has employed people over the past 40-odd years, I know that the difficulty for an SME—any small business such as my own—is the ability to manage all the bureaucracy that is entailed with it.
For businesses in the social care sector, for example, unfortunately you cannot really understand how good or bad a care worker will be until they have worked a little while in the organisation, even with the training. However, if we are to give the rights from day one, the difficulty will be that we will end up with a sector already very short of workers needing to hire more workers in case any are not suitable for the role. We would have to release them, knowing that they may then apply workers’ rights on day one without proper probation periods and take us to tribunal. It is a difficult sector.
There are many sectors like the care sector, and it is particularly challenging for small businesses in the wider sector of delivering something that is so important. If the care worker is not the right fit, it does not really matter how big or small the organisation is—that person is just not suitable for the role. We need to have the ability to dismiss the person without having to go through the bureaucracy of all the Government’s intentions in this part of the Bill. I therefore support my noble friend and the noble Lord on these amendments.
It is time to have a strong rethink about how we can come to a good middle ground, where employers are not fearful of employing. I have been talking to a lot of SMEs over the past few months, and the difficulty that noble Lords across the House will have found, when they have talked to businesses in their own communities, is the worry around what will happen when the legislation in this Bill is enforced.
Lord de Clifford (CB)
My Lords, I will speak in support of this group of amendments. I refer the House to my entry in the register of interests as the proud employer of 140 employees.
The removal of the qualifying period for a right not to be unfairly dismissed is not, and should not be, feared by good employers. Good employers should have systems in place to ensure that new employees have regular reviews to enable them to feed back to the employer and, likewise, for the employers to feed back to the employees. As an employer, I am aware of the protection that employees are entitled to, and rightly so.
When dealing with any employment issue, the word that always comes to my mind is “reasonableness”. Is it reasonable to totally remove the qualifying period? I do not think so. Employees should be protected from just being dismissed without proper procedures, review and consultation. I support this group of amendments on the probationary period, which is described in the Bill as the “initial period of employment”. There is very little detail in the Bill on what length the probationary period will be.
This lack of detail and clarity creates real uncertainty for employers at present, including myself. The probationary period is an essential time for both employees and employers to get to know one another. For the employees, it ensures that the job meets their expectations, including about terms and conditions, that the culture within the workplace suits them and that they are respected. For employers, it is time to ensure that the employee has the skills and knowledge—or the potential to develop their skills and knowledge—to fulfil the tasks required by the role in question.
The employees in our business can give one week’s notice that the job is not right for them. Likewise, the employer needs flexibility, if they feel that the employee is not right for their business for conduct, personality or capacity reasons. Therefore, employers do not need to go through a long and detailed process to end the contract when the employee has just started that job. In some cases, the procedure to dismiss an employee could take longer than the time they have been employed by the company. I acknowledge that the reason for ending a contract in this probationary period, as has clearly been said by my noble friend, should never be for a protected characteristic under any circumstances, which I fully support.
The group of amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, seek—as other Peers have clearly observed today—to enable the termination of a contract without fear of unfair dismissal claims being brought during a probationary period. It gives employers the confidence to employ individuals, and at times gives employers confidence to take on an individual who may not fully meet all the criteria of that role but shows potential, thereby giving that individual the opportunity of work. Nearly every noble Lord has discussed young people and people possibly with a disability.
However, further details are required. It is essential that a minimum length of probationary period is detailed in the Bill. For my business, that is three months, but it may be longer for others. The extension of the probation is required when things are not quite going to plan. In that case, the employer needs to go through a process of extending it, which is essential for both the employee and the employer.
I support my noble friend Lord Vaux of Harrowden’s Amendment 108, as it puts a minimum length to the probation period within the Bill and therefore gives employers confidence in the probation process. Nine months gives employers time to have an initial probation period and then extend it if need be. If then the employer wishes to terminate after that many months, they will still need to follow a detailed procedure, as the risk of unfair dismissal is still high if not followed. This is a benefit to the employee from the shortening of the qualifying period. Moreover, the probationary period cannot be renewed continuously, which is to the benefit of both the employee and the employer, as there is a time limit.
Within secondary legislation, the Secretary of State can define the length of an initial probationary period, for, say, a maximum of six months. With this time limit, as proposed in Amendment 108, it would allow for one extension to nine months. The initial period of employment is an important part for all employers, whatever size, but for the SMEs and the micro-business, as previously stated, it allows flexibility. It avoids time-consuming and very costly processes to end the contract of an employee who is not working out in terms of conduct, capacity or personality. I ask the Minister to consider these amendments or refine them before Report to give all employers the confidence to employ new people, but especially in the SME sector and micro-businesses.
Baroness Meyer (Con)
My Lords, I, too, rise to support all the amendments in this group. I support the Government’s ambition to boost productivity, create good jobs and crack down on bad employers. However, as many noble Lords have highlighted before me, Clause 23 risks doing more harm than good. The letter from the UK’s five leading business organisations, cited repeatedly at Second Reading, sets out the long-term damage that this Bill, and this clause in particular, would do to business and the wider economy. Surely, they understand the risk better than anyone, and, if I may say so, better than most politicians. We really should listen to their concerns.
After Covid and all the additional costs, many small and larger businesses are struggling. This clause will hit them further, particularly small and medium-sized businesses. Are we really willing to push them out of business? I do not think that this is what the Government really intend to do.
Let me give noble Lords one example. A Ukrainian cabinetmaker whom I met 15 years ago—in fact, I was his first client—built a small business from scratch. He actually talked to me last week, and told me that rising costs and additional regulations are now threatening his business. He told me that, with this Bill, he might not be able to go any further and, especially, he will not be able to hire altogether.
Like many tradesmen, he cannot risk employing somebody based solely on their CV. He needs a clear period to assess whether this person can actually do the job and fit into the team, as noble Lords have highlighted before. Without a workable probation framework, he will not be able to take the risk. The Government have acknowledged this problem and proposed this nine-month statutory probation period with a “lighter touch” dismissal process. However, there is no detail, no definition and no guidance, and legal experts still question its compatibility with the ACAS code.
Worse still, this framework will not come into force until August 2026, leaving 18 months of legal uncertainty. How can employers plan or hire when they do not know what the rules are going to be? Therefore, if the Government accept these risks and have promised a solution, why is it not part of the Bill as it is? It risks killing job creation, driving away investments and weakening economic recovery. This is definitely not what this Government intend to do.
However, with that background, I add my voice to those of other noble Lords who say that this clause may need to be taken out altogether; otherwise, we will need to take into account all these amendments.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I have Amendment 107A in this group, which is intended to be an entirely helpful amendment for the Government, allowing them to put nine months on the face of the Bill but preserve all the flexibility they have there at the moment. I think that would be a small step forward in giving comfort to employers to know what is coming their way.
I understand that probationary periods are uncomfortable for people who want to take them—it would be interesting to try them in this House. None the less, when you run a small business, as I do, they are important. I have in the past employed prisoners; actually, every single one of those has worked out really well. I have employed promising young people who have turned out to be a total disaster. It is really hard to know. You cannot rely on references these days; nobody gives a truthful bad reference, because they would just get sued for it, so it is really hard to pick up warning signals. Everyone’s documents are compiled by AI, so they are beautifully written and answer all the questions perfectly. You cannot interview everybody, you have to take a chance, and sometimes it just does not work out.
To have to prove capacity or competence is hard. I do not know whether any noble Lords here have been involved in a school where the head has not quite worked out. It is really difficult to get rid of them on the basis of competence; it takes so long to negotiate their departure. If you are faced with that sort of disincentive for the ordinary, run-of-the-mill employees—“If get this wrong, I’ll be saddled with a £50,000 bill for unfair dismissal”, which is about the scale of these things if you are paying people decently—that is a big disincentive to employing people in the first place. It is certainly a huge disincentive to taking on people who have a question mark in their CV—a period of unemployment or something that looks odd about it—or who are just young.
We want people to take risks. I have enjoyed taking risks. It is wonderful when it goes right. You really feel you have helped someone in their career and have been part of building a life for them. They leave you, which usually they do, but you take pleasure in what they have gone on to do and the success they have made of their life, and perhaps you have done a bit there. But it is a risk, and to load that risk on to what is by its nature an inexact, uncomfortable and uncertain decision is a real incentive not to take that decision—not to hire.
I think it would be a mistake to go down that road, although I am comfortable, as the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, pointed out, with a shorter timescale. You ought to know, if you are paying attention, whether things are right within three months; you might want to give someone a bit of extra leeway if you think they can set themselves right—but not holding it at two years. I am totally in favour of that; nine months seems a decent figure. It has to be possible, as my noble friends have said, to dismiss people just because it has not worked out. In some circumstances that is the best you can say: “No, sorry—we both did our best and it didn’t happen”.
The Earl of Erroll (CB)
Very briefly, because we are talking about the time periods here, you have to be very careful because accrued holiday goes into that, and if you do not give people notice before the holiday is up, you cannot get rid of them. So be careful: it should be three months or less, and actually you have to knock off another week or so. This is from experience.
The other thing is the headmaster issue. I know one small school which had terrible trouble because the headmaster was incompetent. He knew it, so he got depressed and went on permanent sick leave, and of course the school was then saddled with the costs. There are a lot of problems such as that. It would be nice to clean them up at the same time if we could, but I do not think it will happen in this Bill.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)
My Lords, I support the amendments in this group and endorse most of the arguments that have already been advanced. I will focus just briefly on tech scale-ups.
Noble Lords will, I hope, remember that the Communications and Digital Select Committee published a report just a few months ago on AI and Creative Technology Scaleups. These businesses are incredibly important to our economic growth. They represent the innovation that comes out of our universities and the talent that exists in this country, but they need a huge amount of support to get from being start-ups to scale-ups. However, if they are successful, the return that they then deliver to our economy is huge.
Our inquiry found that the UK is, in effect, an incubator economy. What we are seeing now is that increasingly the kinds of businesses that have the potential to turn into unicorns, or indeed become unicorns, are galloping away. They are doing so because of many things. Sometimes it is about access to capital growth and to highly competitive workforces. But one of the biggest challenges that we face is that our regime, whether it is regulatory or investment, is not supporting risk-taking. As my noble friend Lady Noakes said a moment ago, the measures in the Bill about day-one rights on unfair dismissal, along with many other things, are undermining risk takers.
As part of our inquiry—before the Bill was published—witnesses told us, in the context of hiring, that the costs of hiring and firing are already much higher in the UK than anywhere else, which is putting UK businesses at a disadvantage. In the context of the Bill and the day-one rights around unfair dismissal, the Startup Coalition, which represents the start-ups, talked in its briefing note about the chilling effect that these day-one rights around hiring and firing would have on start-ups, seriously undermining their potential for growth. TechUK, which represents tech businesses of all sizes, has raised a lot of concerns about some of these day-one rights, but in the context of unfair dismissal, one of its concerns, which I do not think we have heard much about so far, is the risk of fraudulent claims.
In the Government’s response to our report—while I am on my feet, I add a bit of advertising: the debate on the report is on Friday 13 June, so I urge any noble Lords who are interested in this to sign up and contribute—they referred a lot to their AI action plan and the forthcoming industrial strategy, saying that jobs will be “at the heart” of that strategy. If that is the case, I urge the Minister to think again in the context of what I have just argued. If jobs are to be at the heart of that strategy, and the Government are as keen to support tech scale-ups as they have declared themselves to be and have put this part of the economy centre stage in all their growth plans, but these kinds of measures are making it impossible or so difficult for these businesses to be willing to take the risks to hire in the way that they need to in order to scale, then the Government are introducing measures which are self-defeating and which will undermine their own objectives.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 104, 105, 106 and 107, but particularly Amendments 107A and 108, relating to day-one rights.
Getting into work helps people make the best of their lives and reach their full potential. It is good for them and their families, and, of course, employment helps businesses and, through the taxes that everybody pays, helps sustain our state. You would expect that it was a core role of the state to incentivise the creation of jobs in pursuance of economic growth, personal fulfilment and a reduction in the costs of worklessness. It sounds so obvious, but the Government need to be reminded of those simple truths, because the facts are that the well-meaning and superficially attractive suggestion that employees should have full rights from day one is full of perverse consequences that will reduce the appetite to take on staff and will particularly benight those with few qualifications and limited experience. Furthermore, it does not reflect the way in which the economy is changing and the world of work is altering, as people choose to work in different ways.
Taking on new employees is not something that organisations do lightly. For the most part, there is an application and interview process, and we have heard about this from other noble Lords. For most employees, applying for and getting a new job is a well-trodden path, as someone builds a career, gains experience and seeks promotion. But that is not how it is for the part of the workforce that does not have formal qualifications. We have heard about ex-prisoners and people without experience or a strong track record in a particular field. People get on the ladder only when an employer takes a chance on them. The muddled thinking behind this Bill will result in the perverse outcome of increasing not only the cost of taking somebody on but the risk of getting it wrong. The consequence will be to make a business think twice before taking a chance on the person with limited experience, people at the beginning of their career, or those with an impaired employment record. These people need the greatest help.
It is not just the youngsters who may suffer from these well-meaning but counterproductive proposals. Many people prefer a portfolio of part-time jobs nowadays, because it suits their lifestyle. The facts are that the relationship between casual, agency and temporary work in the UK suits those engaged in it for a variety of reasons. The temporary agency, Adecco, tells me in a briefing that 79% of UK temporary and agency workers rate the flexibility it gives them most highly, and two-thirds say that temporary or part-time work helps their work-life balance.
Because much of the temporary work is variable and unpredictable, it is incompatible with some of those other day-one rights, such as the offering of guaranteed hours over a reference period. Some of the employment that might fall under this ambit is weather-dependent work—there is not much call for an ice-cream seller on a wet bank holiday weekend in a seaside town, for example. Seasonal work—harvesting, for example—often depends on the weather. It has been very dry recently, and harvest is going to be earlier this year. If you think about the reference period, there is more likely to be work up until 30 June, rather than in the normal quarter, which would have been the successive quarter reference period. There is casual work, such as waiting at a wedding or manning the turnstiles at a stadium concert or event, for example. All of these are temporary things, and it is going to be very difficult on day one for the employer to commit to some of these rights, because it is out of the employer’s control.
There is another perverse consequence that relates to the wider umbrella of agency and temporary work, such as supply teachers and supply nurses—I notice that the noble Baroness who was the chief nurse is no longer in her place—and locum and sickness cover, where the employee determines their availability, not the employer, as it suits them. We see that some of these rights are actually going to put the employee in a worse situation, because they are going to lose their bargaining power.
I will move on, because I am conscious of the time. All I will say is that codifying many of these things will make it harder for people to take advantage of temporary opportunities and will counterintuitively reduce their bargaining power, removing the labour market liquidity that makes the economy work for all parties, and particularly the taxpayer.
Lord Elliott of Mickle Fell (Con)
My Lords, I will speak very briefly—I promise—in support of the amendments in this group in the name of my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe, and Amendment 113, from my noble friend Lord Sharpe. I begin by apologising for not speaking on Second Reading of this Bill.
We have heard many contributions in today’s debate about the impact that the provisions in this Bill around unfair dismissal and probationary periods will have on businesses, and I agree with the points made. I will focus on the impact of these provisions on potential employees—people not currently working who are seeking employment.
The Government clearly understand the need to get more people into work. Their recent Pathways to Work Green Paper and last year’s welfare to work White Paper demonstrate their commitment to getting 2 million more people into work. This is a subject very close to my heart. As president of the Jobs Foundation, as declared in the register, I regularly meet with jobseekers, employers and the charities that help get people from welfare into work. In doing so, I have developed a good first-hand knowledge of the obstacles and friction in the process of potential employees finding meaningful employment.
Business leaders have raised concerns with me about the provisions in this Bill on unfair dismissal and the unclarity around the length of probationary periods. They have told me that the Bill, if passed unamended, would make them think twice about taking on what they describe as riskier hires. My noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe’s amendment would reduce these risks. One business leader, Michael Lorimer, who employs over 600 people and who gave evidence on this Bill in the other place, wrote:
“Today, making a hire from long-term unemployment comes with an element of flexibility. If it works out, everyone benefits. If it doesn’t, the employer has an exit strategy. As it stands, this Bill significantly erodes this flexibility”.
It is not just businesses and business leaders. Those working with charities in this space have also raised concerns. The Ascend programme in Sheffield helps people that the local jobcentre views as “difficult to place in employment”. About 75% of those who are taken on as part of the programme go on to get a job. Clearly, these jobs do not always work out. Without amendments to the Bill, businesses will be more reluctant to take on potential employees from initiatives such as the Ascend programme. These potential employees might well lose out on the chance of employment.
To conclude, it is right that we consider the needs of employees and businesses, but we should also consider the effect that this Bill will have on potential employees and their chances of finding employment. I support my noble friends’ amendments. I want the UK’s labour market to remain sufficiently flexible to ensure that Britain’s workers of the future continue to have the dignity, joy and independence that meaningful employment provides.
Lord Monks (Lab)
My Lords, I do not doubt that critics of this part of the Bill speak with a lot of personal experience as well as commitment to their employees and the way they run their affairs. However, let me remind people that the argument that is really coming from the other side—that the qualifying period would be damaging to employment—is the argument as has been used against just about every bit of progressive employment legislation from the Factory Acts onwards. If noble Lords think that that is hyperbole, they should remember the national minimum wage and the campaign that was run against it. None of that came to anything like what was forecast from that side of the House. I have risen briefly to ask the other side of the House to remember that it was wrong on the minimum wage and to consider whether it might be wrong on this as well.
Lord Hendy (Lab)
My Lords, I get the impression that there is a bit of a misunderstanding around the nature of employment tribunals. I spent the first half of a long career at the Bar doing employment tribunal cases, many of them unfair dismissal cases. In fact, the first case I ever did—pro bono, by the way—was an unfair dismissal case in 1972, under what was then the very new unfair dismissal legislation. Unfair dismissal cases are difficult for employees to win. Most cases that go to a full hearing result in the employer being vindicated.
I want to make two points. The first is that employment tribunals now have robust procedures for weeding out vexatious cases; such cases never go to a full hearing. Secondly, I remind your Lordships of the law on unfair dismissal in Section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The test is in two parts. First, the employer must demonstrate that the reason for the dismissal is capability, qualifications, conduct or redundancy or the fact that the employment is in breach of some enactment. Once the employer has shown that that is the reason, the test for the tribunal—I shall read it out—is whether the dismissal is fair, which,
“depends on whether in the circumstances (including the size and administrative resources of the employer’s undertaking) the employer acted reasonably or unreasonably in treating it as a sufficient reason for dismissing the employee”.
So all the factors that one would expect to have to be taken into consideration are taken into consideration.
The tribunal then has to determine that,
“in accordance with equity and the substantial merits of the case”.
The Court of Appeal has added yet another burden. When the tribunal decides whether the employer acted reasonably or unreasonably, it is not about what it considers was reasonable or unreasonable; it is about whether it considers that the dismissal fell within the band of responses of reasonable employers. It is at two stages removed. It is not like an ordinary negligence case where the court decides whether an employer was reasonable or not reasonable in putting a guard on the machine. It must decide. Even if it thinks that the decision was unreasonable, if it finds that, nevertheless, reasonable employers would say that it might be possible that the reason was fair, that would be legitimate.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
The noble Lord referred to the likelihood of cases succeeding if they got as far as the tribunal. Does he accept that the vast majority of cases that are initiated never get as far as a tribunal because there is a huge incentive in the system for employers to settle? The costs of taking a case right the way through are huge—not just in the monetary cost of employing clever employment lawyers but, in particular, in the diversion of management effort within the organisation. I have seen this in large organisations, where swathes of the management team can be tied up for long periods of time. Employers cannot afford that in the broadest sense. If you put that in the context of smaller organisations, they absolutely cannot cope with it.
Whatever happens at the tribunal and whatever the law says, the mere initiation of an action nearly always results in an economic decision, made by the employer, to settle. That is one of the most difficult aspects and is why extending that into the early period of employment causes so many worries for employers.
Lord Hendy (Lab)
I absolutely agree that most cases never get to a full hearing; only a tiny minority ever do. The noble Baroness is right that many cases settle, of course. Many are conciliated, because there is now compulsory conciliation by ACAS, but many are withdrawn by the employee. You have to visualise it, as I am sure the noble Baroness does: most employees bringing an unfair dismissal claim are completely unrepresented. They are on their own, so all the expense, research and preparation that have to be done must be done by them personally. That is a huge disincentive. Many claims—tens of thousands of them—are simply not brought because it is not worth the employees’ while to do it.
Baroness Verma (Con)
My Lords, does the noble Lord accept that the case is exactly the same for small employers? They too will be in the position of having to deal with tribunals in the same way—hence why, as often as not, the settlements are taking place.
Lord Hendy (Lab)
Of course; that is always the way whenever there is litigation. Whatever the subject matter, people do not want the burden of defending the case and the people bringing the case do not want the burden of bringing it. That is just the reality of litigation.
I will say one last thing before I sit down. The argument that the noble Lords and noble Baronesses opposite have put forward is all about what they perceive to be the consequences of this matter, which my noble friend Lord Monks just addressed. But nobody can seriously advance the case that employers should have the right to dismiss anybody unfairly and without recourse to the law.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
Does the noble Lord accept that these are not simply arguments that people around this Chamber are putting forward but matters that are in the Bill’s impact assessment? It is the Government’s own statement that the Bill will have these impacts. It is not being made up by any of us: the Government accept that this will be the impact.
Lord Hendy (Lab)
That may very well be, but it still does not remove the fundamental point: what is being proposed is a category of worker who can be dismissed unfairly for the most extreme reasons without resort to any justice.
The Earl of Erroll (CB)
I would like to take the noble Lord up on this, because I have had experience with this. When an employee has been behaving very difficultly and sometimes they want to go anyway, but you want to dismiss them, they say, “Right, we’re going to take you to a tribunal”, and the answer is they will settle for £3,000 to £4,000 just because it is cheaper for everybody. The trouble with that is, for the loyal employees who stay, it is a huge disincentive and causes a lot of aggro within the thing, and it is very unfair on everybody else.
Lord Ashcombe (Con)
My Lords, I stand with some trepidation at this stage to support very much the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe, and indeed I support the other amendments in this group.
We have to think that any company—large, small, charity, whatever it may be—that hires a new employee takes a calculated risk. They are unknown. The company hopes that the individual, young or more mature, will integrate well into the company culture and be capable of handling the expected workload with the appropriate training needed.
I understand the Government’s position, as mentioned in a previous day’s debate on the Bill, that the employee also takes a risk when starting a new job or changing careers. They too must be confident that the role aligns with their skills and aspirations. A probationary period exists to serve both parties. It allows the employee to assess whether the role suits their interests, skills and abilities, while giving the employer time to evaluate whether the employee fits before making a long-term commitment. Is that unreasonable?
In my own place of work, I have seen this very much in practice. In fact, when I returned to work, I had a six-month probation period, and I had worked for them for 25 years before that. We once hired a seasoned practitioner with considerable market experience. However, for various reasons, they did not pass their probation. Should that individual be entitled to bring a claim for unfair dismissal, noting what the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, said? From the employer’s perspective, they are simply trying to safeguard their business, its culture and its ability to deliver results for clients. The smaller the business, the harder it is, as we have just heard and as, I think, the noble Lord accepted.
Is it right that an employee should be granted full employment rights from day one, when both sides are still in a learning phase? Is it fair that a company could face the threat of an employment tribunal for unfair dismissal if the probationary period is not successful, on which we have had a lot of discussion? Whatever happens, should it go towards that phase? Should it never reach the employment tribunal? It is a gruelling process for both parties, and an expensive one—emotionally, culturally, and potentially in the pocket.
The Government rightly seek to stimulate growth, as mentioned by the Minister on the previous group. For that to happen, businesses must feel confident in hiring. But, if the terms of employment are too burdensome, companies may hesitate to expand their workforce. It is imperative that the economy is prevented from becoming stagnant or, worse still, contracting. I simply do not understand why this clause is in the Bill. It does not propose anything that helps growth in this country.
Lord Barber of Ainsdale (Lab)
The noble Lord pointed to the daunting process that faces an employer potentially facing an employment tribunal accusation that would damage perhaps their reputation, as well as the daunting issues that also face the employee who is considering going down that course. My noble friend made some emphasis on that point.
The debate has been conducted as if this is a hugely common threat: indeed, as if it is a threat that, potentially, is going to do tremendous damage to our economy. But could I just point to the scale of the issue? In 2023-24, there were just over 5,000 unfair dismissal cases referred from the Tribunals Service to ACAS for the conciliation processes that my noble friend referred to. What is the size of our workforce in the British economy? Is it 25, 26, 27—
Lord Barber of Ainsdale (Lab)
Thirty-four million workers. Five and a half thousand cases. Why is the number so small? It has been suggested that it is because an employer’s immediate response is to offer a settlement to buy off the prospect of a tribunal. Some may make that judgement, but, given the evidence my noble friend has referred to about the unlikelihood of applicants succeeding with their claims, that does not seem a very wise response to give. There may be some, but for the individual, it seems to me, more daunting factors influence them to hold back because it is so painful and potentially stressful that they are reluctant to take their case in the first place.
This whole Bill is about giving people at work in Britain more confidence and there needs to be some sense of perspective about the scale of the issue we are talking about. Five thousand people.
Lord Ashcombe (Con)
I am aware of a case of a small company that has got rid of four individuals in view of the legislation because those individuals are not doing a good enough job, but it could live with them if it had the ability to get rid of them. What it cannot face the thought of is having to go down any form of tribunal route or indeed threat thereof. That is not what we are trying to do with this Bill; we are trying to prevent that. We do not want to see those individuals leave employment. That is not what we want, and that is where it could lead a lot of people.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, this is one of the most important parts of this legislation, and I am very conscious of the Labour Party’s manifesto and its success in the election last year. However, at the same time, this is the same Government who want to increase the employment rate to 80%, which has not been achieved in a very long time. If we go back in history, we see that the Blair-Brown Government did not make changes to go to zero or day-one rights in the same way. Yes, they changed it from two years to one year. The coalition Government later changed it back to two years.
Yet we are now seeing—as has already been pointed out elegantly by the noble Lord, Lord Vaux of Harrowden, in response to some of the comments raised on the Government Benches—that this is the Government’s own impact assessment. If we look at the Regulatory Policy Committee’s assessment of these proposals, we see that it gives a very strong red rating on this element and suggests that, basically, there is no evidence that they are in any way needed.
There are aspects here of “What is the problem that the Government is trying to address?”. Lewis Silkin solicitors point out that if the only changes to be made were those referred to and we were still to have, as the noble Lord, Lord Hendy read out, the different approaches on fair dismissal in the tribunal, the Government could just put forward a statutory instrument based on the existing power of the 1996 Act. However, they have not done so in the Bill; they are seeking to go much further in a variety of ways in Schedule 3. That is why I share the concerns of many other noble Lords who are worried about the unintended consequences. Nobody can believe that a Labour Government would want to see unemployment rise or more people on benefits, or not tackle the challenge of people not in education, employment or training—
Baroness Coffey (Con)
Or the most vulnerable—and we can just keep going.
However, on whether people take cases to the employment tribunal, as has been referred to, we are not going to debate Part 5 tonight, but in this same Bill, where we have to consider a lot of these things in the round, the Government are proposing to give an unlimited amount of money to somebody to get legal aid or legal support so that they can go to tribunal. In fact, they are going further and saying that the Secretary of State or somebody they appoint can go to court on their behalf. In that case, in Part 5, we are talking about people who have not even started work.
So, rolling it back, on some of the concerns about which noble Lords on the Government Benches are suggesting, “Don’t worry about it, this isn’t going to happen”, actually, the entire Bill is opening that. That is why I hope the Government do not just listen to the real concerns of noble Lords in this House; they should consider their own impact assessment and the representations of all the business organisations that think that this is just wrong.
I support the amendments. There are a variety of them about putting in the Bill a defined time for what should be considered a probationary period. We have already had a separate discussion about apprenticeships but, going further, one thing that surprises me is that in paragraph 2 of Schedule 3, new Section 108A refers to:
“Employees who have not yet started work”.
You may think, “That’s very sensible. How can you have an unfair dismissal?” I have already referred to Part 5, coming somewhat later. Then there is a list in the Explanatory Notes. It is quite complicated—it tries to simplify it, but the legislation is complicated—but here we have one of the answers. A lot of the Bill is basically about trying to make sure that trade union membership goes up—that means more money going into the political fund and having to wait to opt out until the following January, for, in effect, finances. Indeed, paragraph 5(3) of Schedule 3, as a consequential amendment, says that, in effect, the qualifying period for unfair dismissal, before you have even started work, will not apply if you are a member of a trade union. That is what is going on in this legislation. I will read it out:
“Omit section 154 (disapplication of qualifying period for unfair dismissal relating to union membership”.
There are a number of activities here; it goes further in the Explanatory Notes. They include if you are on strike—I do not quite understand how you could be on strike if you have not started work, but perhaps one is on strike if one is in a different job. There are already protections in the disapplication in existing law—it suggests people who are pregnant and similar. There are a variety of things here where there are already protections, but these are now being extended in different ways. Sometimes, the Government Back Benches may not all have necessarily read the full detail of the Bill.
To that end, I support the noble Lord, Lord Vaux of Harrowden, in saying, “Let’s get rid of this clause and this schedule”. There is genuinely a way to start this again. There is still time for the Government to go away and do proper thinking—there is plenty to get through in this debate before we get to Report—to really narrow in on what the Government are trying to do, rather than, frankly, giving a blank cheque to a series of employment situations. My noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral—happy birthday to him, by the way—has already deemed this to be the unemployment Bill. I know those are not the consequences that the Government are seeking to address, but the experience and the petitioning of business organisations is very clear that that is what will happen.
Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)
My Lords, there are two things that I can safely say. One is that I am unanimous in my comments tonight, and the other is that you cannot accuse the Liberal Democrats of extending the debate past a reasonable hour; we have done just over an hour on this debate. The debate has been quite sensible and both sides have ventured into the usual jousting, but the comments from the noble Baroness who just spoke were a bit disingenuous in saying, or intimating, that the real reason behind this measure is to increase union membership and generate money for the Labour Party. That could not be farther from the truth of what this Government are trying to do, whichever way you look at the Bill.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
Has the noble Lord read the later parts of the Bill that specifically say that? In the human rights assessment, there is a qualified comment from the Government that, basically, cites in particular the element about postponing any refunds until January. That is exactly what part of the Bill is designed to do.
Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)
I will reply to that. Yes, it is a technical question, and perhaps that wording sits there, but any person with an ounce of common sense who sees the Bill can see what the Government are trying to do. I do not think that the Bill, with over 300 amendments to it, is geared to do what the noble Baroness is intimating. That is cheap political point-scoring, and I think it is beneath her.
I have carefully considered the amendments put forward by noble Lords in this group, particularly those seeking to remove Clause 23 and Schedule 3, including Amendments 23 and 334 from the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, the series of amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, and others relating to probationary periods, including Amendments 105 to 112. While I am not persuaded by those amendments or the case for removing the provisions or fundamentally changing the Bill, I recognise the need for greater clarity on probationary periods. Given the Bill’s current drafting, which relies heavily on future regulation, it is essential that the Government provide clear and firm guidance on how the provisions will operate in practice, especially for small businesses, which will find ambiguity challenging in difficult times.
Amendment 107A from the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, which proposes a default initial employment period but would allow the Secretary of State flexibility to amend that through regulation, offers a balanced concept that could be helpful in providing certainty while retaining adaptability. Likewise, Amendment 334 from the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, which calls for a retention of the current qualifying period until suitable regulations are in place, reflects concerns about the smooth transition, and that deserves attention. However, I am less convinced by the calls for further impact assessments or reviews of the proposals in Amendments 103 and 123, which I believe risk delaying the necessary reforms without providing clarity.
In light of those amendments, I urge the Government to seize this opportunity to give definition and definite practical guidance on the provisions that the Bill will implement. It would be better if the Minister could say in absolute terms the length of time for which probationary periods will be set in future regulation after the passage of the Bill. That would be particularly important for smaller employers that need certainty to comply. Providing that clarity would help to ensure that the reform worked as intended, and it would help to strike the right balance between protecting employees’ rights and allowing employers the flexibility to manage probationary employments effectively. On that basis, I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Vaux of Harrowden, and my noble friends Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lord Lucas for their amendments and their thoughtful contributions in this group. It has been a most interesting debate. I will speak to my Amendments 103, 113 and 123.
I completely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, that it would be much better to get this right now rather than pursuing Amendment 103 in particular, which returns to the Government’s insufficient impact assessment. The assessment that has been produced states that this provision will have one of the highest impacts, yet, as we have mentioned before, the Regulatory Policy Committee has given the Government’s analysis in this section a red rating. The RPC’s critique is not a matter of minor technicalities because it identifies serious deficiencies in the Government’s case for intervention in the options that they have considered and in the justification for the policy that they propose. The Government’s impact assessment admits that it lacks robust data on dismissal rates for employees with under two years’ service. To answer the question from the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, there is no evidence for that. It proceeds regardless, however, with only superficial reference to “asymmetric information” and without any substantive analysis of any market failure.
The RPC highlights the impact assessment’s failure to consider how long-serving employees might view the equalisation of rights for new joiners—an issue of fairness and workplace cohesion that the Government have ignored. The impact assessment itself mentions that options such as reducing the qualifying period to 18 months or one year were considered and rejected without detailed assessment. No real exploration of probation periods was provided. That is not a balanced appraisal of possible alternatives; it is a justification for a predetermined decision.
On the justification of the preferred option, the impact assessment is again found lacking. The RPC calls for clarity on the costs to businesses—the costs of managing performance, handling disputes and the increased settlements to avoid tribunal risks. It also questions whether the Government have considered evidence from existing unfair dismissal claims and how risks might vary across sectors or job types, particularly in roles where reputational damage from a claim might deter employers from hiring at all.
More significantly, the Government have not addressed indirect and dynamic labour impacts, such as whether day-one rights might lead to more cautious hiring, greater use of temporary contracts or weaker overall job security. These are not abstract concerns as they go to the heart of how this policy might reshape employment relationships across the country. Noble Lords might be interested in a real example. I was talking this morning to a senior executive at a FTSE 100 company. It is an exemplary employer in every way; for example, offering many day-one rights. But this year—partly as a result of the jobs tax but also in anticipation of the Bill—it has reduced its hiring by 84%. I repeat that for the record: 84%. This is not abstract or theoretical. This is real, this is now.
It is important to note that these likely labour market impacts are not accounted for in the £5 billion cost to businesses, so the real cost is likely to be significantly higher. The result is a policy with high ambition but little practical clarity, as the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, has just noted. How will unfair dismissal rights interact with a statutory probationary period? Will employers still have access to the same set of fair reasons for dismissal? Will there be a different threshold for acting reasonably during probation? Can probation be extended if needed? None of those questions has been clearly answered.
The noble Lord, Lord Leong, reminded us of the light-touch, nine-month proposal, but what does that mean in practice? My noble friend Lady Meyer asked that. At the same time, the Government’s own analysis predicts that granting day-one rights for unfair dismissal alone will result in a 15% increase in employment tribunal claims. Using the statistics given by the noble Lord, Lord Barber, that is an additional 750 claims per year, on top of the 50,000 backlog already waiting 18 months to two years. The noble Lord argued that this is, in effect, a statistical irrelevance, but it is not to the 750 business owners who are being dragged through courts. That is a substantial impact. It represents direct costs to businesses in terms of time, legal risk and, of course, the chilling effect on recruitment.
The tribunal system itself needs to be looked at. Without significant new investment it is hard to see how the system will cope with this 15% increase. The result could be longer delays, greater costs and justice deferred for all parties. In an earlier group we heard about a case that is going to take more than two years to come before a tribunal. Yet the Government intend to bring these changes into force in 2026. On what basis? There is nothing in the impact assessment that explains why 2026 has been chosen or how the system will be ready by then. Businesses will need time to revise contracts, restructure probation processes and train managers on the new rules. What assessment has been made of whether 2026 is realistic, with all those things in mind? What engagement has been carried out with employers, particularly SMEs, about what implementation will require?
It is not unreasonable to ask the Government to explain how the timeline was determined and whether it is genuinely achievable, given the lack of clarity in both the policy detail and the supporting evidence. We all agree that employees deserve fair treatment, particularly in the vulnerable early stages of employment, but employers must also have a reasonable opportunity to assess performance, capability and suitability without the immediate threat of litigation.
We have established that there is no evidence for any of this clause. In fact, when the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, was arguing his point, he said that it is very difficult anyway for employees to take a case to an employment tribunal. The noble Lord, Lord Barber, as I just mentioned, said it is, in effect, a statistical irrelevance. If there is no evidence, it is too difficult and it is a statistical irrelevance, why are we bothering at all?
I want to raise a final point that others, particularly my noble friends Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lady Noakes, have referred to. It is not just about the policy itself; it is a more troubling concern. The policy will create unintended incentives, but for whom? It is not just about employers scaling back hiring overall but about who they stop hiring. If we remove the qualifying period for unfair dismissal and provide no workable probationary mechanism, we tilt the hiring incentives away from risk-taking, as we have heard. It will, in effect, stop employers taking a punt.
Right now, a small business owner might be willing to take that chance on someone with no formal qualifications, or from a non-traditional background, or re-entering the workforce after a time away. That chance exists because the employer has a short window to assess their suitability—and vice versa, of course—before facing the full weight of employment litigation risk. If that safety net is removed and exposure begins from day one and the probationary period lacks clarity or legal protection, that same employer will think twice. They will play it safe.
Noble Lords opposite should pay attention to those of us who have employed people. It is a simple fact. Who is going to suffer? It is not the already advantaged candidate with a polished CV. It is the young person with gaps in education, the career switcher with no references, the working parent returning after years out of the labour market, or the person coming back to work after a long period of illness. Noble Lords opposite should reread the speech given by my noble friend Lord Elliott, with his experience of the Jobs Foundation. He explained this much more eloquently than I just have. Those are the people who benefit from flexibility and second chances and who may now find those doors quietly closed.
This goes to the heart of social mobility and genuine workplace diversity. I would like to ask the Government a rhetorical question: have they considered the incentives this policy creates? If they have not—both common-sense experience of real working life in the private sector and, indeed, the RPC suggest that they have not—we risk designing a policy that sounds progressive but, in practice, reduces opportunity for the very groups that we should be helping the most. We need a decent impact assessment, and my amendment would allow for it.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. As there have been a number of questions about our intentions with these clauses, I think it would be helpful to clarify them and put them on the record.
Clause 23 introduces Schedule 3 and repeals Section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, thereby removing the two-year qualifying period for protection against unfair dismissal. Schedule 3 further amends the 1996 Act, including the introduction of a statutory probationary period in legislation. Schedule 3 also removes the two-year qualifying period for the right to request written reasons for dismissal. Any employee who has been dismissed after the statutory probationary period will have the right to written reasons for dismissal within 14 days upon request.
The legislation will introduce a statutory probationary period that will maintain an employer’s ability to assess any new hires. Schedule 3 allows the duration of a statutory probationary period to be set in regulations by the Secretary of State following consultation. The Government’s preference, as we know, is for this probationary period to be nine months in length. Schedule 3 also creates the power to modify the test for whether dismissal during the probationary period is fair for reasons of performance or suitability for the role.
The Government’s intention is to use this power to set light-touch standards for fair dismissal during probation. The power will be limited to the following reasons for dismissal, which, under Section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, qualify as potentially fair reasons: capability, conduct, illegality or some other substantial reason relating to the employee. The Government will consult on the light-touch standards and proceed to set out in regulations what specific reasons relate to the employee and when.
Schedule 3 amends the delegated power to set the maximum compensatory award for unfair dismissal so that a different maximum can be set for dismissals during the probationary period and when the light-touch standards apply. It is our intention to consult before the introduction of any new cap on awards.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)
Forgive me if I am pre-empting the Minister, but given that she has just responded to my noble friend on the question of economic growth, what is her reply to the issues I raised about the specifics in the context of tech scale-ups, which are a priority for the Government’s growth agenda? What is the impact of these measures on that particular industry?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
The noble Baroness is absolutely right. She will know that I share her ambitions for the tech sector. The UK remains the number one country for venture capital investment, raising $16.2 billion in 2024—more than either Germany or France—and since last July we have secured £44 billion in AI investment. Strengthening employment rights and giving day-one protections can help support talented people to take the leap into a start-up company.
I turn to Amendment 104, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Vaux. Setting a statutory probationary period during which light-touch standards will apply is a crucial part of our plan to make work pay. I can reassure the noble Lord that setting out the detail in regulations is fundamental to fulfilling this commitment. It is not necessary to make this a requirement in legislation.
The noble Lord, Lord Vaux, asked a number of questions. He, the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, and others asked why the Government are doing this. The UK is an outlier compared to other OECD countries when it comes to the balance of risks and entitlements between the employer and the employee. We believe that it is an important principle that employees should have greater security at work. Our reforms will mean that around 9 million employees—31% of all employees —who have been working for their employer for less than two years will have greater protection against being unfairly dismissed.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
I hate to interrupt the noble Baroness at this late hour, but that is just a repeat of what has been said before; it is not a tangible quantified reason for doing this. Yes, for a short period of time, they will have greater security in theory, but the downsides of this—they are in the Government’s own impact assessment—are really clear. The Government say that this will reduce the life chances of people who are riskier hires. It will cost business hundreds of millions of pounds. There is no quantification of that benefit against those downsides, and I am still not hearing that.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
I will talk about the impact assessments in more detail shortly, but the noble Lord will know that it is a lot easier to identify the costs in impact assessment than the benefits. We have worked with academics who are looking at this subject. I reassure the noble Lord that we have looked at this and are confident that the benefits in this particular case will outweigh the risks.
I will pick up the point made by other noble Lords about cultural fit and other reasons why an employer might want to dismiss somebody during their probationary period. Dismissal for “some other substantial reason” is a catch-all category designed to allow employers to terminate an employment contract where no other potentially fair reasons apply. There can be cases where dismissal is legitimate and reasonable; “some other substantial reason” dismissals depend on the facts and circumstances of the employment relationship. “Some other substantial reason” is broad, and case law supports personality clashes in workplace teams or a business client refusing to work with an employee being a potentially fair reason for dismissal. The Government do not believe that an employee not being a cultural fit within an organisation should be a fair dismissal per se. We would expect an employer to be able to dismiss someone fairly only if any cultural misfit was relevant in a reasonable manner to the employer’s business objectives and the needs of the workplace.
The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, mentioned employees with spent convictions. I gently point out to her that dismissing an employee solely for having spent convictions is currently unfair and potentially grounds for an unfair dismissal claim—
Baroness Noakes (Con)
I never mentioned spent convictions; I referred merely to the risk of employers taking on ex-offenders. I cannot think of a point I could have made in relation to spent convictions. The issue is these categories of potential employees who a represent higher risk in terms of judgment to employers, and I was using former offenders as one example of that.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
I apologise if I misunderstood the noble Baroness’s point. I can only reaffirm the point I was making: with all these issues, there can be reasons for fair dismissal during the probationary period, and we have set out quite clearly what the grounds for that would be.
Amendment 107A was tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. As always, he thinks outside the box and comes up with interesting ideas, including the idea of a probationary period here in your Lordships’ House, which I am sure we all have strong views about. Going back to the specifics of his proposal, the Government have expressed an initial preference for a nine-month statutory probationary period. We intend to consult with stakeholders and the wider public before committing to a duration, which will be set by the Secretary of State through secondary legislation after this consultation has taken place. Maintaining this flexibility allows the duration and calculation of the statutory probationary period to be adapted in light of future changes in employment practices.
Amendment 108, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, would also amend Schedule 3 to the Bill. It is of great importance to this Government to get the length of the statutory probationary period correct. The Government have already stated in Next Steps to Make Work Pay their preference for the statutory probationary period to be nine months in duration. However, this is subject to consultation, and I hope that this reassures the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, on that matter.
On Amendment 334, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, while I recognise what the noble Lord is seeking to achieve with his amendment, I reassure him, and the noble Baroness, Lady Meyer, that the Government have no intention of removing the two-year qualifying period until the regulations setting out the statutory probationary period are in force. We will, of course, give businesses time to prepare, and we are engaging with them already. These provisions will not commence before autumn 2026, which will give time to prepare. I hope that this reassures the noble Lord, Lord Goddard.
I move on to address Amendments 103 and 123, from the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe and Lord Hunt, in respect of their mandates for further impact assessments. The Government have already produced a comprehensive set of impact assessments, published alongside Second Reading, and based on the best available evidence of the potential impact on businesses, employees and the wider economy. Our analysis includes an illustrative assessment of the impact on employment tribunal cases, which we intend to refine over time by working closely with the Ministry of Justice, His Majesty’s Courts & Tribunals Service, ACAS and wider stakeholders. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Hendy for setting the record straight about the impact of tribunals, and the thorough ways in which they conduct their proceedings. Many cases settle in advance, and we want to encourage more cases to reach a settlement with proper advice and support. I am also grateful to my noble friend Lord Barber for putting the scale of the problem in perspective, with only 5,000 cases referred to ACAS in 2023-24.
We will publish an enactment impact assessment once the Bill receives Royal Assent, in line with the requirements of the Better Regulation Framework. This will account for ways in which the Bill has been amended in its passage through Parliament, to the extent that those changes significantly change the impact of the policy on the enforcement system. This impact assessment will then be published alongside the enacted legislation.
To follow up on the impact of this, we acknowledge that the policy is expected to benefit close to 9 million employees, driven by well-being benefits arising from increased job security for those with under two years of tenure. There will be costs to businesses, including familiarisation and compliance costs, from this change. However, businesses could benefit through improving their people management and hiring practices, which could deliver medium to long-term benefits, such as higher labour productivity. In addition, increasing employee well-being could increase worker productivity. These benefits will be tested further during consultation.
The Government have also pledged to conduct a consultation on unfair dismissal policy, to collect feedback from employers and employees. Specifically, the Government have outlined that we will consult on the length of the statutory probationary period, and the potential cap on compensatory awards for unfair dismissal occurring during the statutory probationary period. I can reassure the House that there is no need for the Bill to require the Government to undertake further assessment of the impact on tribunals before commencement. We will be updating our impact assessments in any case, alongside the consultation on implementing the various provisions in the Bill.
I turn to Amendment 113, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom. The Government are not proposing to expand the five potentially fair reasons for dismissal that have been a central part of employment law for decades. An employer’s decision to dismiss an employee in the early stages of their employment or otherwise will have to be underpinned by a fair dismissal reason, such as capability or conduct. It stands to reason that these would be the most likely dismissal reasons when employees fail their probation.
I am grateful to all noble Lords for tabling these amendments but, for the reasons set out, the Government cannot support them. I therefore ask that Amendment 103 be withdrawn.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
Again, we are being promised a blizzard of consultations, but can the Minister give me any idea when those consultations will take place? Can we also have some assurance that all the employer organisations will be consulted on this occasion? From our conversations with many of them, they do not feel particularly consulted up to now.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
First, on the issue of consultation, I assure the noble Lord that there have been a considerable number of consultations, not only with the main employer organisations but in terms of working parties working on particular aspects of the Bill, and those will continue. That consultation will continue—and I have now forgotten his other question.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
Will the Government consult with employer organisations?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
Yes, I can confirm that that is the case.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
The Minister has not addressed the fact that there are already powers in existing legislation to modify the qualifying period. The Minister talks about going into consultation, but that consultation on the probationary period could start right now with the SI, and that element. I struggle to understand why we have to wait such a long time when, actually, the Government could get on with their policy a lot more quickly.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
That has reminded me that that was the other question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe—so I thank the noble Baroness for raising it.
As we have said before, we are working on an implementation plan, which we hope to share with noble Lords as soon as we can. It is in my interests as well as noble Lords’ interests that they see it sooner rather than later, but there is no point in sharing something that is not complete. Noble Lords will see that—and it will set out exactly what we are planning to do and where the consultations will fit in with all of it. I hope that when noble Lords see it, it will reassure them.
To go back to the particular question from the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, we see this as a wholesale package. It is right that it is introduced to employers as a package; it will have appropriate timescales in it. We do not want to do things on a piecemeal basis, we want to do them in the round. That is why we are attempting to address this in the way that we are proposing today.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
Unfortunately, that is our concern—that we do not know what the detail is, and we are being asked to pass a Bill without all that detail, as I said in my speech.
There was a more technical point that I wanted to raise with the Minister, if she wants to come back to me. I set out how having to cover an extra 9 million employees is going to lead to huge amounts of extra compliance costs. She emphasised the benefits for the workers, but she did not at all address the monumental amount of paperwork. My noble friend Lord Sharpe raised a similar point. As he explained, all managers in all companies are going to have to prepare for this and work out how they treat their employees from day one and what paperwork is required. I am not convinced that there is any understanding of that.
When we had similar consultations on the minimum wage, when I was in business, which the noble Lord, Lord Monks, mentioned, there was a great deal of detailed consultation very early on on how it would work. I said in another debate how I was consulted about whether we could put it on the payslips—and I explained that it would cost us £2 million, so it would cost the whole economy an awful lot just to put the minimum wage on the payslip. That sort of detail is incredibly important, if you are bringing in regulation that affects all employers and potentially benefits all employees.
I urge the Minister to think about these things and not say that it is going into the long grass and that we will get an impact assessment ex post, but think about how employers will actually manage this.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
I can assure the noble Baroness that not only have we thought about this but we are working very closely with the business sector to get this right. We understand that some of these things will take time. It takes time to change systems, and a lot of it is about changing computer systems for processing and so on. We are aware of this and, when the noble Baroness sees the implementation plan, it will reassure her that we have allowed space and time for it, as well as proper consultation with those who will be affected.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
My Lords, it has been a long debate so I will try not to detain the Committee much longer. I thank the many noble Lords across the Committee who have contributed. It has been long because this is really important. I confess that I come out of the end of this debate feeling somewhat depressed. I still have not heard really why we are doing this, and what the real, tangible benefits are, to offset against the very real negative impacts, particularly on those who are looking for employment and are perhaps disadvantaged in one way or another: they have not worked before, they are young, they have a gap—we heard all the various examples. The Minister did not really address that point terribly clearly in her speech, and it is so important.
This may be, as the Government have regularly called it, a Bill for workers. However, as I said at Second Reading, it is not a Bill for people who want to work—the potential workers who were mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Elliott. He stole my Charlie Mayfield quote, but I will not worry about that. It is true that Denmark has much easier hire and fire, and he was using that as a paragon of virtue because it allows people who are harder to hire to get into employment, which is so important.
In the interests of being constructive, I hope the Minister understands the real concerns about those people and the impact the Bill is going to have on them, and the negative impacts this section of the Bill will have. I hope that she will be prepared to spend a bit of time with us between now and Report to try to find solutions to those negative impacts, to minimise the problems and downsides that they will cause. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Monks: I am not making this up, or crying wolf, as with the national minimum wage, as the noble Lord suggested. This is what the Government say will be the impact. I cannot emphasise that enough. It is not me saying that; the Government say this will be impact. If we can try to work together before Report, to try to find ways of knocking the edges off this and reducing the negative impacts, that would be very helpful. With that, I will not oppose Clause 23 standing part of the Bill.
Lord Hunt of Wirral
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment and another in the name of Lord Sharpe limit the application of the clause to cases where the employer sought, without good reason, to vary the employee’s contract of employment in relation to their pay or benefits.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, as we move to consider Clause 26, I believe Amendments 113ZA and 113B bring essential clarity, balance and proportionality to the Bill’s treatment of contract variation.
In last week’s debate, we discussed how recent changes to statutory sick pay might prompt employers to scale back or modify enhanced sick pay schemes. Such adjustments would require changes to contracts, and under the Bill’s current wording could be caught by these provisions. This raises the question: is it really the Government’s intention to classify necessary contractual changes prompted by those reforms to statutory sick pay as grounds for unfair dismissal?
The Government’s plan to make work pay rightly criticises cases where these practices have been used to enforce lower pay or to reduce terms and conditions. That is a legitimate concern. However, as currently drafted, Clause 26 goes far beyond this intention. It would cover any contractual change, no matter how minor, technical or reasonable, even those entirely unrelated to pay or benefits. This creates serious practical problems. Employers would be exposed to legal claims of unfair dismissal, even when seeking to modernise contractual terms; for example, aligning shift patterns with contemporary trading hours or updating disciplinary procedures drafted decades ago. In effect, this clause could fossilise employment contracts, preventing businesses from adapting to economic, operational or technological change, unless they meet a narrow and restrictive test.
I acknowledge that the phrase “without good reason” in Amendment 113ZA may introduce some degree of ambiguity. However, any dispute from it would fall to the employment tribunals to determine. While we have previously argued—and I maintain—that the Government have no credible plan to resolve the serious backlog and underfunding of the employment tribunal system, the fact remains that these tribunals will be the ones to judge whether a variation was sought with good reason.
In the current economic climate, businesses may need to make reasonable changes to pay structures to remain viable. Without these amendments, I believe employers may be deterred from offering pay increases or promotions, unless employees accept other contractual changes, potentially creating a two-tier workforce. In more extreme cases, employers might choose to make roles redundant altogether, rather than risk costly litigation over sensible and necessary variations.
I will speak also to Amendment 114 in this group. The clause’s reliance on language such as
“the employer’s ability to carry on the business as a going concern”
and “financial difficulties” implies that only in the most extreme circumstances—insolvency or imminent closure—can dismissal and re-engagement be considered. That is surely far too narrow a test. Businesses are not static and responsible employers must often adapt to evolving market conditions, consumer behaviour and, of course, technological innovation. These changes are not about survival, they are surely about growth, competitiveness and investment, as we expressed in earlier debates.
Medium and large businesses may face particular challenges here. They may need to apply changes to specific segments of the workforce, not the entire business, yet the Bill appears to treat the business as a whole, creating further uncertainty and limiting proportionate action.
It would be very helpful if the Minister could explain how the Government define business. The revised wording in this amendment, “could reasonably be expected”, better reflects how responsible employers assess risk and manage their operations. It would give them the legal certainty to act proactively to avoid crisis, rather than reactively once a crisis is already upon them. The existing wording could penalise businesses for prudent foresight, discouraging early intervention and increasing the likelihood of greater harm to jobs and continuity of business.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I have Amendment 113A of this group, which is a very minimalist amendment designed to deal with circumstances in which, for instance, the company needs to change its registered address. That does not in any way affect the employee, but in the current wording of the Bill it would constitute a variation of the contract, and if the employee refused it—they do not have to be reasonable in doing so—we have found ourselves in difficulties for no good reason. I have a lot of sympathy with what my noble friend Lord Hunt has been saying, but my amendment is just to try to avoid creating difficulties where there should be none.
Lord de Clifford (CB)
My Lords, I will speak on Amendment 115 in my name, and I wish the Committee to note my entry in the register as set out in the previous group.
Employer businesses sometimes need to change, to adapt to the changes in the marketplace, to their customers’ needs, and sometimes to changes in society. Therefore, on occasions, employers need the ability to vary their employees’ contracts. This process should be done through consultation, negotiation and finally, agreement with their employees, at all times respecting the rights of those employees. I will quote from the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development’s website, which refers to the current legislation:
“In exceptional circumstances, where there are genuine and pressing business needs and agreement cannot be reached, employers can sometimes be justified in unilaterally changing workers’ terms and conditions by terminating their contracts and re-hiring them on new terms and conditions”.
That comment and others that I have heard would suggest that the current legislation has been working, other than in exceptional circumstances and by some terrible employers. There will always be employers and people in society who will manipulate the law to their own advantage. This certainly was the case with the notorious P&O Ferries, which undertook an outrageous fire and replacement of their employees. Also, sometimes employers will certainly threaten employees with a fire and hire to gain advantage in negotiation. I recognise the value of unions and other employee organisations to assist and support employees when employers undertake varying contracts as a last resort.
Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)
My Lords, I wish to speak in support of the amendments put forward by my noble friend Lord Fox, who is unfortunately away today, on NATO business I believe. Tomorrow, no doubt, he will pore over today’s Hansard. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, will be available then. I cannot unsee the picture of him in a four-poster bed with the trade union man climbing aboard, and will have to try to explain down the telephone to my noble friend Lord Fox, “It was quite humorous”. We will see what happens with that tomorrow.
My noble friend Lord Fox’s concerns include his Amendments 116 and 121, which offer much-needed clarity and balance to the protections around contract variations and unfair dismissals. The issue of predatory fire and rehire, as seen in the widely condemned P&O Ferries case highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, is an unacceptable, serious and pressing concern that employment legislation rightly needs to address now. No worker should be threatened with dismissal simply to impose worse terms and conditions on that person.
My noble friend Lord Fox’s proposals to exclude routine non-detrimental contract changes from triggering automatic unfair dismissal protections, as in Amendment 116, and to safeguard reasonable flexibility clauses expressly agreed in contracts, as in Amendment 121, would help ensure that protection against abuse is balanced with the practical realities that employees face. His further clarification in Amendments 117 and 122—that dismissals linked to redundancy with offers of suitable alternative employment and the lawful use of fixed-term contracts should not be unfairly restricted—rightly recognise that not all contract variations are harmful and that employees must be able to operate flexibly and fairly.
The amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, would facilitate contractual changes for financial organisations or workforce-related reasons. Although the intention is understandable, it is crucial that the Government provide clear guidance to ensure fair protection for workers, particularly those in smaller businesses. The approach to seasonal and variable-hour workers also requires careful consideration to safeguard their rights. We will return to that in a later group.
These amendments collectively illustrate the careful line that the Government must tread. Although it is crucial to clamp down on unfair and predatory fire-and-rehire tactics, as addressed by my noble friend Lord Fox’s amendments, we must equally recognise the legitimate need for flexibility and contract review in a changing economic landscape. I commend my noble friend’s amendments for their clarity and fairness in this regard, and encourage the Government to consider how best to incorporate these protections. At the same time, I urge the Committee to approach other proposed changes—as in Amendments 115 and 115A, which seek to clarify reasonable adjustments and productivity improvements—with a measured and practical mindset, to support both workers’ rights and sustainable business operations. I look forward to the Minister’s comments.
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. This Government are absolutely clear that the use of unscrupulous fire-and-rehire practices must end. Employers should not be able to impose contract changes through threats of dismissal, except in the most limited and justified circumstances. We recognise that, at times, businesses may need to restructure to survive and protect jobs. The legislation accounts for such cases where there is genuinely no alternative and a business faces immediate financial difficulty. Fire and rehire may be used, but only following a proper good-faith process, grounded in open dialogue and mutual understanding.
Let me begin by addressing Amendments 113ZA, 113B and 118 from the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe and Lord Hunt, Amendment 115 from the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, and Amendment 116, spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Fox. These amendments aim to exclude certain types of contract variations from the clause, such as those relating to terms other than pay, benefits, hours or location, or to allow changes made for good or operational reasons. When a change in contract is essential and the employee will otherwise become redundant—for example, due to a move in location—or where the changes are necessary to reflect a change in the law, the employer will still be able to explain to the employee when proposing these changes. However, such changes should always be a result of meaningful consultation. Employers and employees must reach mutual agreement, allowing both sides to understand and assess the impact of the proposed changes. Open dialogue is key.
I turn to Amendment 114 from the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, and Amendment 115. These propose broadening the permitted use of “fire and rehire” to include changes that are reasonably necessary to improve workforce productivity. The Bill is the first phase of delivering our plan to make work pay. We are supporting employers, workers and unions to get Britain moving forward. Alongside this and a new industrial strategy, the Bill will support the Government’s mission to increase productivity and create the right conditions for long-term, sustainable, inclusive and secure economic growth.
The Government do not support these amendments. We believe this practice should be allowed only where an employer faces no reasonable alternative and is under imminent financial threat. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, mentioned what happens if a company is facing insolvency. I am sure most noble Lords know that insolvency does not come straight away. There is a whole process, and it is during this that consultation should happen between the employer and employee. When it comes to the last resort, when until and unless something happens the company is going to go belly-up, there may be a practice of “fire and rehire”, but before that, there should be consultation along the way.
These amendments would significantly widen the exemption and make it necessary for employers to use “fire and rehire”. That is not our intention. While businesses can still agree changes to boost productivity, such changes must come through proper negotiation, not coercion, as I just mentioned.
I now turn to Amendment 119, also from the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, which proposes allowing “fire and rehire” if the changes are reasonable and supported by a majority of affected employees. This issue here is subjective. What is reasonable for one employee may be deeply unreasonable for another. Our goal is to protect individual rights. Clause 26 is designed to reduce the use of “fire and rehire” as a means to push through significant changes without individual consent.
I will address Amendments 117 and 122 from the noble Lord, Lord Fox, and Amendment 120 from the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe. They focus on whether dismissals for redundancy or the end of a fixed-term contract should be considered automatically unfair under Clause 26. The Government’s position is that, where a role is no longer viable under current terms, employers should follow due process, including meaningful consultation to seek agreement to vary contracts. If employees do not agree, and if the employer no longer requires the work to be done, redundancy may still be appropriate. In such cases, redundancy procedures must be followed, including consideration of alternative roles. Where the principal reason for a dismissal is redundancy, the dismissal will not be automatically unfair under Clause 26.
Now I turn to Amendment 121 from the noble Lord, Lord Fox, which concerns variation clauses in employment contracts. I wish to reassure the House that existing case law already governs the enforceability of such clauses. This clause applies only where there has been a dismissal, and so would not apply where a lawful variation clause has been lawfully exercised. Courts and tribunals will not uphold variation clauses if they are oppressive and exercised unreasonably. This amendment is therefore unnecessary as a legal protection already exists.
I now turn to Amendments 120A and 120B, which relate to the factors a tribunal should consider when assessing the fairness of a dismissal under the clause exemption. It is appropriate that tribunals should consider where the employer offered the employee something in exchange for agreed-to changes. Fair contract variation should be built on dialogue, not pressure. It is right that the Secretary of State should have the power to specify additional relevant factors for tribunals to consider in future. These regulations would be subject to affirmative resolution procedure, ensuring full parliamentary scrutiny.
Finally, Amendment 113 from the noble Lord, Lucas, seeks to limit the clause to only substantial contract changes. We reject that. Even minor-seeming changes can have major consequences for individual employees. Individuals must be allowed to consider proposed changes without facing dismissal threats. That principle underpins the clause.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, I have a feeling that although the Minister was doing his best, he was reading from a script that had been drafted before this debate took place. I listened to my noble friend Lord Lucas and the noble Lords, Lord de Clifford and Lord Goddard of Stockport. They were just giving ordinary examples that need clarity. We did not get from the Minister a clear exposition of how, in those individual cases instanced by colleagues in the debate, they could prevent the Minister’s overall objective. We all agree with him that we have to try to prevent the sort of situation that arose, which we all condemned, ever happening again. But do not let it be so wide that it will stop just minor organisational changes.
Lord Leong (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for giving way. The principle here is that we have to consult with employees before the final resort. Fire and rehire should be the final resort and remedy. Before we even reach that, the whole process of consultation and sitting down and finding a solution should be an underpinning principle.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
I think we are all in agreement, except that the Bill goes too far. For a minor change of address when a company moves offices to be caught by all this in the way that we have exemplified—I think we need greater clarity. But, of course, the hour is late and I do not want to prolong the debate. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Employment Rights Bill
Tuesday 3rd June 2025
(9 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Employment Rights Act 2025 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 81-VI(a) Amendments for Committee (Supplementary to the Sixth Marshalled List) - (3 Jun 2025)
“Prohibition of unpaid work experience for a period exceeding four weeks(1) The National Minimum Wage Act 1998 is amended as follows.(2) After section 3(3) (exclusion of, and modifications for, certain classes of person) insert—“(3A) “No provision shall be made under subsection (2)(a) in respect of persons participating in a scheme designed to provide work experience for a continuous or non-continuous period which exceeds four weeks.””(3) After section 41 (power to apply Act to individuals who are not otherwise “workers”) insert— “41A Application of this Act to persons undertaking work experience(1) The Secretary of State must, in exercising the powers under section 41, provide that this Act applies to a person undertaking work experience with the same employer for a continuous or non-continuous period which exceeds four weeks.(2) The Secretary of State must make regulations in accordance with subsection (1) within a period of six months, beginning with the day on which the Employment Rights Act 2025 is passed.(3) Such regulations must provide that a person undertaking such work experience who has ceased to be of compulsory school age, but has not attained the age of 26, is eligible to receive the national minimum wage at the rate specified for workers of the person’s age.(4) In this section—“employer” has the meaning given to it by subsection 54(4) of this Act (Meaning of “worker”, “employee” etc.), and also includes any organisation which provides an individual with work experience;“work experience” means observing, replicating, assisting with and carrying out any task with the aim of gaining experience of a particular workplace, organisation, industry or work-related activity.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that unpaid work experience cannot be used to avoid National Minimum Wage regulations.
Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a freelance TV producer. The noble Lord, Lord Holmes, whose amendment this is, has waited and waited to be able to debate it, but now, when the big moment arrives, he is prevented from taking his place in the Chamber by an unbreakable commitment—so the Committee has me.
This amendment is an attempt to address the wretched, exploitative workplace faced by far too many people wanting to enter work. It attempts to create a new definition of “work experience”, which would ensure that participants are educated, and not exploited, as they attempt to join the workforce. I am sure that noble Lords would agree that it is important for new entrants to spend time in a workplace, finding out whether they like the work environment and, even better, whether they are seen as a possible fit for the company.
Much energy has been spent focusing on how to get young people, and people returning to employment, back into the workplace. I am glad that there has been reform and improvement to the apprenticeship schemes, but that is for those who want training in a specific sector. However, many people do not know what they want to do and, for them, internships have been a way to discover whether they can engage with a particular industry and whether it can engage with them. Unfortunately, so many of these internships have turned out to be exploitative.
I have worked in the creative industries all my career, so I have first-hand experience of young people coming in to find out about the industry, only to discover that they are expected to work for either no pay or well below the minimum wage. This is happening not just in the creative industries but across the economy. I have been told about a strengthening coach, working for a major professional sporting body, who was initially on a short-term internship, which became a two-year, daily commitment. During all that time, he was not paid. He loved what he was doing so was afraid to ask for payment and was forced to take a second job to sustain himself.
Internships are essential, and they are covered by the National Minimum Wage Act, so any intern who qualifies as a worker, under the criteria laid out in the Act, should be paid. A new survey by the broadcasting union BECTU reveals that 49% of people joining the creative industries have been pressurised to work for free. In their desperation to get into this competitive industry, many succumb and work for free. The highly respected Sutton Trust found last year that 61% of internships undertaken by recent graduates were underpaid or unpaid. The largest percentage of these jobs are in the south-east, where accommodation is notoriously expensive. It means that those people from the regions and nations, or from more socially disadvantaged families, who cannot afford the accommodation, are prevented from taking up those places. For a Government who are determined and dedicated to getting people into work in well-paid jobs, this is a failure that must be rectified rapidly. Social mobility realises the talent of the whole population; it is the only way to ensure that our nation succeeds economically.
The body charged with enforcing the minimum wage Act is HMRC. Part of the problem is that if the intern is not paid, they do not appear on HMRC’s radar. This is not helped by the fact that so many small companies do not have anybody focusing on personnel issues and, even when they have an HR department, surveys show they are not well enough informed about the law. I ask the Minister: how many prosecutions against employers have there been under the National Minimum Wage Act for unpaid internships?
Amendment 129 is an attempt to sort out the complicated and often exploitative system for those trying to get into the job market. It is crucial to ensure that there is a difference in law between interns, who should be paid, and those undertaking work experience, who should not. Proposed new subsection (4) in the amendment sets out a new legal concept of “work experience”, defined by
“observing, replicating, assisting with and carrying out any task with the aim of gaining experience of a particular workplace, organisation … or work-related activity”.
The most important criterion for what constitutes work experience is that it is voluntary, and participants are not under the control of anyone else. It has to be a learning experience, and must ensure that participants are shadowing and not actually doing the job. Work experience is already part of many T-level courses for young people. Some universities facilitate work experience, but not nearly enough of these places are available. It is a crucial pathway into work life. At a time when we are hearing of so many people who are out of the workforce, it is important that this stage of their career is clearly established and legally defined.
I am pleased that the amendment has a time limit on what counts as work experience. A maximum of four weeks seems like a good duration. It would allow the participant sufficient time to get a grip on what happens in a specific workplace and to decide whether they want to embark on a career there, but, in my view, is not enough time for them to become established as an unpaid intern. So many underpaid or unpaid internships carry on for many more than four weeks, and this amendment would ensure that that does not happen.
The highly respected Sutton Trust says that access to the workplace is a central obstacle to social mobility. I beg the Government to take the suggestion in this proposed new clause seriously. I ask the Minister to examine it as part of a possible solution to the crisis facing new entrants to the creative and other industries. I hope your Lordships will discuss this further when the Committee gets to my noble friend Lord Clancarty’s Amendments 286 and 287 on establishing a freelance commissioner.
Meanwhile, this amendment is focused on the many thousands of young people who want to get into work but do not know what they want to do. If the Government take up the work experience category laid out in this amendment, it will give those people a taste of the workplace, which is crucial to engaging them and crucial to getting them engaged in the job market. I beg to move.
Baroness O’Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)
My Lords, as somebody with long experience of campaigning against unpaid internships, I have a huge amount of sympathy with the motivation behind this amendment.
Certainly, it is true that a key reflection of the reversal of social mobility in this country has been the growth of unpaid internships. It started with the creative industries, where, in the past, a young person from a working-class background used to be able to start as a runner in broadcasting, or as a cub reporter on their local newspaper, and then found their path to national newspapers or progression within broadcasting blocked by the parachuting in of very often young people from wealthy backgrounds, often to senior positions, on an unpaid internship that nobody from a working-class background could afford to take. It costs thousands of pounds, particularly if the position is located in London and you do not live in London. I absolutely agree that unpaid internships have been a block and a major barrier to young working-class people’s progression.
My concern is that, from my perspective, the problem is not the law but the enforcement of the law. As trade unions, we have campaigned to get HMRC to take this seriously. There was a flurry of action around cracking down on unpaid internships, but, since Covid in particular, there has been an uptick—you have only to scan any recruitment agency website and you will see that they are brazenly advertising unpaid internships that lock young working-class people out of the professions, and doing so in flagrant abuse of the law.
Sadly, I cannot support this amendment. I fear that bad employers would be able to offer rolling unpaid internships, shoving young people through a revolving door of not getting paid as they are entitled to be for the productive work that they do. They should be paid at least the national minimum wage. What I would support is the proposed fair work agency launching a major crackdown on young people being robbed of their dreams and opportunities through the exploitative practice of unpaid internships.
Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)
My Lords, I will speak briefly to Amendment 129, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, ably articulated by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross. I also have some sympathy with the view of the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, on the matter.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Holmes for tabling this amendment and the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, with his perspective from the creative industries, for introducing it so well.
This amendment highlights an important issue: ensuring that work experience opportunities do not become a means to circumvent minimum wage regulations, thereby protecting young people and others seeking to gain valuable experience in the labour market. At the same time, as the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, noted, it is important to recognise that many charities, non-profit organisations and others rely to some extent on unpaid work experience placements, partly to deliver their valuable services but also to provide opportunities for individuals who might otherwise struggle to enter the workforce. We must acknowledge that many young people who leave education not knowing what they want to do, as the noble Viscount noted, find them a useful way of testing various sectors. The practical impact of this amendment on such organisations merits careful consideration to ensure that their ability to provide meaningful work experience is not unduly restricted, while maintaining fair treatment for those undertaking such experience.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who contributed to this short but focused and interesting debate. I too regret that the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, was unable to attend; with my Whip’s hat on, I note that perhaps if we had made better progress on earlier days of Committee then we would have heard from him directly. I pay tribute to him for tabling Amendment 129, which seeks to prohibit unpaid work experience for a period exceeding four weeks. I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, for stepping into the breach and making a more than worthy understudy in moving the amendment. I thank my noble friend Lady O’Grady of Upper Holloway and the noble Lords, Lord Goddard and Lord Sharpe of Epsom, for contributing to this debate. This is an important issue, and the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, and others are right to raise it. I pay tribute on the record to his previous work campaigning on this issue, not least through his Private Member’s Bill in the 2017-19 Session.
This Government made a commitment to deliver the biggest upgrade to workers’ rights in a generation. This includes tackling unfair working practices. As we heard from the noble Viscount, there are examples not simply in the creative sector—although that area of our economy is rife with them—but beyond it. This Government absolutely stand by the national minimum wage, and on 1 April delivered an increase of 16.3% to the 18 to 20 national minimum wage rate to make it £10 an hour—a record amount in both cash and percentage terms, making progress on closing the gap with the national living wage. This is an increase of £2,500 to the gross annual earnings of a full-time worker on the NMW. It was the first step in the Government’s plans to remove the discriminatory age bands and ensure that all adults benefit from a genuine living wage, making a real difference to young people.
I think it is worth saying in passing that we welcome, on this side of the House at least, the Conservative Party’s conversion in recent years to supporting the national minimum wage. However, as a member of the party that introduced it in the first place, in the teeth of some quite vehement opposition at the time, I assure noble Lords that this Labour Government are absolutely committed to supporting it and making sure that it applies in all cases where it should.
Work experience or internships can offer individuals, especially younger people, invaluable opportunities and experience. We do not want to close the door on these opportunities, but we do want to ensure that they are open and fair. Most importantly, where workers are due payment, they should be paid the wages they are entitled to, and I have to say that the current legislation already protects them.
As my noble friend Lady O’Grady of Upper Holloway—to whose years of campaigning in this area, through the TUC, I pay tribute—said, there is an aspect of this amendment, very well-intentioned though it is, that would create unintended consequences and raises the spectre of, as she put it, rolling internships of four weeks, on and on.
As we know, according to the Department for Education’s 2022 employer skills survey, around 5% of employers had offered internships, either paid or unpaid, in the preceding 12 months, and there were around 200,000 people on internships. The vast majority of these—88%—were of two weeks or more in duration, and nearly 30% were over six months. It is only right that these people should be paid the national minimum to which they are entitled.
As we have heard, the national minimum wage legislation provides for a number of exemptions to recognise the importance of gaining work experience. It is important to recognise that these examples have a strong and firm place in the economy, including students on placements for up to one year, as required as part of a UK course of either further or higher education, pupils below the compulsory school age, participants in certain government programmes to provide training, work experience or temporary work, and—the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, made this point—voluntary workers employed by a charity or voluntary organisation, providing they receive no monetary payments, except for expenses.
The Government are committed to banning unpaid internships, unless they are part of an educational or training course. Because of the way legislation is drafted, they are already largely banned. For national minimum wage purposes, the crucial fact is whether someone is considered a worker due to the nature of the work they do. Employers cannot simply call someone an intern or say they are doing work experience and not pay them. What matters is whether the arrangement they have makes them a worker for minimum wage purposes. However, one valid exception is work shadowing, which is where individuals are observing others perform tasks and are not performing any work themselves.
There is a risk that the broad-brush nature of this amendment could create loopholes, leaving interns or individuals on work experience open to abuse. Where an intern is carrying out tasks, they are a worker and therefore entitled to the national minimum wage. Accepting the amendment could mean that these individuals could be recruited for short-term roles and lose their entitlement to the minimum wage, even if they are performing work. The Government will be consulting on this issue soon. We want to engage with businesses and individuals who carry out internships or work experience. This is how we introduce change to ensure that individuals are protected and treated fairly.
We have heard from both the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, and my noble friend Lady O’Grady that enforcement is the issue here. The noble Viscount, Lord Colville, asked about the number of prosecutions. I am afraid I do not have that number to hand, but I will certainly undertake to write to the noble Viscount. Enforcement of any law is important, and I am sure that part of the consultation will cover issues of enforcement. Creating more laws but not solving the problem of enforcement would not actually get to the heart of the issue, which is making sure that, when people work, they are paid the national minimum to which they are entitled.
In that vein, I hope that we can deal with the issues the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, wishes to address most effectively outside the Bill. I therefore ask the noble Viscount, on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, to withdraw Amendment 129.
Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)
My Lords, this has been a short but informative debate and I am grateful to noble Lords who contributed. I listened very hard to the comments from both the Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, on making sure that we enforce the national minimum wage. The national minimum wage has been in force since, I think, 1998. That is a long time for it not to be enforced, and it includes a time when there was a Labour Government. I very much hope that this will be an extra nudge to make sure that it is enforced and HMRC is given very direct instructions to make sure it happens. As the noble Baroness pointed out, the lack of enforcement is very deleterious to getting working class people into work.
On the noble Baroness’s and the Minister’s concern about it creating a revolving door, surely it cannot be beyond the wit of us to work out that, after you have done your four weeks of work experience, you are not allowed to go back or to stay—that is why we have a four-week block. It is useful to carve out a particular role for people who are there just for educational or work experience reasons, which is quite separate from being an intern.
I hope very much that the Minister and the Government will take on board this amendment and these thoughts as they contribute to the effort to stamp out unfair work practices. On that note, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Hunt of Wirral
“Right of refusal to undertake instructions which would lead to inaccessible goods or services(1) A worker has the right to refuse an instruction or direction from his employer or anyone acting for his employer such as a manager which would—(a) cause the worker to undertake work which would result in the creation, development, deployment or sale of an inaccessible good or service,(b) cause the worker to undertake work which would result in the development, deployment or sale of a good or service, previously accessible, made inaccessible as a result of this instruction.(2) Any worker receiving such an instruction described in subsection (1) may report the nature of that instruction and their reason for refusing it to the Equality and Human Rights Commission.”
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, as we have already heard from the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond cannot be with us today, so I will move his amendment on his behalf and speak to the others in this group. In doing so, I declare a past interest as a consultant to the Royal National Institute of Blind People. For many years, I worked with Ian Bruce CBE, who was the director-general for many years, to promote access to work for those suffering blindness. That is particularly relevant to Amendment 297, but I will speak first to Amendment 131.
Amendment 131 raises important questions about accessibility, accountability and the role of workers in upholding inclusive standards in the goods and services we create and deliver. The principle at the heart of this proposal—that workers should not be compelled to participate in making a product or service less accessible or in producing something that excludes by design—is serious and worthy. As technology and infrastructure continue to evolve, ensuring access for all, including people with a disability, is a matter not merely of compliance but of basic fairness and social responsibility. The amendment seeks to give workers a right of refusal where they are being asked to carry out work that would knowingly—that is, knowingly to them—result in the development or sale of inaccessible goods or services. It also establishes a route for reporting such an event to the Equality and Human Rights Commission.
I can certainly see the intent here to empower those on the front lines of design and delivery to raise concerns and to prevent regressions in accessibility. There are of course many questions about how this would operate in practice, particularly around definitions, scope and the safeguards needed to ensure clarity and fairness for both workers and employers. These are not reasons to dismiss the amendment, but they suggest that further discussion may be needed around implementation, enforcement and the supporting mechanisms that would then make such a right meaningful and workable.
We all have a role to play in embedding accessibility into our systems and structures. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will engage with the substance of the proposal and give thought to how the principle behind it might be taken forward, whether through this amendment or through other means.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 131, 297 and 314 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, so movingly introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt.
Each of these amendments seeks to address long-standing inequalities that disabled people continue to face, particularly in the context of work and access to goods and services. Amendment 131 raises the important principle that workers should not be compelled to contribute to the development or sale of products that are knowingly inaccessible—which the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, raised. I hope that the Government, through the Department for Business and Trade, will publish clear guidance on what constitutes inaccessible products and services. Such guidance is needed. It would be invaluable in informing decision-making for businesses and helping workers recognise when they may be asked to contribute to the creation or sale of goods that fail to meet accessibility standards.
Amendment 297, meanwhile, calls for a royal commission. Despite what the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said, I veer towards saying that we do need something formal such as a royal commission to investigate the persistently low employment levels among blind and sight-impaired people, a disparity that deserves serious attention. The questions that these amendments raise are valid and warrant a considered response from the Government.
I am also interested in the reasoning behind Amendment 314, which calls for a programme and timeline to develop an action plan aimed at closing the disability gap. Recent research from the TUC revealed that the disability gap stood at a staggering 17.2% in 2024, which was an increase on the figures quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, from 2023. The same figures do not reoccur every year—they are going up—and these figures show that. The amendment represents a measured and practical approach, reflecting a growing consensus on the need for greater transparency and accountability in tackling workplace inequality.
Even if the Government are, unsurprisingly, not minded to accept the amendments in their current form, I hope that Ministers will consider how their intent may be taken forward through alternative means—and there can be alternative means. These are not radical demands but thoughtful suggestions for achieving progress in areas where it is long overdue. I hope that the Government’s heart will be in favour of the reasoning behind these amendments, and that we can all work together towards bringing the legislation into line with what our conscience is saying.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond for his amendments in this group, and my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral for introducing them on his behalf. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, for his contribution.
There is no doubt that those with disabilities, including blind and partially sighted people, face different challenges in the workplace, and the more we can do to increase awareness and representation in the workplace for these people and these groups, the better. We must also recognise that for many disabled people, the challenges begin long before a job interview. Structural barriers, from education and training to transport and technology, can compound over time and create a labour market that is harder to enter and harder to stay in. If legislation can help remove those barriers and create conditions for more equitable access to work, it is our responsibility to act.
It is also important that employers are supported and not penalised, so legislation should provide clarity and encourage inclusive practices. It should offer the right incentives and should not raise the cost or the perceived risk of hiring somebody who may already face disadvantage. Unfortunately, some elements of current legislation do just that.
I hope that the Government and the Minister listened to the concerns that were so well articulated by my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Palmer. These are not radical demands, as the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, pointed out, and I hope the Government will address them.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Collins of Highbury) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, for moving Amendment 131 and speaking to Amendments 297 and 314, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond. Of course, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and I go back a long, long way. When I was in the T&G, he was frequently instructed by my union to defend workers, so I appreciate that he is absolutely on the right side of this agenda.
Of course, this is an issue that we have been debating for a very long time. I particularly pay tribute to the late Alf Morris, Lord Morris, who absolutely focused on this agenda and was responsible for the Disability Discrimination Act, which has been the foundation of all the other changes since then.
On Amendment 131, it is important to be clear that the Equality Act 2010 already places a duty on providers of goods, services and facilities, and persons exercising public functions, to make reasonable adjustments for disabled service users. The Equality and Human Rights Commission, as Great Britain’s national equality and human rights body, safeguards and enforces the laws that protect people’s rights to fairness, dignity and respect. In the context of this debate, it monitors and has powers to enforce the Equality Act, which prohibits discrimination, harassment and victimisation in a variety of settings, including work. The commission has been active in monitoring disability equality, including as part of its regular comprehensive reviews of how Britain is performing on equality and human rights, as well as its work in monitoring compliance with the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. The commission’s powers do not extend to monitoring the accessibility of manufactured goods or the development of services and, as such, it would not be able to respond to reporting of the kind suggested in the new clause. Therefore, the Government are unable to support the amendment.
Turning to Amendment 297, again I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for speaking to this amendment and drawing attention to this important issue, and of course I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, who has been a strong voice on this and recognise his contribution in championing the rights of blind and sight-impaired people. Again, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, can go back to the days when my union heavily supported the National League of the Blind and Disabled—a union that had been representing blind and disabled workers for nearly 100 years, certainly when we were engaged with it.
I agree that addressing the level of employment for blind and sight-impaired people is still an important issue, which is why we have a range of existing specialist initiatives in place to support individuals, including those who are blind and sight-impaired, to stay in work or get back to work. Our existing measures provide tailored support to disabled people more broadly and are designed to be flexible to meet the range of needs, including the needs of those who are blind and sight impaired. I repeat the point that the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, made: existing measures include work coaches and disability employment advisers in jobcentres —working with employers, absolutely right—and access to work grants, again to facilitate and support employers in doing this, as well as joining up health and employment support around individuals through employment advisers in NHS, talking therapies, individual placement and support in primary care, as well as WorkWell.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister, who always responds positively to any suggestions that I make, particularly in the corridors of this House. I should have declared not only my long-standing work with the Royal National Institute of Blind People but the much-appreciated instructions that “Brother Hunt” used to receive in substantial form from the Transport and General Workers’ Union. I was delighted, when I was Secretary of State for Employment, to be invited to the retirement party of Mr Albert Blighton, who was much cherished by all those who worked so hard for him.
I thank the Minister. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill. We disagreed a little about royal commissions. I recall being told that they took minutes but wasted years—I think it was a previous Labour Prime Minister who said that. There is a problem in that, as soon as you set up a body, you are postponing the opportunity to make the key decisions that are necessary. I guess the Minister did recognise that in his response; we do need to move on. These statistics have been at a seriously low level for a long time, and we have to find a way to break through so that people with disability are much more widely recognised as people of great talent who can contribute to the growth and competitiveness that we all so desperately want to see.
I recognise that the Government have taken a number of initiatives, and I will consult with my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond as we consider how to approach this issue on Report, but in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“Independent advisers(1) Section 288 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (restriction on contracting out) is amended as follows—(a) after subsection (4)(c) insert—“(ca) if they are a member of the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development or other Professional Body and have been certified in writing by the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development or, as the case may be, other Professional Body as competent to give advice, or”;(b) after subsection (4B) insert—“(4BA) In subsection (4)(ca) “Professional Body” means any organisation which is authorised by a regulation made by the Secretary of State pursuant to subsection (4BB).(4BB) The Secretary of State may make a regulation or regulations authorising any organisation as a Professional Body for the purposes of this section.(4BC) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (4BB) is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.”(2) Section 203 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (restrictions on contracting out) is amended as follows—(a) after subsection (3A)(c) insert—“(ca) if they are a member of the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development or other Professional Body and have been certified in writing by the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development or, as the case may be, other Professional Body as competent to give advice, or”;(b) after subsection (4) insert—“(4A) In subsection (3A)(ca) “Professional Body” means any organisation which is authorised by a regulation made by the Secretary of State pursuant to subsection (4B).(4B) The Secretary of State may make a regulation or regulations authorising any organisation as a Professional Body for the purposes of this section.(4C) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (4B) is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.”(3) Section 49 of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 (restrictions on contracting out) is amended as follows—(a) after subsection (5)(c) insert—“(ca) if they are a member of the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development or other Professional Body and have been certified in writing by the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development or, as the case may be, other Professional Body as competent to give advice, or”;(b) after subsection (7) insert—“(7A) In subsection (5)(ca) “Professional Body” means any organisation which is authorised by a regulation made by the Secretary of State pursuant to subsection (7B).(7B) The Secretary of State may make a regulation or regulations authorising any organisation as a Professional Body for the purposes of this section.(7C) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (7B) is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.”(4) Section 58 of the Pensions Act 2008 (restrictions on agreements to limit operation) is amended as follows—(a) after subsection (6)(c) insert—“(ca) is a member of the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development or other Professional Body and has been certified in writing by the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development or, as the case may be, other Professional Body as competent to give advice, or”;(b) after subsection (8) insert—“(8A) In subsection (6)(ca) “Professional Body” means any organisation which is authorised by a regulation made by the Secretary of State pursuant to subsection (8B).(8B) The Secretary of State may make a regulation or regulations authorising any organisation as a Professional Body for the purposes of this section.(8C) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (8B) is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.”(5) Section 147 of the Equality Act 2010 (qualifying settlement agreement) is amended as follows—(a) after subsection (4)(c) insert—“(ca) a member of the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development or other Professional Body certified in writing by the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development or, as the case may be, other Professional Body as competent to give advice;”;(b) after subsection (6) insert—“(6A) In subsection (4)(ca) “Professional Body” means any organisation which is authorised by a regulation made by the Secretary of State pursuant to subsection (6B).(6B) The Secretary of State may make a regulation or regulations authorising any organisation as a Professional Body for the purposes of this section.(6C) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (6B) is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.””Member's explanatory statement
This clause expands the independent advisers who may advise employees and workers on a settlement agreement.
Lord Pitkeathley of Camden Town (Lab)
My Lords, I have tabled Amendment 132 as a probing amendment to highlight some of the concerns from the perspective of small businesses. Amendment 137, proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, may perhaps be a different side of the same coin. I refer the House to my register of interests.
The intention behind the amendment is to explore the scope of possible options for better supporting both employees and employers, particularly small employers, who often lack access to in-house HR support, legal expertise or representation from trade unions. This legislation rightly seeks to strengthen workplace protections, and with that comes the need to ensure that small employers are equipped to meet their responsibilities fairly and confidently without being overwhelmed.
A one-size-fits-all approach risks overlooking the structural disadvantages that many small businesses face in navigating employment disputes or resolving workplace issues informally. One concern in this context is the potential for so-called ambulance chasing. I use the phrase cautiously, but it reflects a genuine anxiety among small employers. In the absence of good advice or proper guidance, a small employer may feel compelled to settle a claim, not based on merit, but because the cost, stress and complexity of the legal process makes fighting it feel simply unviable. That can undermine confidence in the system for everyone.
The aim behind the amendment is to consider how we might increase the availability of qualified independent advisers—professionals who can support employees in entering into a settlement agreement with full confidence and understanding, but in a way that is accessible, affordable and proportionate for small businesses too. This could help reduce the number of cases that unnecessarily escalate into formal litigation.
The presence of a well-informed independent adviser can give both parties clarity and reassurance. In such circumstances, access to credible professionals of the kind that organisations like the CIPD can recommend or help bring forward would seem both helpful and sensible. I fully acknowledge the concerns raised by colleagues on these Benches, particularly the risk of diluting the role of unions, especially in larger workplaces, where collective representation plays such an essential role. I value constructive conversations with colleagues and recognise the importance of safeguarding that voice and that function.
At the same time, I believe it important that the voice of business, particularly small business, is heard clearly from these Benches. Too often, the debate around employment rights can polarise into assumptions of employer versus employee or big business versus organised labour. But many of us bring experience from the front lines of running businesses that are small, community based and deeply invested in treating their staff fairly. It is essential that these perspectives are represented not to dilute rights but to ensure that they are designed in a way that is practical and sustainable and that supports good employment outcomes for all.
I also welcome the Government’s broad commitment to improving the enforcement system, including through proposals for the fair work agency and reforms to the tribunal process. These are important developments, and I hope that they lead to a more accessible and efficient workplace landscape for all parties.
Nevertheless, I believe that the specific issues raised here, particularly those that affect small and micro-businesses, merit further reflection. We know that many small employers genuinely want to do the right thing but, without access to the right structures or advice, they may find themselves exposed. That can have an effect on not just the business owner but employees, who may not get the resolution they deserve. Just as we rightly ensure that employees feel heard and protected, those of us with business experience also want to ensure that employers’ concerns are reflected, especially where they lack the infrastructure to manage complex processes alone.
I am happy to withdraw the amendment following the debate and the Minister’s response, but I hope that the reflections it prompts will help shape the implementation of the Bill in ways that are proportionate, inclusive and fair to businesses of all sizes, as well as to the people they employ. I beg to move.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 137 which, as the noble Lord, Lord Pitkeathley, said, is probably the other side of the same coin.
My amendment seeks to expand the statutory right to be accompanied at disciplinary and grievance hearings. As it stands, the law allows workers to be accompanied by only a fellow employee or trade union representative. My Amendment 137—the other side of the coin—would broaden that right to include individuals certified by a recognised professional body as having relevant experience and training in supporting workers through such processes. It also provides for the Secretary of State to regulate which organisations may be authorised as professional bodies for this purpose to ensure that a proper standard is maintained.
At the heart of any disciplinary process is the need for transparency, fairness and due process. This is especially true in the workplace, where livelihoods and the professional reputations of individuals are at stake. Workers should never have to undergo the difficult procedures of disciplinary or grievance hearings alone. The presence of a colleague, union representative or other chosen companion ensures that employees not only are supported but have a safeguard against any unfair treatment or misunderstandings during the process. Not every individual is able to cope with this on their own. Some may well do, but they will need some help.
In fact, the presence of a properly trained professional companion is often the difference between an employee being able to make their case cogently or being denied a fair hearing. The law currently goes some way towards recognising this, but I am afraid that it is increasingly inadequate for the 21st century.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, I rise with the soothing balm of cross-party collaboration to support the excellent amendments put forward by the noble Lords, Lord Pitkeathley of Camden Town and Lord Palmer of Childs Hill. I declare at the outset an interest as a member for more than 20 years of the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, an estimable professional body. More importantly, I have been made redundant twice. My experience of redundancy is that it is often a difficult and traumatic experience if you are working for a small company or if you are relatively new to the company. I certainly had a great deal of sustenance and support from my trade union representative in securing and expediting a reasonably successful outcome in what could have been a very difficult period financially for me in that situation—this is many years ago.
I think the benefit of these amendments is that they look from the perspective of the small employer in the example given by the noble Lord, Lord Pitkeathley, and from the employee’s perspective in the example given by the noble Lord, Lord Palmer. I think that, for people who have, for various reasons, chosen not to join a trade union, it is important that not just anyone, not their mate from the pub, but a professional accredited person can accompany and support them in this.
Normally, I would not want to amend a Bill unnecessarily, but I genuinely think it would not be administratively and financially onerous for these amendments to be added to the Bill, and in fact they would improve it. I would not say they are cost free, but they would be important in saving potentially significant amounts of money if, as the noble Lord, Lord Pitkeathley, has said, they would alleviate or ameliorate the possibility of an escalation to expensive litigation and an employment tribunal. Having an expert in the room with you can sometimes dissipate the anger, the frustration and the sense of a battle between two sides, and in that respect it is sensible.
For those reasons, with the proviso that I have experienced these issues myself, I think the amendments are sensible and I look to the Minister to give them due consideration. They would not add to the burden of businesses, and in the long term they would save significant amounts of money.
Lord Barber of Ainsdale (Lab)
My Lords, I oppose Amendments 132 and 137. Both of them seek to expand the list of organisations recognised in law to represent workers. Amendment 132 relates to representation in reaching settlement agreements, while Amendment 137 refers to representation in hearings at workplace disciplinary and grievance hearings.
At present, the law specifies that individuals can be supported by trade unions, fellow workers or, in respect of settlement agreements, lawyers or other qualified people from, for example, the respected network of citizens advice bureaux. Both amendments propose that the right to representation be extended to professional bodies specified by the Secretary of State, and Amendment 132 refers in particular to CIPD members. I have to say I am genuinely puzzled about which other professional bodies would wish to take on this new role.
In short, the law should rest where it stands. Workers should be represented, where they are present, by workers’ organisations—trade unions—that, where appropriate, can provide legal representation. The CIPD is widely respected as an organisation of HR professionals, but it essentially represents employers’ interests and would surely be conflicted if it were to take on this very different role.
I know my noble friend Lord Pitkeathley is motivated by a wish to ensure that people working in small and medium-sized businesses without trade union representation should have relevant expertise available to help resolve difficult workplace issues. I support that aspiration, but ACAS—which I chaired for six years, to declare an interest—has the responsibility and the independent, impartial expertise to conciliate in such matters, and a considerable track record of success in doing so. Far better to ensure that it has increased resources to provide this vital service in the interests of both parties in any such dispute, rather than muddying the water on the issue of who is competent and appropriate to represent workers. I hope that both these amendments will not be pressed.
Lord Ashcombe (Con)
My Lords, it seems that, yet again, the noble Lord, Lord Barber, and I are not going to quite agree. I support both these amendments, particularly the one in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Palmer.
I would like to look at the amendments from the point of view of the employee. When an employee finds themselves in a disciplinary or grievance hearing—we heard from my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough earlier—it signifies a profound breakdown in their relationship with their employer. It is a moment fraught with stress, uncertainty and fear; one where an individual may feel their professional life is unravelling before them. They may question how they will continue to support their family, whether they can afford to remain in their home, and what their future may hold.
Large corporations, such as the one I work for, have the benefit of HR departments to guide them through such proceedings, ensuring that their position is well-organised and profoundly represented. I have had the dubious pleasure of having to make people redundant; it is not fun, even with HR beside you, but they had nobody. In smaller companies, personal relationships between employer and employee can add an additional layer of complexity to the situation. In either case, the individual facing the hearing is often isolated, and struggling to recollect past events and present their case clearly.
These amendments, particularly Amendment 137, propose a fair and practical position: the right to have the assistance of a certified individual—someone equipped to review the facts dispassionately, organise events in logical sequence and provide the employee with a much-needed sense of reassurance. As we have heard, the trade unions already fulfil this role, particularly in large companies. However, many employees, myself included, choose not to join a union for a variety of personal reasons. The absence of union membership should not mean a lack of support in such critical moments. This amendment would ensure that every employee, regardless of union affiliation, has access to a certified individual who may provide guidance when facing disciplinary proceedings, fostering a fairer and more balanced process. For this reason, I support these amendments to uphold the right of fairness in our workplaces.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to this debate, and in particular the noble Lords, Lord Pitkeathley of Camden Town and Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, for introducing their Amendments 132 and 137.
As has been said, not all workers have or want access to a union representative. In fact, the latest statistics that I have from the Department for Business and Trade suggest that only 22% of all employees are unionised. Not all workers have access to or can afford legal advice, particularly, as the noble Lord, Lord Pitkeathley, pointed out, those in smaller workplaces or those performing more precarious roles. Allowing trained, certified HR professionals to provide advice could help ensure that more employees are supported when making important decisions about their rights.
It is important to recognise the valuable support already available through organisations such as ACAS—mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Barber—citizens advice bureaux and others, which provide free and impartial advice. This amendment complements those services by seeking to expand the range of qualified advisers accessible to workers. The principle of widening access to competent support is a reasonable one, especially where safeguards are in place through certification by recognised professional bodies. As my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough pointed out, if nothing else, that ought to serve to ease pressure on employment rights tribunals, which, as we have discussed many times over the course of this Committee, are stretched to breaking point.
I have to say to the noble Lord, Lord Barber of Ainsdale, that that was a classic case of the TUC advocating for a closed shop, and I applaud him for that. However, not so many employees are now members of trade unions, as I have pointed out, and the majority of trade union members are in the public sector.
The question of genuine independence will be critical, and I would be interested to hear the Minister’s response on that. I would also say, perhaps to the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, that, without wishing to quibble too much with his amendment, I think that as currently written it gives the Secretary of State rather too much discretion in determining what is a professional body. If he wants to have a think about that, I am available for a chat.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Leong) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken. Before I turn to the amendments, may I wish the noble Lord, Lord Fox, a speedy recovery? I am just sorry that he was not cast in the next “Mission: Impossible”. I wish him a speedy recovery and return to the Committee, as we miss him here as well.
I turn to Amendments 132 and 137. Amendment 132, tabled by my noble friend Lord Pitkeathley of Camden Town, seeks to expand the scope of independent advisers who can advise individuals entering into settlement agreements. Settlement agreements in this context are a way in which employers and workers can settle potential claims. I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, had such a great experience with his trade union rep and got a really fair settlement. I hope he was pleased with that experience.
However, it is important that individuals understand the terms and effect of the proposed agreement and its effect on their ability to pursue claims in an employment tribunal. That is why legislation requires individuals to receive advice from a relevant independent adviser. Legislation outlines a range of advisers that can be used, including qualified lawyers and authorised officers of an independent trade union.
My noble friend’s amendment would expand the list of relevant independent advisers to include a certified member of the Chartered Institute of Personnel Development, an association of human resources professionals. This amendment would also give the Secretary of State the power to make regulations to include other professional bodies whose members would also be capable of giving advice.
While I understand that my noble friend has put forward this amendment on behalf of the CIPD, we believe current arrangements are working well and strike the right balance. I appreciate my noble friend’s passion and thank him for his contribution to this debate. We are happy to engage further on this issue at another time, but we do not think this amendment is required.
I now turn to Amendment 137, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, which seeks to expand the right to be accompanied by a certified companion at disciplinary and grievance hearings, as supported by the noble Lord, Lord Ashcombe. The law already provides that, when workers are invited to attend a disciplinary or grievance hearing, they are entitled to bring a companion who is either a fellow worker, an official employed by a trade union or a workplace trade union representative that the union has reasonably certified as having received training in acting as a worker’s companion in disciplinary or grievance hearings. Employers can now allow workers to be accompanied by a companion who does not fall within the above categories. Some workers have a contractual right to be accompanied by persons other than those listed earlier —for instance, a professional support body, a partner, a spouse or a legal representative.
The current law seeks to keep disciplinary and grievance procedures internal to workplaces, given that they are one of the initial steps in resolving tensions in a worker-employer relationship. Expanding the types of organisations that could be involved in representing workers at disciplinary and grievance meetings could lead to these hearings requiring legal representation for both the worker and the employer. This would therefore increase the costs of these hearings and reduce the chances of an amicable outcome. In addition to introducing legal expertise at these hearings, it could also reduce the likelihood of ACAS conciliation or mediation as the next step to resolve a dispute, as legal arguments will have already been made during an internal hearing. This could increase the likelihood of a tribunal claim being made. An amicable solution is, therefore, the fastest way to justice, as set out by my noble friend Lord Barber.
It is unclear where the demand for expanding this right is coming from and which workplaces would benefit. There are, of course, certain organisations, such as those that provide casework and legal services, that would benefit. But, as I have already set out, should an employer wish to nominate an organisation to accompany their workers, they can set this out in the terms and conditions of their workplace.
I therefore ask my noble friend to withdraw Amendment 132.
Lord Pitkeathley of Camden Town (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this short but important debate. I appreciate that my amendment may seem controversial to some, not to mention unfeasibly long, but I believe it is vital that the voices of all in the workplace are heard. I am pleased that they have been today. I emphasise that small employers are just as committed to their workforce as larger firms, and they want to attract and retain the best people too. This Bill is, in my view, both pro-worker and pro-business, and we should keep all sides in mind when we shape its final form.
I particularly appreciate the concerns raised by my noble friend Lord Barber of Ainsdale. I reassure him that I do not raise this amendment in the spirit of confrontation, as I am sure he knows, and I am sure these are conversations that we will continue. I know that we both want to achieve the best for all workers. None the less, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
“Impact on farm businessesWithin 12 months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must publish an assessment of the impact of the provisions of Part 1 of this Act on farm businesses in the United Kingdom.”
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 133 in my name.
I have to start by saying that the family farm tax introduced by this Government is a disastrous policy. According to the NFU, it has put 200,000 jobs at risk—a staggering number that should have stopped Ministers in their tracks. I am disappointed to see noble Lords opposite are laughing at that number. A recent economic report on the combined effect of these measures lays the facts bare. It estimates the direct cost to the Treasury at £1.9 billion by 2030, stemming from lost tax revenues and increased benefit claims due to job losses and reduced productivity. More than 60% of farmers are expected to cut investment by over 20%, choking off future growth and innovation. The cost to the wider economy will be staggering—a staggering £14.8 billion blow to gross value added, all for the sake of political posturing masquerading as employment reform. The effect on food security alone could be catastrophic.
I must also highlight a concern that has been brought to light by recent tragic events and official responses, and that is the case of a farmer who took his own life just before the Government’s Budget, which is a heartbreaking example of the immense pressures our rural communities face. These pressures are exacerbated by the looming inheritance tax changes that threaten the very future of family farms.
Despite the seriousness of this issue, the official statistics on farmer, landowner and family business owner suicides are woefully inadequate. There is a significant delay, often of years, before accurate data is published. This delay means we will not see reliable figures for suicides in 2026 until 2028 or later, and that is simply unacceptable. Without timely, detailed data, broken down by occupation, policymakers cannot fully understand the human cost of these policies. Would the Minister acknowledge the urgent need for this and commit to working with the Office for National Statistics and other relevant bodies to improve the frequency and detail of suicide data by occupation, particularly for farmers and rural workers, so that we can properly address and understand this crisis without delay?
Turning to this legislation, it represents a further devastating blow to British agriculture. This Bill introduces unfair dismissal rights from day one of employment without a shred of evidence that it is workable in sectors such as farming. The extension of unfair dismissal protections from two years to day one of employment is being pushed forward with no clear guidance, no transitional arrangements and no defined probationary period. There is only speculation, and speculation is not a legal framework.
The Minister will say that this is currently being consulted on, but in the meantime farms are exposed. Every hiring decision becomes a legal and financial gamble. If a worker turns out to be unsuitable, which can happen quickly in physically demanding and safety-critical environments, the employer may be already too late to act without risking litigation. In farming, where work is seasonal, strenuous and sometimes requires immediate action, farms cannot afford to spend months navigating HR processes. They cannot afford legal exposure every time a hire does not work out, and that is exactly what Bill sets out.
Then there is the matter of zero-hours contracts. This Government, in their detachment from rural life, believe that these contracts are exploitative, but on farms they are essential. Harvests do not run on clocks, and weather does not obey timetables. Labour demand swings sharply: one week it is quiet, and the next week it is all hands on deck. Therefore, flexibility is all. Without zero-hours contracts, many farms simply cannot function, so replacing them with rigid guaranteed-hours contracts is not just unrealistic but destructive. The Bill would force the farmers to guess months in advance how many workers they will need—or pay the price when nature does not co-operate.
Rural employers, particularly farms and estates, rely heavily on seasonal and zero-hour staff to meet unpredictable and time-sensitive labour demands. That is not a loophole but a necessity born of reality. But the Bill introduces a new legal obligation that completely fails to take account of how agriculture works. Under the proposals in Part 1, if a casual worker ends up working a regular pattern—say, 20 hours a week over a few months—the employer will be legally required to offer a guaranteed-hours contract reflecting that pattern. That will fundamentally alter the nature of seasonal hiring.
Instead of flexibility, farmers will be locked into fixed commitments, which mean guaranteed pay even if the work disappears. In farming, it often does: crops cannot be harvested in a thunderstorm, livestock routines change, and machinery breaks down. Labour needs fluctuate by the day and employers have to adapt. The Bill removes that option, forcing them to guarantee wages based on past patterns and not future needs, and the result of that inevitably will be higher staffing costs, less flexibility and more legal risk. Farmers will no longer be able to adjust hours week to week based on workload and may instead reduce hours across the board, or simply hire fewer workers to avoid triggering these new obligations. That is not security for workers; that is lost opportunity.
Then we come to flexible working—another ideological insertion into a sector where it simply cannot apply. The Bill increases the burden on employers to justify denying flexible working requests. But who in this Committee honestly believes that lambing can be done from home or that dairy herds can be milked on a four-day week? Farming needs people physically present on time and able to adapt to sudden changes. This measure will destroy farms and open the floodgates to legal claims, rather than improve their working conditions.
I turn to another deeply flawed proposal in the Bill: the changes to statutory sick pay, which will hit farm businesses with immediate and unsustainable costs. Under the current system, employees are entitled to SSP only after three consecutive days of sickness absence. That allows employers, especially small family farms, to absorb short-term minor absences without being penalised for every cold, sprain or missed morning. The Bill proposes to remove that protection entirely, and statutory sick pay will become payable from day one of absence. For most farms, this is not just a technical change but a fundamental shift in financial exposure.
Agricultural work is physically demanding, often outdoors and highly seasonal. Casual absences are common and often unavoidable. But, under the Bill, every single one of those absences now comes with an automatic cost from the very first missed shift. Under the current rules, if a farmhand calls in sick on Monday and is back by Wednesday, the farmer pays nothing. Under the Bill, the employer must pay statutory sick pay from day one. Multiply that by three or four casual workers, each with intermittent absences through lambing or harvest, and you have a significant unpredictable cost burden for a farm with already razor-thin margins.
It does not stop there: the Bill also proposes to reduce the lower earnings limit—currently £123 per week—meaning that even fewer workers on minimal-hours or short-term seasonal contracts will now be eligible for sick pay. These are precisely the workers whom farms hire during calving, lambing, crop picking and harvest, often working flexibly as needed. Under this system, a farm might be required to pay sick leave to a casual labourer who worked only a handful of hours the week before and might not be scheduled for any in the week ahead—that is not financial protection.
Farmers are also now expected to put in place formal absence tracking and management systems. That means logging each instance of sickness, reviewing attendance histories, holding review meetings, drafting improvement plans and, if things do not improve, potentially going through a formal dismissal process. If that were not enough, we now face the proposed cancellation payments. Farms will be penalised for calling off shifts at short notice, even when the reason is pouring rain or a late-season frost. These changes will force employers to choose between operating at a loss and paying people not to work, and in what rational universe is that considered progress?
The Bill, particularly Part 1, is not reform but sabotage. Amendment 133 is therefore essential. It does not block the Bill or repeal any of its measures; it simply demands what the Government have utterly failed to do, which is to deliver a detailed impact assessment of how these reckless changes would affect UK farm businesses. If the Bill proceeds unexamined, the consequences will not be theoretical: more farms will close, more jobs will disappear, and rural economies will contract. The very people this Government claim to support—working families, small businesses and so on—will be left to pick up the pieces. I reiterate my point about the necessity of food security in troubled times.
If the Government have nothing to hide, they should have no objection to analysing the impacts of this legislation on farm businesses, and they should accept Amendment 133. I beg to move.
Lord Deben (Con)
My Lords, I hope the Minister listened with great care to what my noble friend said. I declare an interest as a partner in a small farm. I was walking the fields only yesterday, looking at the disastrous effects of the fact that we have had practically no rain. It is not much more than a year ago that I had to look at the disastrous effects of having too much rain. We are an organic farm, and therefore we have looked after the soil very carefully and suffered less than others during that period. But many farmers were not able to get a harvest or plant because the weather was so bad, and they therefore lost two years.
I believe that we have a real problem of diversity here. We often talk about diversity as if it is about race or ethnic minority, but it is so interesting that no member of the current Cabinet represents a rural constituency or is, as far as I can discover, a country person at all. There are 9 million people who live in the countryside and who are hardly represented at all. To be perfectly fair, the shadow Cabinet does not have, as far as I can find out, anybody who is a country person of the sort we are talking about. This is something that has happened to our society, and we who are country people find it extremely difficult. Therefore, I want to say to the Minister, who is known for his generosity, that it is crucial for this Government to show that they are listening to and thinking about this section of the community.
The seat that I once represented is now represented by a Labour Member. She must find it very difficult to appeal to many of the people who voted for her because it does not appear that the Government whom she supports have really understood how the countryside works—in other words, what agriculture is. I could, of course, make a great statement about the terrible situation of the IHT changes, which were rather peculiar given that no previous Labour Chancellor has ever thought them a good idea. I could make all those arguments, but I want to tone down what I might have said to one single concept: Governments can get the support of the nation only if the nation feels that they understand it—not just bits but the whole of it. The introducer of the previous amendment, who I am afraid is just leaving—I was going to be polite about it—rightly talked about the Bill having to represents both sides of industry. I ask that the Bill also represents different parts of industry, and one of those parts is the rural agricultural scene. My concern is that this has not been looked at through the eyes of the countryside.
It may be that, when the Government do that, they do not want to make any changes, but it does not seem possible for the Government to convince people that those changes are not necessary unless they have done what Amendment 133 asks them to do. All we ask is that the Government look in detail at the effect of the Bill on the agricultural industry.
In ending, I want to say something true and really serious. We are entering a period in which food security will be crucial. Climate change means that we will have less and less opportunity to import from wide areas of the world. I remember, when I was Minister of Agriculture, being interviewed by the cleverest man in Europe, Peter Jay, who said, “We don’t need a Minister of Agriculture because we’ll always be able to import food from somewhere else”. How madly wrong that was. Climate change will mean that we find it more and more difficult to fill our shelves at home. Nothing undermines a Government more than two or three days of people being unable to eat what they want to eat.
Therefore, I say to the Government that I hope that this is a helpful amendment—and, if the Government say that they will not do what it asks, that says something to the 9 million people who live in the countryside and, even more, to the many people who keep food on our plates. No farmers, no food. If farmers are to do the job properly, the Government have to recognise that the weather that farmers deal with, which has always been the thing that is different about agriculture compared with any other industry, is now going to be a difference that is made very much worse, as we have worse and worse examples of more extreme weather. In general terms, the Government—unlike other parties—have been extremely good on climate change and I ask them not to let themselves down on this but to say, “Yes, we will look and see exactly what these provisions will do for agriculture—and, if we find that they need alteration, we will be able to come back with the facts”.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I support Amendment 133 from my noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom. It is a great pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Deben. In doing so, I draw attention to my registered interests, in particular as a dairy and livestock farmer.
I am most grateful to my noble friends for their supportive comments for British farmers. I have asked in Written Questions and in debates whether the Government would commit to keeping detailed and timely data on the number of farmers and family business owners taking their own lives in the run-up to the introduction of the reduced inheritance tax reliefs, due in April next year. So far these requests have been denied or ignored. We know that a number already have taken that dreadful step—and, as the deadline approaches, the risk will only rise. It would appear to be callous in the extreme that the Government refuse to take responsibility for this tragic human cost of their Budget decisions. Will the Minister commit to keeping and publishing the data in a timely manner?
Farming has unique employment challenges, as others have already mentioned in this short debate—and as indeed the whole country is now aware, thanks to the popularity of “Clarkson’s Farm”. Arable crops and silage need to be harvested when the weather allows and when they are ready for harvest. This leads to high-pressure operations at short notice and often at anti-social hours. It is not unusual to see harvesters and wagons operating well into the night until the dew starts to form. If staff are not available to operate that equipment at the optimum time, it can lead to reduced yields, higher drying costs or even the failure to harvest a crop at all.
In the livestock and dairy sectors, staff are also required to be available to work flexibly. In livestock, this can mean being available for callout to inspect the health of animals, assist in lambing and calving, and recapture escaped animals. In dairy, cows need to be milked at regular intervals from one to three times a day, depending on the system being employed. If that regular schedule is not followed, animal health can be threatened and milk yields suffer.
In the fruit and vegetable growing industry, the fruit and vegetables need to be picked when ripe and when the market demands it. Contracts governing the supply of these goods to retailers and processors can be highly onerous and punitive when conditions are not met. It is essential for this industry that it can employ workers to meet these needs and contract terms.
Unfortunately, agricultural employers need to have staff who are committed to working flexibly, and access to staff who are willing to work when the work is available. The Bill makes it more difficult for employers to refuse employee submissions for flexible working requests. While these submissions can already be made from day one, employers can refuse them on the grounds of inability to fill the gap from reduced hours, or the detrimental impact on business performance or meeting customer demand. The higher bar set by the Bill is likely to make it harder to protect the business.
The Bill applies unfair dismissal rights from day one of employment versus the two years currently in law. We are yet to see the timetable to be proposed, creating significant uncertainty. I have first-hand experience of the damage that a new, unsatisfactory employee can do to a business, even without any malice, and being able to remove them at short notice when the poor performance is revealed is critical. In that case, due to the nature of dairy farming, it took over a year for the poor performance to come to light. The widespread industry reliance on casual workers is threatened by restrictions on zero- and low-hours contracts and the potential for those to obtain a right to guaranteed-hours contracts.
Paying fees for cancellation of shifts at short notice is also impractical in farming. While it is easy to see why the Government might want to penalise employers for potentially capricious and harmful decisions around shifts, the timing of work in farming is often not predictable. Therefore, it does not make sense to penalise farmers even more than they are already for changing weather.
The Bill is a massive threat to the viability of British farming. The extent of that threat will be known only when the Government have decided when employees’ probationary periods will end, when a casual employee gains permanent employment rights, and when notice has to be given of a shift cancellation. I ask the Minister why this work has not been done already and why are we debating a Bill when the extent of its negative impact is unknowable.
The English farming industry has been targeted by this Government, with dramatic reductions in delinked payments, the abrupt cancellation of SFI applications, the imposition of inheritance tax and the withdrawal of the rural services delivery grant being the highlights. We now read in the papers that the spending review is likely to slash the farming budget, offering little hope that government support will improve. Farmers also now face greater competition from heavily subsidised overseas farmers with little or no environmental obligations. On top of that, as my noble friend Lord Deben highlighted, our arable farmers are struggling with low crop prices and extremely dry weather damaging yields.
Let us at least accept this modest amendment to the Bill to allow an open appraisal of the impact on the sector after a full annual cycle, when the terms of the Bill are fixed and in force, and ensure that the information is available to make changes that might prove necessary. This Government have claimed to be pro business and pro growth. Will they, at last, show some support to this business? I hope that the Minister will listen to this debate, depart from his brief and offer encouragement.
Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)
I rise with some trepidation to comment on the proposal of an impact assessment for farming businesses, as I am not a farmer and have never lived on a farm. But I say to the noble Lord, Lord Deben, that there are lots of people who support the farmers and the culture, as well as the steadfastness of an industry that is so reliant on the weather. I do not think that any other industry has to try to run a business, make a living and make a small profit with the weather this country has—unfortunately, I cannot blame the weather on the Government, or on any Government. It is literally the force of nature.
In considering the implications of the Bill, it is important that we pay close attention to the needs and circumstances of the UK farming sector. Agricultural businesses operate within a complex and fragile environment, where changes to employment law, however well intentioned, can have disproportionate effects. Recent debates around the family farm tax further highlight concerns about the punitive financial pressures on farmers, underscoring the need for careful assessment of any new burdens placed on this sector. This amendment proposes a structured approach to understand the impact through a formal assessment within a defined timeframe. While views may differ on whether such a provision needs to be set out in primary legislation, the underlying concern is legitimate and should be supported. We should ensure that policy changes do not inadvertently place additional strain on a sector already facing considerable challenges.
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken. I have listened to every noble Lord’s concerns. To be fair to the Secretary of State for Defra and my fellow ministerial colleagues at Defra, I should say that they are in regular contact with the farming community and farmers. The Secretary of State has recently spoken at the National Farmers’ Union conference. My noble friend Lady Hayman comes from a farming community and understands the problems that noble Lords have raised.
I turn to Amendment 133, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom. As I have repeated multiple times throughout the debate in this place, we have already published a comprehensive set of impact assessments, based on the best available evidence, on the workers likely to be affected by these measures. This includes an assessment of the economic impacts of the Bill, including impacts on workers, businesses, sectors and regions. We intend to publish further analysis in the form of an enactment impact assessment when the Bill secures Royal Assent and, as I have said previously, further assessments when we consult on proposed regulations to meet Better Regulation requirements. The 23 amendments on impact assessments tabled by the Opposition would pre-empt work that the Government are already planning to undertake.
It should also be mentioned that this Government are steadfast in our commitment to Britain’s farming industry. It is why we will invest £5 billion into farming over the next two years, the largest amount ever directed to sustainable food production in our country.
It is with immense sadness that we hear about suicides in the farming community, and I agree with noble Lords that we need to have accurate and timely data. I promise noble Lords that I will speak to my ministerial colleagues at Defra and the ONS as far as their request is concerned.
It will be no surprise to the noble Lord that we oppose Amendment 133 and ask him to withdraw it.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I thank the Minister for his response and all noble Lords for their contributions to this important debate. I particularly thank my noble friends Lord Deben and Lord Roborough for their expertise, which I think noble Lords around the Committee will agree shed great light on this tricky subject. I also greatly appreciate the support of the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, for what is a very modest amendment, and I am therefore disappointed with the Minister’s response, although pleased that he will consult Defra further.
On the subject of inheritance tax, the noble Lord asserted that Defra has been steadfast in its support for the farming community, but it is not clear that the farming community has recognised that steadfastness, because over a dozen leading farming organisations, including the National Farmers’ Union and the Country Land and Business Association, have condemned the Government for a lack of transparency. Those groups have written directly to the Treasury demanding the release of modelling and evidence behind the policy.
When pressed to explain why they rejected the fairer clawback option for inheritance tax reforms, Treasury Ministers offered nothing more than vague assertions—no consultation, no published impact assessment—and when challenged under freedom of information laws, the Treasury responded by saying that it was
“not in the public interest”
to disclose this analysis. How can the Government possibly claim this is not in the public interest? Are they really arguing that the means of food production and all that pertains to it are not in the public interest? We are talking about reforms that could rip through the foundations of multigenerational farms, force land sales and strip the viability from small rural businesses.
If this Government’s approach so far was not reckless enough, a fresh report from the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee has added yet more weight to the call for caution and transparency. The cross-party group of MPs has urged the Government to delay its proposed reforms to agricultural property relief and business property relief for two years, pushing back the implementation date from April 2026 to April 2027, with any final decisions postponed until October 2026. That is because the reforms are intended to tighten inheritance tax reliefs on farms and agricultural businesses and were introduced without adequate consultation or any formal impact assessment. The committee highlighted that rushing ahead without proper analysis risks serious consequences, including impacts on land values, tenant farmers, family farms and food production, and it warned that this could disrupt the food supply chain, potentially driving up supermarket prices and hitting consumers across the UK. Noble Lords should take seriously my noble friend Lord Deben’s warning about food shortages and what it does to government popularity.
What is particularly striking is the committee’s citation of a March 2025 survey which found that 70% of farmers were optimistic about their rural businesses before the Autumn Budget, but that figure plummeted to just 12% afterwards. That collapse in confidence speaks volumes about the uncertainty and fear that these policies have created within rural communities, and the same attitude is now evident in this Employment Rights Bill. Once again, we are seeing major legislative changes with profound economic impacts pushed through without proper consultation, without proper published impact assessments and without any serious recognition of the realities facing British farmers, and that is precisely why this modest amendment is so important.
At the bare minimum, before further damage is done, we should demand an independent, published assessment of how these employment law changes will affect UK farm businesses—not months after the fact and not hidden behind opaque Treasury memos. It is in the public interest, so it should be within 12 months of this Act passing. That is a modest, proportionate and entirely reasonable request. I will withdraw the amendment on this occasion but reserve the right to return to it. Again, I refer to my noble friend Lord Deben’s suggestion, or perhaps warning: 9 million people are watching.
Lord Lucas
“Notice periodsWhen—(a) an employee’s contract of employment contains a notice period of more than two weeks,(b) the employee gives notice of their intention to leave, and(c) their employer enforces any part of the notice period beyond two weeks,the employee may require the employer to pay them, for the enforced notice period beyond two weeks, at whichever is the higher of their current rate of remuneration and the remuneration offered to them under any new contract of employment that they have secured.”Member's explanatory statement
The purpose of this amendment is to incentivise shorter notice periods.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I thank Tim Leunig for drawing my attention to this proposal. The standard in the UK when a person has a job and contracts for a new one is that he or she has to serve a three-month notice period. In the United States, notice periods are typically two weeks. There is no legal requirement, but that is the convention and any longer is considered unreasonable. It is quite clear, looking at things in the round, that three months is not necessary to run a dynamic and effective economy—it is inefficient. Shifting the notice period down would be a contribution to productivity and a benefit to workers. Most people get a pay rise when they move jobs. Getting it 11 weeks earlier would mean a direct rise in the individual’s income, as well as a rise in GDP and tax revenues. It is of all-round economic benefit.
The most important effect is indirect. If notice periods are short, a dynamic company can scale up more quickly and easily than is currently possible. It can go out and bid for contracts knowing that it can get the staff in time to honour them. If an entrepreneur has a good idea, they can make it happen. If demand rises for one firm, it can respond more easily. Making it easier for dynamic firms to grow quickly is definitely an economic benefit.
Finally, knowing that employees can leave more quickly would give firms an incentive to think more carefully about them. If their leaving is a big nuisance, firms will want them to stay, and will therefore have an incentive to think more about pay rises, promotions, new training opportunities and other things that make the employee feel that his current job is worth having. In contrast, allowing firms to set long notice periods helps incumbents, particularly firms not seeking to grow and that do not want to respond to growth opportunities. That is not a productivity-enhancing strategy.
My amendment suggests a gentle way of seeking to change current practice in the UK—to incentivise a change without requiring anything. If the Government can see a better way of getting to the same outcome, I should be delighted to support them. I beg to move.
Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)
My Lords, this amendment raises questions about notice periods and how they are handled under employment contracts. I make no particular case for or against it, but it draws attention to a more pressing issue: the complexity introduced by this Bill around notice periods and contractual exits. For many employers, particularly those without specialist legal support, understanding and implementing these new requirements will not be straightforward.
I am appreciative that this amendment attempts to bring some clarity and firmer parameters to that part of the framework. Striking the right balance is crucial: while shorter notice periods can support quicker recruitment and flexibility, they may limit employers’ ability to ensure a smooth handover or maintain continuity in key roles. Any reform should therefore weigh the benefits of agility against operational realities.
If the Government want compliance, they must ensure that the legislation is not only sound in principle but clear in practice. That means providing details on how these provisions interact with existing arrangements and what precisely is expected of employers. A complex system with vague guidance helps no one. That is not the first time we have made that point to the Government tonight, and we will keep doing so.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Lucas for his amendment and the gentle way in which he introduced what could be a very important move to simplify what the noble Lord, Lord Goddard of Stockport, rightly reminded us is becoming a hugely complicated employment situation, with so many differing, complex and contradictory requirements.
It could be said—and is being said by a number of HR departments—that this is just the sort of Bill that will give an enormous boost to human resources as a profession. There are already queues of people lining up to join HR departments. My noble friend seeks a simple aim: to incentivise shorter notice periods and avoid situations where individuals are financially disadvantaged for moving jobs, especially when their employers insist on enforcing long notice terms.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Information and Technology (Baroness Jones of Whitchurch) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for this short debate and the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for tabling Amendment 140.
When we were developing the plan to make work pay, we were clear in our ambition to establish a fair deal that balances employees’ rights and protections with employers’ confidence to hire the talent, skills and expertise they require to grow their business. A notice period is a period of time put in place to ensure a smooth transition, allowing the employer to manage minimum disruption to business requirements while the employee hands over their responsibilities. We therefore feel that, in the round, our proposals are beneficial to employers and fair. Many employers do not want their staff to leave too quickly, so that fairness is built in. Although the statutory minimum notice period that an employee must give an employer is currently, after one month’s employment, no less than one week, often a longer contractual notice period is agreed between the employer and their employees. I must say to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, that I do not recognise three months as the standard; for many workers, it is considerably less.
This is all about fairness and balance. In practice, employers and employees recognise that both parties require stability and certainty to maintain a fair agreement. Of course, if an employment contract specifies a notice period longer than the statutory minimum, an employee is entitled to receive that longer period of notice, but the employer sets that out in the contract at the outset.
The current minimum notice periods legislation entitles an employee to their normal contractual pay rate during a notice period, as you would expect. This measure would require an enforcement mechanism of employees’ rights to increased notice pay, which would result in more disputes being taken to employment tribunals or the fair work agency. It would create a requirement for an employee’s current and future employer to confirm their salary offer, adding an additional step in the process of offboarding an employee. It also presents the possibility of increased financial burdens on employers.
So, the Government feel that it is not necessary to make a further assessment of this. They have not made an assessment of the costs and the impacts of making this change to employment rights. To do so would require careful consultation with employers and employee representatives. However, we have not received lobbying or any suggestion from employers that they particularly want the sort of proposal that the noble Lord has put forward.
The Bill is delivering the commitments made by the Government to improve workers’ rights in the plan to make work pay. I have listened to the noble Lord, and I absolutely agree with the noble Lords, Lord Goddard and Lord Hunt, that we want a simple process. Our process is simple. It is also fair to both sides: to the employer and to the employee. If those arrangements need to change, by and large, that can be done within the workplace, based on negotiations—so we do not feel the pressure to make the changes that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, is proposing, but I thank him nevertheless for the suggestion.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her reply. I am sorry she does not feel sympathy for the direction I was taking. It seems to me that when you are addressing the question of productivity in the economy, there are no big solutions. It is rather like the way British cycling came to win: you make a very large number of very small improvements, all in the same direction.
This was intended to be one of those, to increase productivity but at the same time to make life a bit better for employees. I am inclined that way. I spent last weekend at a Premier Inn. Premier Inn does not provide toilet brushes. I do not see why the cleaners who come after me and other people should have to scrub out the toilet bowls when I could do that myself. Having a campaign with Premier Inn to change its policy on that would be worthwhile. It is a small change but, by making small changes enough times, you make some progress. Indeed, one of the secrets of this House is to make small changes. So I am sorry that this small change has not appealed to the Minister, but I will try again. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“Prohibition of unpaid trial shifts(1) The National Minimum Wage Act 1998 is amended as follows.(2) After section 3(3) (exclusion of, and modifications for, certain classes of person) insert—“(3A) No provision shall be made under subsection (2)(a) in respect of persons working trial shifts. (3B) In subsection (3A), a “trial shift” is any form of work which a person undertakes in view of potentially being offered a temporary or permanent position.”(3) After section 41 (power to apply Act to individuals who are not otherwise “workers”) insert—“41A Application of this Act to persons undertaking trial shifts(1) The Secretary of State must, in exercising the powers under section 41, provide that this Act applies to persons undertaking trial shifts.(2) The Secretary of State must make regulations in accordance with subsection (1) within a period of six months beginning with the day on which the Employment Rights Act 2025 is passed.(3) Such regulations must provide that a person undertaking a trial shift is eligible to receive the national minimum wage for the period of that trial shift at the rate specified for workers of the person’s age.(4) In this section—“employer” has the meaning given to it by subsection 54(4) of this Act (meaning of “worker”, “employee” etc.);“trial shift” means any form of work which a person undertakes in view of potentially being offered a temporary or permanent position.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that persons are paid for trial shifts they perform in view of potentially being offered a temporary or permanent position.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
I rise to move Amendment 141 in the name of my noble friend Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. She is, about now, talking about net zero to students at Oxford University. It was an engagement that was made some time ago, but she wishes to express her thanks to the Minister for arranging a meeting to discuss this and later amendments, and for the constructive dialogue that followed.
This amendment speaks for itself, but I would like to describe a case where it would have been applicable. It is that of 19 year-old Ellen Reynolds, from Glasgow, who worked a five-hour shift in a restaurant. She told the BBC:
“I ran food and drinks to customers … I cleaned the tables, set up the tables, swept the floor, took people to their seats … took a few payments on the card machine”.
Before that shift, she had to buy a shirt and trousers as a uniform, costing £20. Then, she got paid nothing, and she did not get a job out of it.
The Department for Business and Trade’s guidance on national minimum wage eligibility includes a section on unpaid work trial periods, which discusses to what extent the national minimum wage applies to work trials undertaken as part of a recruitment process. It says that work trials can help employers to
“decide whether the individual has the skills and qualities … for the job”,
and that unpaid work trials can be a
“legitimate practice”,
so long as they are not used
“to obtain work or services for which at least the minimum wage should be paid”.
That, I believe, is an invitation to abuse: the kind of abuse that Ellen suffered, being expected to work for nothing—not getting less than the minimum wage, but getting nothing at all. We hear reports of employers who do this to a succession of workers.
For those who would like to explore this issue in more depth than I have time for today, I point them to a debate in Westminster Hall on 29 March 2023, secured by Stewart Malcolm McDonald MP. That followed the introduction by the same MP of a Private Member’s Bill in 2017 seeking to achieve the same outcome as this amendment. That Bill that won the backing of the Scottish Trades Union Congress and the National Union of Students, among others. The commendably persistent MP reintroduced it last year. So, it has been an issue that has been around a long time but still has no solution.
If the Minister feels that the amendment is not properly drafted, I have been assured by my noble friend that she is in no way attached to the detail of how it is written, although she thanks the Bill Office for its assistance so far. The point is to act and to actually create a solution for an abuse that is enacted on people who can least afford it.
I have heard some very familiar phrases in the past few groups: we need more information, this is not the right time, there is legislation elsewhere that deals with this and this is not the Bill. But if not now, in the Employment Rights Bill, then when and how? We have to protect workers such as Ellen. They are often young and vulnerable, and sometimes English is not their first language. Surely the point of an Employment Rights Bill is to protect people from exploitation such as unpaid work.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I am sympathetic to the intentions behind this amendment. There are risks of exploitation, which the noble Baroness has just set out. Where I am somewhat more concerned and have more sympathy with the amendment debated earlier today is about how people continue to do these sorts of jobs and still do not get paid.
To give a real example, the Department for Work and Pensions runs a programme called SWAP. It is quite a short-term programme and it is not quite the same as a boot camp, principally run by the DfE. It is often for people perhaps wanting to go into a new sector or who are open to new experiences, so there is an element of training. However, a key part of the SWAP is that you work and try out. There is no guarantee that, at the end of that, you will get a job with that specific employer, but what really matters is that it will give you a sense of aptitude and of getting back into the workplace, while you continue to receive benefits.
Let us not pretend that receiving universal credit for a week is necessarily the same as being paid the equivalent of a national minimum wage. But my principal concern with this amendment is that, while wanting to avoid exploitation, it would unwittingly or unknowingly shut down these broader opportunities and programmes which the Government run to help get people back into the world of work. That is why it needs to be considered carefully by the Minister, but ultimately rejected.
Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)
I will speak briefly to this amendment, which proposes to prohibit unpaid trial shifts by ensuring that those who undertake such shifts are paid at least the national minimum wage. This issue echoes concerns raised in earlier debates on unpaid work experience.
The amendment seeks to clarify that shift trials, defined as work undertaken in the hope of securing a temporary or permanent position, should be fairly compensated. This would address that potential gap in existing legislation and offer clearer protection for workers, ensuring that their time and labour are respect and valued. Such clarity is important for both workers seeking fair treatment and employers, and in maintaining transparent and ethical recruitment practices.
At the same time, it is important to consider the practical implications for employers who may rely on trial shifts as part of their recruitment process. I therefore invite the Minister to consider carefully whether this amendment strikes the right balance between protecting workers’ rights from exploitation and allowing employers reasonable flexibility in assessing candidates.
I look forward to the Government’s view on the best way to achieve a proportionate and effective approach that serves the interests of all parties involved.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this relatively brief group. I agree with my noble friend Lady Coffey. At first glance, the idea of banning unpaid trials seems fair, because no one wants to see people, especially young people, exploited under the guise of a try-out, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, pointed out when she was introducing the amendment.
However, we also need to be honest about the likely effect of the change, particularly for those very people it is trying to protect. In many sectors—in particular hospitality, retail and care—trial shifts are often the only realistic way for somebody without a formal CV to show that they can do the job. Trial shifts can therefore open doors for young people, school leavers and those coming back into work.
If we start requiring every short work trial to be paid at minimum wage then the reality is that many of them simply will not happen at all. Employers, especially small ones, may decide that they are just too risky or costly. The obvious result will be fewer opportunities and fewer chances for somebody to get in front of an employer to show what they can do. I worry that this amendment, although well intentioned, could have the opposite effect: closing off relatively informal routes into work for those who need them most. The measures in the Bill already create the wrong incentives, and we do not need any more of them.
Lord Katz (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all who have contributed to this short debate, in particular the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for stepping in very ably. There seems to be a pattern of noble Lords needing to step in during the groups I respond to, but I very much appreciate her moving the amendment on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle.
We are somewhat repeating the first debate we had today on Amendment 129. Amendment 141 seeks to ensure that persons are paid for the trial shifts they perform in view of potentially being offered a temporary or permanent position. It basically boils down to the same thing: how do we make sure that people are not exploited when they are in a position where they need to be flexible to try to gain work? It is very much the Government’s objective to ensure we can get more people working. However, it is also our objective to ensure we make work fair and make fair work pay.
That is obviously the intention underlying Amendment 141. In that light, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, for raising this issue and for using the case study of Ellen to outline how vulnerable people in vulnerable situations can be exploited by unscrupulous employers. I assure the noble Baroness that that is absolutely not the intention of the Bill nor, indeed, our attitude towards the amendment. However, I will go into detail as to why we are taking our position on this amendment.
As I have said, we are committed to making work pay, and we have been delivering on this promise through the actions we have taken since the Government came into office last year. At the risk of repeating myself, I note that we have delivered an increase in the national minimum wage of 6.7% to £12.21 per hour for eligible workers aged 21 or over. We have also, as I said, delivered a huge uplift for the lower national minimum wage rate for 18 to 20 year-olds, which has increased by 16.3% to £10 an hour. That is a record amount in both cash and percentage terms, and it closes the gap with the national living wage, because, as I have said, a fair day’s work deserves a fair day’s pay.
However, hand in hand with fair pay is the flexibility for workers and employers to decide whether a job is right for the candidate and, indeed, whether the candidate is right for a job. Government guidance sets out helpful and practical information on how the national minimum wage applies in the context of unpaid work trials. The guidance is clear that employers can ask individuals to carry out tasks or trial shifts without payment only if it is a genuine part of the recruitment process.
Short, genuine work trials—such as the DWP scheme that the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, referred to—whether paid or unpaid, give employers and individuals an opportunity to test whether the role or the candidate is right for them. They empower individuals to seek out and test whether the role is suited to them and their needs. They allow employers to test whether a candidate can do the job and reduce the risk of taking on someone who might not have the right skills. As the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, rightly said, it is about finding the right balance.
Unpaid work trials can also provide a stepping stone for individuals who have been out of work for a long period of time but might want to get back into the workplace, as the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, said. There are also government schemes where individuals in receipt of benefits can participate in an unpaid work trial and continue to receive their benefits. The flexibility of genuine—I stress “genuine”—work trials can benefit workers up and down the country, and the Government feel that an outright ban would see these opportunities for individuals diminish. However, I repeat a point I made earlier because it is worth emphasising: employers cannot rely on unpaid trial shifts for free labour. If someone is carrying out work that goes beyond a short demonstration of their suitability for the role, they are most likely to be entitled to the national minimum wage.
We are committed to protecting workers and will monitor this issue closely. If changes are needed, those issues should be dealt with outside the Bill, so that the national minimum wage legislation can remain clear on how unpaid work trials can be used and ensure workers are protected.
As noble Lords will be aware, HM Revenue & Customs is responsible for enforcing the minimum wage legislation and ensuring that employers meet their legal obligations. Any individual concerned that they have worked on a trial shift or period that does not appear to be part of a genuine recruitment process can and should complain to HMRC, or they can contact the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service for advice.
In the light of the safeguards that already exist in legislation, and despite the fact that we very much agree with the sentiment behind the amendment, we ask the noble Baroness to withdraw Amendment 141.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
I thank the Minister for his answer. If this amendment is so similar to Amendment 129—I was not in the Chamber during that debate, I am afraid—I wonder why they were not grouped together. That might be something to think about.
The Minister talked about genuine work trials. I argue that “genuine” is doing a lot of heavy lifting there: how on earth do you judge whether something is genuine if you are not monitoring it extremely closely? He also mentioned a “short demonstration”. How long is that? Are there criteria for them? Are they only two hours long, for example? In Ellen’s case, she worked for five hours—that is a fair amount of continuous time to work.
In speaking to this amendment, I am influenced by the fact that, in the Green Party, we are not allowed to take any unpaid work at all. We have no unpaid interns. If we have an intern, we pay them, and we pay them properly. This influences my attitude towards anyone working for nothing if they do not intend to do so voluntarily.
The noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, said that there might be fewer opportunities, but workers are still needed and companies still have to find those workers. If companies cannot afford to pay the national minimum wage to somebody on a work trial, they are not solvent businesses, so perhaps they ought to go out of business. I have no sympathy for employers who do not pay for work.
I think that the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, gave me conditional support, but I am not really sure; perhaps he will on Report.
I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, that an amendment can be written to cover such schemes as the government scheme she mentioned. It does not necessarily exclude paying somebody for genuinely working for five hours continuously.
On balance, this is a good amendment, and I hope that my noble friend will bring it back on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“Right to disconnect(1) All workers have the right to disconnect from work-related communications outside their working hours.(2) An employer must not—(a) require a worker to monitor, read or respond to any work-related communications outside the worker’s working hours;(b) contact a worker outside the worker’s working hours except in an emergency as defined in subsection (6);(c) take any action to the worker’s detriment, or treat the worker less favourably, because the worker has exercised or sought to exercise the right in subsection (1).(3) Every employer must—(a) establish a written disconnection policy, in consultation with workers or recognised trade unions,(b) specify the technological and organisational measures implemented to ensure respect for the right to disconnect,(c) establish clear protocols for necessary exceptions, and(d) provide workers with information about how to report violations of the right to disconnect.(4) The right to disconnect does not apply where—(a) a worker is on call or standby duty and receiving appropriate compensation for such duty,(b) a worker has explicitly agreed to be available during specified periods outside working hours, with this agreement recorded in writing, or(c) in genuine emergency situations affecting public health, safety, or essential services.(5) A worker may present a complaint to an employment tribunal that their employer has infringed their right to disconnect under this section.(6) In this section—“emergency” means a situation that—(a) poses an immediate risk to health, life, property or environment, or(b) requires urgent intervention to prevent serious harm to the business, customers or other workers;“working hours” means the hours a worker is contractually required to work, including any agreed flexible working arrangements.(7) The Secretary of State must issue a statutory code of practice containing guidance on the implementation of the right to disconnect within six months of this Act receiving Royal Assent.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would implement a framework for a “right to disconnect”, whereby workers cannot be required to handle work related correspondence outside of their working hours.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
I will again speak on behalf of my noble friend Lady Bennett of Manor Castle.
Amendment 141B is a no-brainer; I believe the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, referred to it as blindingly obvious. It would give workers the right to disconnect, which is already available to French workers; I am sure that many noble Lords have heard about that, since its introduction was seen to be world leading at the time. I am sure that many British workers expected to have exactly the same right as a result of this Bill, given the widely covered promises that the Labour Party made over recent years before it was in government.
I quote the Labour Party 2022 Green Paper on employment rights, as it is unequivocal on this issue. It says:
“Labour will bring in the ‘right to switch off’, so working from home does not become homes turning into 24/7 offices. Workers will have a new right to disconnect from work outside of working hours and not be contacted by their employer outside of working hours”.
That is very clear. By June 2024, the party had fleshed that out with an explanation in the document, Labour’s Plan to Make Work Pay:
“The pandemic has led to a step change in flexible and remote working practices in many workplaces, which … inadvertently blurred the lines between work and home life”.
That is extremely worrying. The headline in that 2024 text is: “Right to switch off”.
Unfortunately, backtracking is already evident, but the promise to the electorate is more equivocal:
“We will follow similar models to those that are already in place in Ireland or Belgium, giving workers and employers the opportunity to have constructive conversations and work together on bespoke workplace policies or contractual terms that benefit both parties”.
However, the headline was: “Right to switch off”. I think most people would have read that and hoped for a more balanced and less harassed life.
The Green Party is always keen to help any Government. Here, we would like to help the Government live up to the promises they made to an exhausted and overstretched group of workers, who find themselves trapped with a boss who expects them to answer emails from the sideline of their child’s netball match or to take a client’s call when they are on holiday. The promise from the Government has been that they intend to introduce a statutory code of practice instead. That does not mean that such contact will be illegal or even prohibited, but if an employee can prove that they are routinely being contacted outside of their contracted hours then this can play a role in an employment tribunal payout. On the previous amendment, the Minister mentioned that it is possible to make complaints. Most people do not do that; it takes too long and they do not have the expertise to do it, and they may not even have the energy to do it—that is fair enough. Tribunal cases are possible but they are extraordinarily rare and extremely slow.
We have a health crisis in the UK—an overworked crisis—and a huge imbalance in the power relationships between employers and employees, as many other parts of the Bill point out. In the Green Party, we are always constructive. This amendment provides the Government with a chance to live up to their promise to the electorate to empower workers and to help them remain healthy and engaged in their family and community lives, not for ever distracted by having to check their phone. After all, the economy is there to serve people; it is not for people to serve the economy. I beg to move.
Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)
My Lords, I will briefly clarify the situation. I have just checked with my party, and we are not in coalition with the Green Party, that is for sure. But the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, makes a valid point. It is valid because of the societal change post Covid, where the number of people working from home now is exponential to what it was before Covid.
I go back to my days as a British Gas engineer, when I had a bleeper and was on call. We would dread the bleeper beeping, but I was on emergency calls and so I had to go out and do it. That was then and this is now.
There are so many people who are working from home who cannot switch off—the emails and alerts come through on their mobile phones. There needs to be some recognition of that within the legislation. Clearly, some organisations may need to contact people, but that should be by an arrangement that is agreed and supported by both parties. We are almost in a cowboy society again, where an unscrupulous company director of a small business with a small number of people wants to get things done and the deal has got to be made tonight—at 10 pm or 11 pm, when children are in bed—and so the phone goes and you have got to do it. If you do not, you face the consequences. These employees are probably not unionised, so it is difficult for them to resist. It is a never-ending circle.
I would like the Government to understand the importance of considering the framework set out in this amendment to provide a fair and practical approach that looks after the worker but protects the legitimate needs of the employers. It comes back to this idea of reasonableness and proportionality—the thread that seems to run through all this legislation. If it is reasonable and proportional then by and large it is fairly acceptable, but you have always got the unscrupulous person on either side. I have seen employees on call who have not replied when they should have, and they have been disciplined. That is correct; if you have an agreement and are on call, but you do not do it, there is a price to be paid.
The pendulum swings very slowly one way but very fast the other, to all those people who are working from home now and have no protection from the unscrupulous employer who just wants results 24 hours a day. We live in a 24-hour society—there is no escape from it. It happens with Ministers, spokespeople and friends I know. I have to turn my phone off—sometimes at 9 pm I switch the thing off until the morning, and then I get messages asking why I did not answer it. My answer is, “Because it was quarter to one in the morning and I was fast asleep”. These messages are from friends and colleagues. If you put that in the context of a work environment, where it is about your livelihood, marriage and children, it comes more into focus. I want the Government to look at this and see that there must be a way that we can strike a balance between the needs of an employer and the rights of a worker.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, this is an interesting debate. As the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, has pointed out, this idea was in both the 2022 Green Paper and in the paper that the Labour Party published during last year’s election. Clearly, there is an expectation that this needs to be addressed in this huge Bill, the main purpose of which, as I have said to this Committee before, could have been achieved through a statutory instrument.
However, one of the important things in the amendment, which has been carefully written by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, sets in place the idea that:
“The right to disconnect does not apply where … a worker is on call or standby duty and receiving appropriate compensation for such duty”.
In trying to get into this debate, which is a fair debate to have, we find that the legislation already addresses the majority of situations where this would already happen, and so all that would happen if this were to become law is that contracts would be written in such a way that, in effect, if necessary, everybody would be on call—which would not be a desirable outcome.
I want to build on that. The noble Lord, Lord Goddard, referred to a variety of anecdotes and his personal experience. Personal experience matters in considering how a good employer can act. For what it is worth, in my private office, which was very busy, and in my parliamentary office when I used to employ people, I required everybody to have their “do not disturb” setting on. The setting works such that if somebody really needs to get hold of you—if you are a Minister, say—switch will get through to you eventually. I have to say to the people on the Front Bench that that is the case even if you do not have your phone on. Those situations are already addressed.
One of the things the Bill is trying to do overall is to get that balance. However, it is fair to say that not everything needs to be put into legislation. It is about having a positive relationship, and some of that can be done through ACAS and in other different ways, such as guidance. Trying to micromanage every single relationship that the millions of workers have directly with their employer risks overcomplicating things. The fear that I have, given that this is in the Government’s manifesto, which they seek to put in place—it will be interesting to see how they want to make this happen—is that this will make for very tricky legislation. Although there may be instances where this would work, ultimately, it comes down to employment tribunals and somebody else’s judgment.
For what it is worth, we have an evolving variety of workplaces. A lot of people who used to work at home have now come back to the office so that they can leave their job behind, as opposed to feeling that they will open something up after dinner or whatever.
I look forward to hearing the Minister set out how the Government are planning to fulfil their manifesto commitment while trying to make sure that they do not micromanage every single element of how a job can be done in the workplace.
Lord Ashcombe (Con)
My Lords, I appreciate what the noble Baroness said, because this is about fairness and making sure life works. There are a lot of companies, big and small, where, to a great extent, what has been proposed is already working. However, there are a number of instances—including somewhere like where I work—where I do not think this would work.
I will just give your Lordships one quick example. I work in insurance for a huge insurance broker. We had a client in the United States who by 5 pm had not decided whether to renew his insurance contract in London. If he had not renewed it by 1 June—which I guess was a Sunday—he would have had no insurance on that specific part of his business. A member of my team kindly stayed online, for want of a better word—he was probably out and about with the phone in his pocket—and the call came through at some time after 9 pm. Looking at the way the clause is drafted, I am not sure whether that would be considered enough of an emergency to get a member of staff out of bed, so to speak. Equally, that company might have had to stop working, doing whatever it was doing in the oil and gas industry—I know that will not endear me to the noble Baroness, but that is a fact. But we had to bind that insurance contract once we got the order. It was all ready to go; it was just a question of sending a number of emails to say that it was done. So there are huge swathes of the country where it is in fact in place already, as the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, has said, but in some of the big City environments where you are working across time zones particularly, it is extremely difficult to enact.
On working from home, we all worked at home for some time; personally I loathed it—I am back in the office almost as much as I can be. However, I have members of staff who like working at home, and, let me tell your Lordships, they know how to turn themselves off when they do not want to talk to us anymore, and they are good at it. So they should be, and I respect them for it. But if you really need them, you can always find them.
Finally, you can turn the damn machines off. Be it a telephone, a computer, an iPad or whatever it is, there is an off button out there. Certainly when I was a child, we were told never to call anybody after 9 pm, and that was friends and family. So there are some unwritten rules out there that are already very effective.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, we are very grateful indeed to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for introducing us to a fascinating debate. The noble Lord, Lord Goddard of Stockport, put us in touch with the real world, and then my noble friends Lady Coffey and Lord Ashcombe reminded us about what happens in real life. I suppose I have immediately to declare my interest as a practising solicitor. My phrase, which I always used to share with Albert Blighton, was that I was available 168/52. The number 168 is 24 times seven. So you quickly appreciate that, as a solicitor, you have to be available all the time.
When I won the contract to represent cricket with the England and Wales Cricket Board, they wanted to know whether I would be available on a Sunday evening when there was an incident at a Sunday league match, and I said, “Yes, of course I would”. So it is very much up to the individual to make themselves available.
When I was asked to join the Front Bench in the House of Commons in 1977, I do not think anybody expected that I would refuse to answer an Adjournment debate, even though it might have been at 3 am, which it was on one occasion. Therefore, you set your working parameter in the way in which you develop your own workaholic tendencies, but you should not expect it of everyone, and I think that is what the amendment is all about.
Do you have the right to disconnect? Although I am sympathetic to the idea that you should be able to switch off, which the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, put in context, when the Bill is already introducing considerable uncertainty for employers around shift notice periods, payment for cancelled shifts and wider questions of how flexible working is to be managed in practice, we have to be very cautious about layering on yet another rigid and potentially burdensome obligation.
The noble Baroness may have put forward what appears to be a straightforward proposal, giving workers a right not to respond to emails or calls outside their contracted hours, but in reality, as the Government have quickly realised, despite what they may have said in advance of the election, this whole proposal raises serious practical and legal questions. What does “working hours” mean in a world of flexible, hybrid and self-managed work? How do we define an emergency? What happens in small teams, in customer-facing sectors, which my noble friend Lord Ashcombe highlighted, and in businesses operating across time zones?
Employers, especially small businesses, already face growing compliance costs. This would add yet another administrative requirement. There would have to be a written policy on the right to disconnect, a consultation process, enforcement procedures and, of course, exposure to tribunal claims. So, we must ask: is this really the right moment to introduce such sweeping regulation?
The Bill already creates new rights and obligations that will take time to bed in. There is uncertainty around shift scheduling, compensation for cancellations and the cumulative compliance burden. I have to say to the noble Baroness that I believe the effect of this amendment would be to increase that uncertainty further and risk undermining flexibility for both sides. Most workers and employers already navigate these boundaries reasonably and sensibly. A blanket legislative approach risks making day-to-day communications feel legally fraught, especially in smaller organisations where roles are not so rigidly defined.
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, for tabling Amendment 141B, which was moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb.
We firmly recognise the vital importance of achieving a healthy work/life balance. The noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, can be confident that we will indeed introduce a right to switch off. We understand that, in today’s fast-paced world, it is more important than ever to ensure that individuals and families are able to manage the demands of their work alongside their responsibilities and needs at home.
Our close consultation with businesses and civil society since the election has shown how important it is that we develop this policy in collaboration with those who will be affected: workers and the firms who employ them. The right to switch off must account for the full diversity in types of employment and sectors that exist in our modern economy. It represents a substantial shift in the way some businesses operate. This amendment does not account for that diversity and the need for collaboration. That is why we have decided to take a careful and considered approach to introducing the right to switch off, as was alluded to by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, and the noble Lord, Lord Ashcombe.
The focus for now is the Employment Rights Bill, which contains decisive and immediate action, such as reforms to flexible working that will make it easier to strike a better work/life balance. These reforms are not just policies; they are practical steps to support everyday lives and help people to draw clearer boundaries between their work and personal lives.
To add this amendment to the Bill would not do the right to switch off any justice. As drafted, it could create unnecessary burdens on businesses, particularly small businesses, as stated by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. Significant new requirements in proposed new subsection (3)(a) to (d) would force all employers, no matter their size, to produce written disconnection policies and specify new technological and organisational measures and protocols, while also establishing reporting systems for any violations. These new rules would be onerous and inflexible.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed, and I say how deeply disappointed I am in the Opposition. I am trying to hold the Government to account to actually bring in a measure that they promised to do, and they have given them an easy ride, I would say. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, that she is being far too kind to the Government, in my view. I am sure they are very grateful. The noble Lord, Lord Goddard, was much more supportive of this amendment, so I thank him very much.
To the noble Lord, Lord Ashcombe, I say that we are, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, also pointed out, in a very privileged position. The noble Lord sounds like a very kind man and is probably a very nice employer, so probably his employee would be free to say, “No, I can’t do that”, if they had to pick up a child from school or something like that. This is to protect people who do not have that sort of privilege, who feel obliged to do the things that their employer tells them, or supposedly asks them, to do. This is to protect the most vulnerable, the people who are not in our sort of position. I do not want to be here now, quite honestly. It is seven o’clock. I would much rather go home and have something to eat. I certainly did not want to be here at 10.35 last night—I would rather have been home in bed—but I do it out of a sense of duty, and I do it willingly. There are people who would not be able to do this but would not be able to deny their boss that work.
To the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, I say that I am always very dubious when people start talking about “real life”, and I wonder how much real life they actually have. I grew up in a very poor working-class family, and I still have a lot of friends from my childhood who are not in the privileged position that I am in now, so I get a taste of real life when I am at home. In real life, there are people who would not be able to deny their employer this sort of overtime, or whatever.
I thank the Minister very much for his response. I am very glad to hear that the Government are going to introduce it. But, if this is too prescriptive and premature, why did the Labour Party commit itself to that? Why do the Government not just do what they promised? This is something that I struggle with. We see parties, before they are in government, promise all sorts of things and then they scrap them, and it is just not right. It is betraying the voters, and I do not understand why. Consult, by all means, but do it in a sensible and fairly fast way and just get it done.
By the way, nothing I have said in the last five minutes is to do with my noble friend Lady Bennett, so noble Lords should not blame her for it. I very much hope that she will bring this back on Report and that we will push it to a vote, because if you promised, you should do it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Hunt of Wirral
“(B1) Subsection (A1)(a) shall not apply where the employer is undergoing relevant insolvency proceedings.(C1) Where the employer is undergoing relevant insolvency proceedings, the duty to consult shall arise only in accordance with subsection (1), by reference to the number of employees proposed to be dismissed at a single establishment within a period of 90 days or less.(D1) For the purposes of subsection (B1), “relevant insolvency proceedings” has the same meaning as in regulation 8(6) of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that employers in formal insolvency proceedings are not subject to the new entity-wide redundancy consultation trigger. Instead, the existing “20 or more at one establishment” threshold would apply. The amendment relies on an established definition of insolvency proceedings, consistent with Regulation 8(6) of TUPE 2006.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, Amendments 141BA to 142B stand in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom.
Collective redundancies often occur in the context of an insolvency. Increasing the penalty for failure to inform and consult will exacerbate the difficulties for insolvency practitioners. Under the Insolvency Act 1986, administrators are required to act in the best interests of creditors as a whole. However, keeping employees in employment beyond the 14-day window afforded to administrators to decide whether to adopt the contract, to carry out an information and consultation process, in effect makes those employees super-priority creditors. This would elevate their claims above those of other creditors and reduce the funds available for ordinary creditors. In some cases, the resulting employment costs could make administrators reluctant to take on their role. This may lead to fewer contracts being adopted, increasing the liabilities that ultimately fall on the National Insurance Fund. Amendment 141BA gives insolvency practitioners clear legal guidance to apply the single establishment rule during consultations. This helps them make faster decisions without dealing with complex, entity-wide assessments, reducing delays and protecting insolvency processes. It supports rescuing businesses and, of course, maximising creditor returns.
I turn to Amendments 141C and 141E. Clause 27 significantly expands the duty to consult on collective redundancies. It requires employers to start a consultation if 20 or more redundancies are proposed in total across multiple establishments, even when those redundancies are unrelated. This overreaches, because simultaneous job cuts can result from distinct decisions, such as automation in a warehouse, reduced demand in customer service or restructuring in head office, affecting different people in different locations. Yet, under Clause 27, those decisions could be swept into a single mandatory consultation process simply because the total number affected crosses the arbitrary threshold. This means that HR and management teams would have to delay necessary action while they co-ordinated across unrelated departments. This means that representatives and employees would be dragged into consultations about matters with no relevance at all to them, and it risks undermining the quality of consultation itself by overloading it with conflicting priorities and timelines.
This would introduce legal uncertainty, particularly for mid-sized employers who may not have the resources to second-guess whether redundancies in different divisions are connected enough to trigger a combined consultation. If they get it wrong, they will face a protective award. If so, the risk-averse approach is to consult everyone about everything all at once. These amendments would make it clear that where redundancies across different establishments arise from a common underlying business reason, or from a connected series of events, a combined consultation is indeed required. However, where they are unconnected, made independently and for distinct reasons, the employer may conduct separate consultations at the level where the impact is felt.
Moving to Amendment 141D, we have continued to make the point that the one-sized central planning approach that this Bill uses is not appropriate. Many sectors rely heavily on seasonal or fixed-term workers. Agriculture, hospitality, logistics and retail businesses scale up and down, predictably, year in, year out. They take on workers for peak periods—the summer season, the Christmas rush, the harvest—and release them at the end of the contract. These are not sudden decisions; they are built into the business model and are clearly understood by all parties. For example, a national employer may let 12 seasonal workers go at a distribution hub in the north in July. A month later, it may make seven short-term administrative contracts redundant in the Midlands. In September, it might end six fixed-term roles in a tourist-focused retail unit in the south. Those are unconnected, expected and localised decisions. However, under Clause 27 as drafted, those 25 redundancies must be aggregated, triggering a full collective consultation process across all three events as if they were part of one co-ordinated business strategy. Is that really the policy intention?
Amendment 141F tackles the risk of retroactive liability—the possibility that employers who have already commenced consultations in good faith could be told after the fact that their earlier actions were invalid or insufficient, simply because the later redundancies pushed the total over the threshold. This problem arises from the way in which the 90-day window operates. It is measured forwards and backwards from any given proposal, which means that an employer making a set of redundancies today must ask, “Did I make others 30, 60 or 89 days ago?” If so, they now need to be bundled into a new retroactive consultation process. Let us say that an employer consults properly with a small team—five redundancies, full process, representatives informed; and then some weeks later, it identifies the need to make redundancies in another part of the business. The total now crosses the threshold and suddenly, it faces legal uncertainty. Was the earlier consultation valid? This creates a legal trap for employers acting in good faith. It penalises those who move early, communicate openly and begin consultation promptly—the very behaviours the law should be encouraging.
This amendment would bring common sense to the process. It says that where meaningful consultation on a proposed dismissal has already begun, whether individually or collectively, those redundancies are not to be re-counted towards a later threshold. It prevents the law demanding the impossible: that employers retroactively reconvene consultations that were lawfully and properly carried out before a threshold was even triggered.
Lord Moynihan of Chelsea (Con)
My Lords, good evening. I rise in support of Amendments 141BA, 141C and 142B, and it is a pleasure to support the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, on these amendments. I declare an interest as a businessman and as one who wishes to see the wheels of commerce and thus the economy moving smoothly and not unnecessarily clogged up.
As far as insolvency goes, this Bill presented an opportunity—one that I still urge the Government to grasp—to make insolvencies more efficient and less destructive of the economy. The law currently says that, in most cases where workers are to be made redundant, a 90-day consultation is required, regardless of insolvency or not. But, if a company is insolvent, consultation is necessarily spurious. The employees have lost their jobs, period, and the receivers have to move instantly, not wait 90 days to realise the assets. So, they do not wait 90 days and, because of this rule, they then break the law, because they are required to give 90 days. Two laws are in conflict with each other and one of them has to be broken. The more swiftly the assets of a failing organisation can be reorganised, the more likely it is that productive economic activity can be continued from these assets.
In the US, where these things are done much better, a study some time ago found that only 4% of assets were lost in a bankruptcy: 96% went on to be productive assets under a new organisation. Anyway, because the law has been broken, necessarily, in these cases, because the receivers are doing their duty to achieve a speedy liquidation, the lawyers move in.
The noble Lord, Lord Pitkeathley, who I am delighted to see is in his place, referred earlier to ambulance chasers. There are many lawyers in this House and every single one of them is, of course, honourable and valuable; but we are talking about no-win no-fee lawyers, who can be deeply pernicious in both practice and effect. These lawyers advise all affected employees that they have a case they can take to the employment tribunal because they have not been consulted, and that they will certainly win that case. These no-win no-fee lawyers refer to this case as “free money”: “Dear employee, you’ve got free money because you haven’t been consulted on a 90-day period”. These employees already get their redundancy money, their statutory sick pay, their holiday money and so forth. They get it all ahead of any other creditors. They are not disadvantaged.
This 90-day money that they get by going to the employment tribunal is three months’ bunce on top of everything else. I do not think that can have been intended, but it is certainly what the outcome has been. Who pays for this—because, as we know, there is no such thing as a free lunch? If the company was truly insolvent, there will not be enough money for everybody, so there will be losers when this money is paid to the employees: losers such as suppliers and HMRC, also known as the taxpayer, of course. And they will lose more as those workers get their 90 days’ pay.
I refer to one of many examples, Go-centric, a Glasgow-based call centre that suddenly went bankrupt on 19 December 2022, laying off around 600 employees just before Christmas. There is a whole story behind that that all of us can derogate. The receiver was faced with 600 employees who had to be laid off immediately. That is what receivers do, and they are honourable people running a very important economic activity for this economy. Enter the lawyers into this Go-centric situation, writing to redundant workers and advertising “free money”. That is what they actually wrote in the letters to employees, which the employees replied to. They went to the employment tribunal and the money was obtained for 200 workers who had already received all their statutorily due redundancy payments. I really do not think this can have been intended when the legislation was written, but so it was.
Now we have a wonderful opportunity in the Bill to rectify this, most likely unintended, clash of legislation by removing the 90-day consultation requirement in an insolvency, since, as we know, consultation is irrelevant, indeed impossible, in a liquidation. Have the Government wisely seized this opportunity? Have they rushed to validate their claims of fiscal prudence? They have not—far from it. Indeed, they have, bizarrely, proposed in the Bill to increase the 90 days to 180 days. A full six months of free money on top of statutory redundancy money, taking precedence over HMRC, suppliers and others. This all makes it more likely that their claims cannot be met, potentially precipitating further bankruptcies among suppliers. Noble Lords will have heard many pitiful stories of suppliers stiffed out of payments by a larger company going bankrupt and themselves then having to go bankrupt. This provision makes that more likely. There is no free 180-day lunch here.
We have a further problem, which may not have been considered by the Government in putting forward the Bill, which is that, if these payments fall short, which necessarily they will in many cases, the redundancy fund is called upon to pay moneys to workers. That is the redundancy fund that reports to HMRC, which reports to the Treasury. Have the Secretary of State and the Minister informed the Chancellor that they are legislating to increase the Treasury’s outgoings by a significant amount in future years, not to mention increasing the nation’s welfare bill, which the Government actually have a commitment to reduce? I suggest that the Government should speak to themselves and have a discussion about that.
The same concerns apply to the extension of the limit to 20 employees across an organisation to which the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, referred, and to encompass distressed businesses—businesses that are in distress, which are calling for financial advice, but have not yet gone into immediate insolvency. An opportunity is being missed to sort all that out.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
I support my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral’s amendment and have little to add to what he and my noble friend Lord Moynihan have said. I emphasise that we ought to support such amendments for reducing the levels of collective consultation for companies involved in insolvency proceedings. We should do so in the interest of reducing the escalating costs to a company as a result of compliance and protracted timing. I support these amendments for that reason.
As we have heard, the Insolvency Act 1986 obliges the administrator to act in the best interests of the creditors. The more time and compliance are demanded of a company, the more it will cost and the less there will be for creditors. These costs will escalate under Clause 27 as drafted. As a result, the creditors will have less available to pay their bills and their employees. We will see a domino effect on companies left short of cash flow and on their ability to pay their bills and their employees. These amendments are very important, because we cannot afford a domino effect, with businesses left short of cash because of the compliance costs and protracted timings posed on companies facing insolvency proceedings. They are suffering anyway; their bills have not been paid. In the end, the less that is available to pay them, the worse the outcome will be for the whole economy, for employment levels as a whole and for the cost of living.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak on this really quite interesting clause. I have carefully read Hansard from the other place in trying to understand what it is really putting in place. I am concerned by aspects of the comments made by the Minister at the other end, Justin Madders. He said that it really means only that businesses have to consult on their location and only with trade union representatives, and that, “By the way, these things get sorted in legal debate in the courts, and we hope the courts will understand”. That is not good enough when we are writing primary legislation.
In thinking this through, it is important for the Committee to consider what is happening here. Why is this needed? It has apparently been done to reduce the pressure on people with a vulnerability. Let us take the example of a pub chain, which has quite a big estate and has decided that it is going to reduce its number of hours. That could be a consequence of some of the other measures being brought in by the Government or just a trend that is happening. So it starts to think about what it is prepared to do in terms of how many people it employs in its pubs. It may not want to do that straight away; it may want to think about it in different sections and to leave that discretion to local managers. The man or woman in the street would think that that is perfectly sensible.
However, the businesses that gave oral and written evidence to the Bill Committee are worried—which the Minister recognised in saying that they should not worry—because that is exactly what the legislation is saying they will have to do. They could be undertaking consultation at huge expense, right across the country, while recognising that some of those situations could be very localised.
We already have sensible measures in place. When there are going to be significant redundancies across the country, it is already a legal requirement for them to go before Ministers, whether from the Department for Business and Trade or the Department for Work and Pensions, who can then mobilise local jobcentres and the like to prepare for those redundancies. Imagine going back to the business considering the impact of that on what can be quite localised operations. The Explanatory Notes are silent, frankly, which is why I took to reading Hansard from the Commons.
I am concerned and would be grateful to hear from the Minister why this is the right approach and how, despite the uncertainty still left in this legislation, the Government want this to be in place. Instead, they should accept the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Hunt to make sure that these situations are well considered and that we do not end up in a situation where, despite the primary legislation, we have to go to an employment tribunal again and again. For that reason, I hope the Minister accepts my noble friend’s amendments.
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe of Epsom and Lord Hunt of Wirral, for tabling these amendments. We have been listening to feedback from businesses on the clause as introduced. It requires collective consultation whenever 20 or more redundancies are proposed to be made across an employer’s organisation. Businesses told us that this would put them in a constant state of consultation. That is why we have made amendments in Clause 27 to the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992; they aim to limit the burdens on employers while still expanding protections for employees, by ensuring that collective consultation is triggered when a threshold number of employees are proposed to be made redundant across an entire organisation.
The purpose of Clause 27 is to strengthen collective redundancy rights. The Government worked with stakeholders, including businesses, to address their concerns, which include not counting employees who are already being consulted on redundancy. We will set an appropriate threshold number in due course, via secondary legislation, following further engagement with stakeholders and a public consultation. We will look to balance the interests of both employers and employees when setting this threshold. Business stake- holders have welcomed the Government’s engagement on this clause and the opportunity to input to the threshold number via a public consultation.
Amendment 141BA seeks to exclude employers going through insolvency proceedings from the scope of a new trigger for collective consultation. I refer to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan of Chelsea, about how one expects an employer which is going insolvent to consult employees across the entire organisation. The Government believe that collective consultations are an important part of ensuring fairness and transparency between employers and employees. The benefits of consultations are felt by both. I heard what the noble Lord said, and I must say that employees are an important part of the organisation, as are the suppliers and the whole supply chain. Whatever is due to them should be paid, as is the same for other creditors.
The law already recognises that consultation may not always be fully practical in insolvency situations. That is why Section 188(7) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 includes a special circumstances defence for employers to depart from the collective redundancy obligations where it is genuinely justified and they have shown that they have taken all practical steps to comply. That flexibility should be applied on a case-by-case basis, not by removing that duty altogether.
Amendment 141C seeks to ensure that obligations are triggered only where redundancies are linked to a connected reason. We recognise that collective consultation will be most productive when workers and employers are focused on a common issue. However, employers and unions have told us that they believe it is not possible to define what is connected or “common reasons” in a suitable, clear way and that this could lead to more litigation. They tell us that attempting to restrict these new rights to connected redundancies in this way would create further burdens, rather than relieving them.
Amendment 141D seeks to exclude seasonal workers or those on fixed-term contracts from the scope of collective redundancy measures in the Bill. First, it may reassure the noble Lord to know that the expiry of a fixed-term contract at the end of its term does not trigger collective consultation obligations. Therefore, any fixed-term contract expiring at the end of its term will not add to the running total for the new threshold introduced for collective redundancies. We will consider further how employees on fixed-term contracts should be counted for the purposes of calculating an employer’s overall workforce that might be needed for the purposes of a national trigger for collective redundancies.
Amendment 141E aims to avoid an obligation to combine consultation by inserting two new subsections into Section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, but new subsection (2A) already strikes the right balance here. Employers will be well placed to determine how to divide consultations appropriately where the national threshold has been met. We agree that each group should receive meaningful collective consultation and intend to set up guidance on this point in a new code of practice.
On Amendment 141F, it is already the case that where collective consultation on redundancies has already begun those redundancies will not be counted when determining whether subsequent new redundancies reach the threshold for collective consultation. We do not believe that this should be extended to exclude employees who have been individually consulted, as individual redundancy consultations have a different character and purpose from collective consultations.
On Amendment 142, we agree with the noble Lord that the threshold number that will trigger collective consultation should be proportionate and not overly and unnecessarily burdensome on employers. However, this amendment is unnecessary and disproportionate to address this issue.
On Amendment 142A, the term “establishment” has already been settled and is well understood in employment law. It works well in practice, so we consider that attempts to change the definition here would create confusion and lead to more litigation with very few clear benefits in return.
Finally, Amendment 142B would undo the Government’s extension of the protective award period to 180 days. This change was made following a full public consultation in October 2024 and has been carefully considered. It makes it harder for unscrupulous employers to price in non-compliance with their collective consultation obligations, as we saw in the case of P&O Ferries. The Government are committed to strengthening employment rights in this landmark legislation. I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw Amendment 141BA.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
The Minister started off by referring to government amendments. I just wonder which amendments he is referring to, because I am not aware that any other government amendments to Clause 57 are planned.
Lord Leong (Lab)
I apologise. I can be much clearer. I said the amendments tabled in the other place which are now under Clause 27.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
This has been a very valuable debate on a very important clause, Clause 27. I am very grateful to my noble friends Lord Moynihan of Chelsea, Lady Lawlor and Lady Coffey, who gave some practical examples, particularly of the unintended consequences of previous legislation. A lot of questions have been raised by the Minister. I do not want to prolong this debate now, so I summarise by saying that there are many questions that we still want to ask and we will be returning to this on Report. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Employment Rights Bill
Tuesday 3rd June 2025
(9 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Employment Rights Act 2025 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 81-VI(a) Amendments for Committee (Supplementary to the Sixth Marshalled List) - (3 Jun 2025)
Lord Hendy
“(2A) In section 189 (complaint and protective award), after subsection (2) insert—“(2A) Any such declaration may be enforced in the High Court as if it were a declaration of the High Court and, for the avoidance of doubt, such enforcement may include—(a) an Order to comply with the declaration of the employment tribunal,(b) a Declaration that any dismissal which should have been but was not subject to compliance with section 188 or section 188A is void and of no effect, and(c) in relation to any failure to comply with an Order of the High Court, proceedings for contempt of Court.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is intended to provide a remedy for a breach of s.188 or 188A given that the doubling of the protective award appears may be unlikely to deter employers such as P&O Ferries where the value of the protective award can be calculated to be outweighed by the benefit of reduced wages over time.
Lord Hendy (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 143 is intended to provide a tougher remedy for breach of the obligation, which is a very modest one, to consult in cases of collective redundancy. At present, the remedy is an award of loss of earnings capped at a maximum of 90 days, which the Bill proposes to increase to 180 days. My amendment is not concerned with that. It proposes judicial intervention to prevent the breach, or at least to restore the position prior to the breach. So, where a declaration has been made by an employment tribunal, the union should be entitled to go to the High Court to obtain an order to enforce that declaration. The employment tribunal does not itself have the jurisdiction to make such an order; indeed, it does not have the power to enforce its own orders. That is why it is necessary for workers to issue further proceedings in the county court if their employer fails to pay a tribunal award.
The amendment makes it clear that any dismissal which should have been subject to Section 188 of the 1992 Act but was not will be void and of no effect, so the obligation to continue to pay wages and to honour the other incidents of employment will continue until the employer has fulfilled its legal duty. I should add, in case any of your Lordships doubt it, that the High Court does indeed have the power to restrain dismissal and declare a purported dismissal void and of no effect. The court has often done so where the dismissal was unlawful because, in breach of contract, the power is still more apposite where the unlawfulness is breach of a statutory duty.
Finally, the amendment puts beyond doubt that the normal consequences of non-compliance with an order of the High Court will apply: that the company and any officer personally frustrating the order may be subject to proceedings for contempt of court, including fine, sequestration and, in the most egregious cases, imprisonment.
The rationale for my amendment is obvious. We are talking about a situation in which an employer has broken or proposes to break the law by throwing a significant number of people out of work without properly consulting on measures which might have avoided that situation. A very limited financial penalty is plainly not enough to dissuade lawbreakers, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, recognised. What is required is not just a more dissuasive remedy but one which prevents the unlawful situation, or at least restores the situation to lawfulness, so far as it can be restored. Only the High Court has the power to do that.
There is another reason: the need to comply with international law which the UK has voluntarily ratified. Conventions 87 and 98 of the International Labour Organization will need more detailed consideration in later amendments, but for current purposes it is enough to note that, together, they require member states—not just ratifying states—to respect and protect freedom of association and the right to bargain collectively. Compliance with international law is the eighth of Lord Bingham’s principles of the rule of law, and the importance of compliance with international law was emphasised by the Attorney-General in a speech to the Royal United Services Institute last week. It matters not whether the provision in question relates to trade, the environment, security, labour or any other matter, and compliance is not restricted to the black letter of the treaty but also required of the decisions of the bodies appointed by the treaty to supervise compliance with it.
One such constitutional body of the ILO is the tripartite Committee on Freedom of Association, which consists of representatives of government, employers and workers. On 8 November 2023, it published its decision on a complaint brought against the United Kingdom by Nautilus International, the RMT, the TUC and a number of international trade union federations. This arose out of the P&O Ferries scandal mentioned earlier this evening. At 7 am on St Patrick’s Day 2022, the employer summarily dismissed 786 seafarers, with security guards escorting them from the ships past waiting coachloads of agency staff from third-world, cheap-labour countries recruited to replace them.
The report says that the committee notes the complainants’ indication that
“while breaches of the UK law entitle claims to be made in an employment tribunal, such claims are subject to statutorily fixed (and very modest) maxima; for this reason, the company was able to quantify with precision what the cost of the dismissals would be and to assess how long it would be before that cost could be recouped from future profits generated by the poverty wages and diminished terms and conditions of the new crews. The complainants thus allege that the dismissal of 786 seafarers to replace them with non-unionized agency workers constitutes an act of anti-union discrimination. The complainants further allege that the existing legislation is insufficient to deter anti-union discrimination as in practice, employers can, on condition that they pay the compensation prescribed by the law for cases of unfair dismissals, dismiss any worker for being a trade union member with better terms and conditions under a collective agreement. The Committee recalls in this respect that protection against acts of anti-union discrimination would appear to be inadequate if an employer can resort to subcontracting as a means of evading in practice the rights of freedom of association and collective bargaining … The Committee considers that it would not appear that sufficient protection against acts of anti-union discrimination, as set out in Convention No. 98, is granted by legislation in cases where employers can in practice, on condition that they pay the compensation prescribed by law for cases of unjustified dismissal, dismiss any worker, if the true reason is the worker’s trade union membership or activities … The Committee recalls that the Government must ensure an adequate and efficient system of protection against acts of anti-union discrimination, which should include sufficiently dissuasive sanctions and prompt means of redress, emphasizing reinstatement as an effective means of redress … Furthermore, the compensation should be adequate, taking into account both the damage incurred and the need to prevent the repetition of such situations in the future … The Committee therefore requests the Government to ensure an adequate and efficient system of protection against acts of anti-union discrimination, which should include sufficiently dissuasive sanctions and prompt means of redress, emphasizing reinstatement as an effective means of redress”.
Of course, there the committee considered that the collective dismissals were in order to avoid long-standing collective agreements which provided for notice of dismissal and consultation over proposed redundancies, which it regarded as anti-union discrimination. That situation will not occur in every collective redundancy—of course that is the case—but it will be true in many, though not all, collective redundancy situations. I should add that what we are looking at here are really bad employers. The remedy that I am proposing will not be used against good employers that do their best to deal with the situation.
The tribunal remedies which the committee considered very modest were not just for failure to consult over collective dismissal but included compensation for unfair dismissal. Here we are considering the even more modest, statutorily capped compensation for failure to consult. As the committee held, what is needed are
“sufficiently dissuasive sanctions and prompt means of redress, emphasising reinstatement as an effective means of redress”.
Only an injunction will achieve that outcome. That would have stopped P&O Ferries in its tracks.
I say to my noble friend the Minister that I can see no reason not to add this remedy to those available to restrain such unlawful activity. While the increase in maximum award, from 90 to 180 days—as the tribunal has to assess compensation as what is just and equitable up to that cap—is not sufficient in itself, since injunctions are available for breach of contract, why are they not for breach of statute as well? I beg to move.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for his powerful and clear speech; he has said it all. I just want to add that this issue has arisen from the P&O scandal that took place three years ago. The maritime unions are particularly concerned about this, and I hope that my noble friend the Minister will be able to provide some comfort for the arguments that have been presented. The issue of pre-emptive injunctive relief for seafarers and other workers is a crucial issue and it is possible that we will need to return to it on Report.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I appreciate the intent behind Amendment 143. After all, we are all familiar with the high-profile cases, such as P&O Ferries, to which the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, referred in his introduction.
I cannot pretend that I was au fait with the case details that the noble Lord explained, but we have some concerns about the practical and legal consequences of what is being proposed here. It seems to us that the amendment would allow employment tribunals to declare dismissals void and as having no effect; therefore, in effect, reinstating employees regardless of circumstances.
That is a major departure from the current legal framework, where the remedy for a breach is compensation, not nullification. That obviously raises serious questions. What happens if a dismissal is declared void months later? Is the employee reinstated, and are they entitled to back pay? What if the role no longer exists or has been filled? For many businesses and many workers, that would create uncertainty and not protection.
There is also the issue of enforcement. Giving tribunal decisions the force of the High Court, and allowing contempt proceedings for breach, risks confusing two fundamentally different judicial systems. Tribunals are meant to be accessible and the High Court is not.
I also question whether this change would meaningfully deter bad-faith employers. Those who already factor in the cost of breaking the law may simply budget for this risk too. Meanwhile, small and medium-sized employers acting in good faith could face disproportionate legal exposure for administrative or technical errors. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Leong) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, for tabling Amendment 143.
The Government agree that employers should not be able to deliberately ignore their obligations, and it should never be financially beneficial to do so. However, this amendment would offer a disproportionate response to address the issue. First, employment tribunals have jurisdiction over the majority of employment matters, including the enforcement of protective awards in cases of collective redundancy. It would not be appropriate to amend this jurisdiction solely for collective redundancy cases and it would lead to a disparity within the legal structure governing employment rights and their enforcement.
Furthermore, Section 15 of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996 already offers routes for affected individuals to pursue unpaid employment tribunal awards via the county courts, for England and Wales, and the sheriff courts, for Scotland. Finally, the amendment may have the unintended consequence of an increase in scenarios where employers are forced to become insolvent in response to both paying a protective award and requiring the reinstatement of affected employees.
Responsible employers across the country already go further than the current obligations to consult collectively. They agree with the Government that collective consultation with their workforce is a valuable tool in finding solutions to some of the challenging situations that employers find themselves in. Clause 29 closes a loophole in our collective redundancy legislation which meant that P&O Ferries could not be prosecuted when it dismissed people without warning, including because they worked abroad on foreign-registered ships. This goes some way to addressing the ILO’s concerns about the lack of an effective remedy. Our measure to confer powers on Ministers to create a mandatory seafarers’ charter will also help to create a level playing field in the sector and prevent such events happening again. A couple of amendments in subsequent groups will address that issue.
Doubling the protected period means that employees who were not afforded any consultation when being made redundant will now be awarded up to 180 days’ pay. Employment tribunals can award a further uplift of up to 25% where an employer unreasonably fails to comply with the code of practice on dismissal and re-engagement. Taken together, these measures increase the potential statutory payout per person far beyond that which P&O Ferries offered to dismissed employees. This clause will provide a balanced approach that gives certainty to employers, employees and tribunals, and will provide an increased deterrence against deliberate breaches of the collective redundancy requirements, without disproportionately penalising employers which attempt to comply with their obligations.
I hope that this provides some assurance to my noble friend, and I therefore ask that his amendment be withdrawn.
Lord Hendy (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Davies for his support. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, for his contribution. In response to him, I note that the proposal is not that employment tribunals should make a declaration that a dismissal was void and of no effect. Instead, the idea is that the High Court will make a declaration based on another declaration already made by the employment tribunal that the employer has breached the law by failing to consult—or by failing to consult properly.
The remedy I am proposing, since it is going to be in the hands of a High Court judge, will not be granted for technical or administrative errors; it will be for only the most egregious breaches.
On the point that an injunction might be granted months later, that cannot be so because delay will always defeat an injunction. Injunctions are only ever granted if the application is brought in a timely fashion, and whatever the court orders can be fulfilled.
I am grateful for the Minister’s very full response. I am not sure that the measure I propose is disproportionate —it is intended only for the most egregious breaches of the duty to consult—or that it distorts the remedies available for employment matters. As my noble friend pointed out, employment tribunal awards already have to be enforced in the civil courts and not by tribunals themselves. I am not sure about the unintended consequences. I know everything he says about The Seafarers’ Charter; my concern is with those on land. I have heard everything he says with sympathy, and on that basis, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Davies of Brixton
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment applies the provisions for collective redundancy notices for ships’ crew to ships providing a service entering a harbour in Great Britain on at least 52 occasions in the relevant period.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
My Lords, I ask noble Lords to cast their minds back three years to 24 March 2022, when the P&O Ferries chief executive officer Peter Hebblethwaite made it clear to the House of Commons Transport Select Committee that he knew that his decision to sack 786 British seafarers broke the law. He went on to explain that he knew there would be penalties to pay, but these were simply, in his view, a cost of business. He even had the audacity to say that he would make the same decision again.
My noble friend Lord Hendy has already dealt with this, but it is a crucial issue which has raised important questions about how industrial relations operate in this country. The gross premeditation of the company’s action was evident to the whole country, as private security guards boarded ferries to physically force the crew out of work, to be replaced by cheaper agency crew recruited internationally and oblivious to the circumstances.
I have been relatively modest in putting all my proposed amendments in a single group, given the extent of the degrouping of amendments that has taken place. There are three issues being dealt with here: first, the need to widen the scope of the promised seafarer’s charter, mentioned by my noble friend the Minister; secondly, the need to reduce the threshold for the application of The Seafarers’ Charter in terms of visits by ships to UK ports; and thirdly, to ensure the necessary monitoring of the effectiveness of the legislation.
On the need to increase flexibility in The Seafarers’ Charter, the key amendment is 200AD; the rest are consequential. These amendments provide the flexibility to strengthen the mandatory seafarers’ charter, in addition to standards on pay and roster patterns. They are constructive in spirit and look to explore the Government’s position on mandatory employment standards for seafarers at work today and in the future.
Back in 2023, on the first anniversary of the scandal, Labour’s shadow Employment and shadow Transport Ministers committed the party to a mandatory seafarers’ charter as a direct response to this appalling episode. In a joint article in the Independent they wrote:
“The P&O scandal was … supposed to draw a line in the sand for seafarers’ rights. But for too many low-cost operators, their business model is based on exploitation. That is why we will introduce a strong, legally-binding Seafarers Charter that smashes the business model dependent on the cruel manipulation of vulnerable workers from around the world. This will mandate an agreement between unions, government and employers on minimum protections for pay, roster patterns, crewing levels, pensions, taxation and training”.
The unions, together with many MPs and Peers, continue to support that explicit aim for the charter set out by the Labour Party.
I also understand that the RMT was given ministerial assurances only last December that there would be flexibility to add employment conditions to the mandatory charter. Regrettably, DfT and DBT officials now tell us there will be no flexibility, citing difficulties around compliance with the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. We are told that UNCLOS prevents the Government adding other employment conditions such as sick pay, holiday pay and pensions. This is hard to understand, and I would be grateful if my noble friend the Minister could explain. Even the voluntary seafarers’ welfare charter, introduced by the last Government in July 2023, includes sick pay and pension rights, as does the French Government’s legally binding seafarers’ charter, introduced on ferry routes to the UK in June 2024.
I beg the Minister to help us understand why national legislation on pay and hours of work for seafarers on international routes from UK ports is UNCLOS-compliant, but other areas of employment, including remuneration such as sick pay, holiday pay and pensions, are not compliant. If the Minister cannot do so in reply to this debate, a summary of the Government’s position should be circulated before Report. I ask the Minister to meet with the unions to explain why we have ended up in this situation. I reiterate that a public promise was made by the then shadow Secretary of State for Transport and the then shadow Minister for the Future of Work that the charter would cover not just pay and rosters but other issues, including sick pay, pensions and training.
Amendments 200AA, 200AB and 200AC deal with the threshold for application of the seafarers’ charter created in Schedule 5. We of course welcome the seafarers’ charter, but its effectiveness is set by the criteria which apply in terms of the rate at which the ships concerned visit UK ports. Clearly, the lower the figure for the number of visits required, the greater the proportion of seafarers who will have the necessary protection. In simple terms, the proposed amendments bring ships that call weekly in UK ports within scope, in contrast with the Bill, which requires more than twice-weekly visits.
I make no secret of my desire to see as many seafarers covered as possible, and not, in effect, limiting this to those who work on roll-on, roll-off ferries. Most ships that regularly work in UK waters are not that type of vessel. According to DfT statistics, over 160,000 seafarers are employed in the UK shipping industry and where possible, we must use the Bill and future legislation to equalise their employment rights with land-based workers.
The previous Government introduced a threshold of 120 calls per year in Section 3 of the Seafarers Wages Act. When that legislation was going through the Lords, the then Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Vere, responded to an amendment from my noble friend Lord Tunnicliffe on this matter, stating that 52 calls per year
“would catch too many vessels that we did not intend to catch and would be overreach in terms of the current settlement with the international shipping community”.—[Official Report, 12/10/22; col. GC 102.]
Baroness Whitaker (Lab)
My Lords, I support all the amendments in this group and will speak to my Amendment 200ABA. Our seafarers are the engine of a vital part of our trading economy, but their conditions of work are often out of sight and out of mind. Among other problems, as set out by my noble friend Lord Davies of Brixton, the gender imbalance and isolation on most ships has resulted, sadly, in risks for women which need clear measures of protection.
Of the 23,700 United Kingdom seafarers counted in 2024, only 16% were female. These were mainly among ratings and uncertificated officers—that is, those with the least authority and power. I heard of a nasty case of rape on a cruise ship, where the victim, significantly, said that she had no help from the HR department because she was too shocked to report it immediately. She was advised that her only recourse was to leave the ship, because the perpetrator was needed on board—a not uncommon reaction. Some privately owned super- yachts require applicants for jobs to submit photographs and “be comfortable with nudity”, which gives a flavour of the work environment.
Research from the Seafarers International Research Centre at Cardiff University shows how fearful women seafarers on cargo ships are of sexual assault and how lonely they can feel in their workplace. We have now the seafarers’ charter, announced by the Government last December. This provides the vehicle for vastly improved standards for seafarers’ working conditions, but it needs to clarify that it will specify protection against sexual harassment and bullying—hence my amendment.
Our shipping force is declining, not least in the retention of women, and there are skills gaps. This has put pressure on workplace standards, resulting in seafarers in general having a higher rate of sickness and accidents than onshore workpeople. There are industry initiatives to encourage recruitment, but little thought on making workplaces safe, convenient and welcoming to women. We can attract more people into it if everyone feels safe.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, for so clearly setting out the case for a range of amendments. As he made clear, the matters under discussion go to the heart of how we uphold standards for those who work at sea, an essential part of our economy and infrastructure. Of course, we are all well aware of the extent to which the events surrounding P&O Ferries in 2022 were a stark reminder of the vulnerabilities that are faced by seafarers operating in and around UK waters. I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, for reminding us of some pretty stark situations that are faced by people who work in this environment.
I was very pleased and proud when the Conservative Government took clear and concrete steps to improve protections, most notably through the Seafarers Wages Act 2023, the introduction of the voluntary seafarers’ charter and a broader nine-point plan aimed at promoting fairer treatment and higher standards across the sector. These reforms represent a record of action that reflects the seriousness with which we take the obligations owed to maritime workers and our determination that what happened—that unacceptable practice that we all saw and were so concerned about—must never happen again.
Today’s amendments reflect continued concern for the welfare and rights of seafarers. They raise, though, a number of detailed questions about scope, enforcement and the role of harbour authorities. I am pleased to see the noble Lord, Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill, here to reply to this debate, because we want to hear from him how the Government see these provisions fitting alongside the reforms already undertaken. We await with bated breath his reply to this important debate.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, I will first speak to government Amendments 200B and 200C. These amendments relate to Clause 54, which amends the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 to provide powers to make regulations giving effect to international agreements relating to maritime employment. Amendment 200B provides that such regulations cannot be used to bring into force an international agreement, or an amendment to an international agreement which requires ratification, before the UK has ratified it. By implication, the effect of this amendment is that such regulations can be made ahead of ratification of the agreement or amendment. For the UK to ratify an international agreement, it is usual for any necessary implementing legislation to be passed or made in advance of ratification, so the amendment helps ensure that the UK can fulfil its international obligations. Amendment 200C is simply a consequential drafting amendment.
Amendments 143A and 143AA, tabled by my noble friend Lord Davies of Brixton, seek to amend the requirements of the collective redundancy notification provisions to apply to services calling at a port in Great Britain at least 52 times a year, rather than 120 times a year. We are, as my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, related, yet again dealing with the appalling events surrounding the P&O dispute in March 2022. As with the Seafarers’ Wages Act, the frequency requirement of this measure was designed to ensure that it applied to those services with a close enough connection to the United Kingdom to justify it. Any broadening of the scope would require further consideration of the impact of bringing further vessels into it. I will come on to the proposed amendments to the scope of the Seafarers’ Wages Act, but we do not accept the proposal to amend the scope of those measures. We will apply a consistent approach to the proposed changes to the scope of the collective redundancy requirements, which has the same frequency requirement. Any change would require stakeholder engagement and full consideration of the impacts on industry. However, having listened carefully to my noble friend Lord Davies of Brixton, we will agree to meet the trade unions, as he suggests, where a number of the issues that he has raised tonight can be further discussed, including the requirement for a summary of the Government’s position before Report.
Amendments 200AA, 200AB and 200AC, also tabled by my noble friend Lord Davies of Brixton, seek to apply the measures under the Seafarers’ Wages Act 2023 as amended by this Bill to weekly services rather than those calling 120 times a year as drafted. The existing minimum frequency requirement for the new remuneration and safe working declarations is consistent with the requirements under the existing Seafarers’ Wages Act 2023, which was brought into force on 1 December 2024. It is important that this measure be limited to services with a close enough connection to the UK to justify intervention in their working practices; the current requirements in the Seafarers’ Wages Act and in the Act as amended in this Bill have been designed with this in mind. Extending the scope of this measure would require careful consideration of the international law implications of bringing into scope less frequent services to the UK, as well as the impacts on the market. With these considerations in mind, we think that the existing scope strikes the correct balance. It would also not be right to accept this amendment without undertaking a full public consultation, which cannot be done in the timescales required to make this change as part of the Bill.
Amendment 200AD and the consequential Amendments 200AE to 200AK would go beyond the existing powers in the Bill to make safe working and remuneration regulations. It would provide further powers to specify conditions relating to sick pay, holiday pay, pensions and other training, and to require harbour authorities to request the associated declarations from operators, following the approach taken by the Government in relation to the remuneration and safe working regulations.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
I thank my noble friend Lady Whitaker for her amendment. In introducing the group, I should have said that I strongly support what is proposed there. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, for his measured comments and I thank my noble friend the Minister for agreeing to a meeting— I am sure it will be useful. Maybe I am an optimist, but I also thank him for a slight glimmer of hope that there will be some movement in relation to the measures. Some might express doubt, but I am a natural optimist, and I hope that the meeting will be constructive and that we will also be able to address the issue of information, as well as the specifics of the charter. With that in mind, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
“(f) a higher education provider as defined by—(i) section 3(10) of the Higher Education Research Act 2017;(ii) section 91 of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992;(iii) section 56 of the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Act 1992;(iv) Article 30 of the Education and Libraries (Northern Ireland) Order 1993.”
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 143B standing in my name, regarding outsourcing measures and their applicability to higher education providers across England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Universities, like other employers, are preparing for the enactment of the Bill and will be adapting to the new legislative expectations around workers’ rights. I want to stress from the outset that universities wholeheartedly support the Bill’s objectives to ensure fair employment practices for workers. They do, however, have some technical concerns about Clause 30. I hope that, through Amendment 143B, my noble friend can provide helpful reassurances to the higher education sector—so this is a probing amendment.
As noble Lords will be aware, Clause 30 outlines expectations that contracting authorities must treat any employee transferred from a contracted body no less favourably in the terms offered than core employees. Many universities consider themselves to fall within the definition of “contracting authority”, meaning they may inadvertently be caught by this clause. This is of great concern to the higher education sector and, so far as I am aware, does not appear to have been scrutinised in the Bill so far.
The enormous financial challenges facing universities are well documented, and I know are of grave concern to many Members of this House. The potential imposition of further costs for universities from Clause 30 should therefore be of concern. For the many universities that constitute as contracting authorities, there are likely to be significant cost implications, as well as increased difficulty in finding contractors as a result of this clause. Crucially, unlike with public bodies, these additional costs for universities will not be met by the Government.
In addition to the financial implications, there is also the potential for policy divergence across the UK. Given that Scotland and Wales will be able to set their own regulations and code of practice, there may be inconsistency in arrangements, which could discourage agreements with suppliers. This would have a particular impact in the complex environment that the higher education sector operates in and could have a significant impact on its moves towards greater efficiency.
I would appreciate assurances from my noble friend on three questions. The first is whether, and in what circumstances, universities will be considered to be contracting authorities for the purposes of this legislation. Has my noble friend’s department or the Department for Education made an assessment of the likely impact of Clause 30 on the university sector? Secondly, are the outsourcing measures defined in Clause 30 applicable to pension provision? Where employees are transferred to another organisation, will their pension arrangements form part of the requirement that they be treated no less favourably? Thirdly, what consideration will be given to the impact on shared services where many providers, including across UK nations, will work with the same body as a key driver of efficiency efforts? If my noble friend is unable to provide assurances from the Dispatch Box today, a letter would be very warmly received.
I urge my noble friend and her department to engage closely with the higher education sector to ensure that the implementation of Clause 30 does not inadvertently undermine the financial sustainability and operational flexibility of our universities. While of course we have to remain steadfast in our commitment to fair employment practices, we must also ensure that the legislation takes full account of the distinct nature of the higher education sector and supports our universities to continue their vital work.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
My Lords, I am pleased to speak in support of my noble friend Lady Warwick on an issue that, as far as I am aware, has not appeared anywhere else but is of some importance. There is growing unease in the higher education sector about the potential implications of Clause 30. Universities UK has said it is frustrated that its letters to both officials and Ministers—they would be the same thing, I imagine—remain unanswered. UUK is probably being a bit polite in saying that it is frustrated; I suggest that it is unacceptable for a letter from any UK-wide organisation not to receive a response. If nothing else, I hope my noble friend will be able to give an assurance in her reply that she will ensure that Universities UK receives a considered response to its very legitimate concerns.
As my noble friend said, the higher education sector is concerned at the potential impact of measures proposed in Clause 30, which relate to outsourcing, on current arrangements within the sector and on the viability of steps that universities have taken or are planning to take in order to stabilise their financial position. Many universities consider themselves as falling within the definition of contracting authorities and may therefore be inadvertently caught in this clause of the legislation.
As originally introduced, the public sector outsourcing provisions applied to contracting authorities in England only. However, Ministers introduced an amendment in Committee in another place, and provisions now apply to contracting authorities in England, Scotland and Wales. Again as my noble friend said, the major point on which clarification is essential is whether and in what circumstances universities will be considered to be contracting authorities for the purposes of this legislation.
There is also the question of whether the planned separate outsourcing rules for different UK nations will or even might create complex and prohibitive arrangements for universities. As an example, if an institution is working across the UK nations—a good example would be the Open University—that could mean it is subject to two or more sets of outsourcing rules, potentially providing a conflicting legislative framework for its operational practice. I hope my noble friend will be able to clarify how the Government envisage such separate outsourcing rules will operate, and that in doing so she will provide reassurance to many in the higher education sector who, as my noble friend Lady Warwick said, are very supportive of the Bill in general but fear that universities could become victims of unintended consequences.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I thank both noble Lords for their contributions, and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick of Undercliffe, for her introduction to her Amendment 143B. We think it is important to recognise the unique position of higher education providers when considering worker protection in public sector outsourcing. Because universities and similar institutions operate outside the traditional public sector framework, they possess a level of autonomy that sets them apart from government bodies, so applying the same regulatory requirements to these institutions clearly risks imposing unnecessary burdens that could affect their ability to focus on their core missions of education and research.
The amendment seems to us to thoughtfully acknowledge that difference by excluding higher education providers from the scope of these specific worker protection provisions. Such an approach would allow the focus of these protections to remain on core public sector organisations, where procurement processes are more standardised and closely tied to government accountability. At the same time, it would respect the operational independence of universities.
The fair treatment of workers remains an essential principle across all sectors, including higher education. Encouraging good employment practices within universities should continue through other means, but the amendment recognises the practical realities faced by these institutions. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s answer.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Information and Technology (Baroness Jones of Whitchurch) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Warwick for her thoughtful contribution to this debate on Amendment 143B. We fully recognise the need not to impose disproportionate burdens on smaller procuring organisations such as universities. However, it is important that we consider fairness and equality of treatment for all workers providing key outsourced services to higher education providers—for example, cleaning and catering services—so that they receive fair and equitable employment conditions comparable to both those transferred from the public sector and those working for local authorities or departments that provide the same services. As a result, there would need to be compelling arguments to exempt higher education providers.
Secondly, it is essential that we first consult with key stakeholders and seek their views before deciding on the ultimate content of the reinstated code and the extent to which certain public authorities, including higher education providers, are required to follow its provisions. I can assure my noble friend Lady Warwick that we will carefully consider the particular issues relating to higher education providers and the difficulties they might experience during this process. However, our view is that to carve out higher education providers completely on the face of this Bill at this stage would not be right.
My noble friend highlighted the particular financial challenges currently being experienced by universities. We are committed to creating a secure future for our world-leading universities so that they can deliver for students, taxpayers, workers and the economy. The Office for Students will continue dedicating significant resources to ensuring the sector’s financial sustainability. The DfE has appointed Professor Edward Peck as the substantive chair of the OfS, where he will play a key role in strengthening this commitment while also expanding opportunities in higher education. We have also made the tough decision to increase tuition fee limits in line with inflation. As a result, the maximum fee for a standard full-time undergraduate course in the 2025-26 academic year will increase by 3.1% from £9,250 to £9,535.
Finally, I stress that the code is being designed to be flexible so that it does not impose undue burdens. There are a range of options available here that could be pursued, for example by specifying to which bodies the code should apply or applying the code only to higher-value contracts, which could exempt low-value procurement activities such as those often carried out by educational establishments that may have fewer procurement resources. These are the sorts of issues that the consultation will examine in detail.
I am very conscious that my noble friends Lady Warwick and Lord Watson asked very specific questions. Given the lateness of the hour and the very specific nature of them, I think it would be helpful if we could write and put that on the record to provide, I hope, the reassurance that the higher education sector seeks. It is for that reason that I ask my noble friend to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for her reply and her attempt to reassure me and other Members of the Committee. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Watson of Invergowrie for his staunch support for what I am trying to do here. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, for his support; it was thoughtfully put, and I appreciate it.
I understand that the Minister is seeking to reassure me that she is very aware of the need to support the future of our universities. I do not think she really addressed, though, the issues around the impact on the different nations and the way in which that could affect the competitive advantage of the universities and the way in which they are seeking to increase efficiencies. I hope that, in writing to me, she will also undertake to meet the higher education sector once it has digested the detail of her response—I appreciate that my questions are technical. I hope she will undertake to do that because I think that would be enormously helpful and the most reassuring thing that she could do. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I am proposing that we remove Clause 31 from the Bill. That would remove the power of the Secretary of State to require largely private sector employers with more than 250 staff to develop and publish equality action plans showing what steps they are taking in relation to the gender pay gap and supporting employees going through the menopause. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, who is, sadly, not in her place, and the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, who is in her place, for their support.
This is a probing amendment because I am not at all clear exactly why this clause is deemed necessary or indeed exactly what it entails. On the latter point, I note with some dismay that much of the detail is to be left to regulations in terms of the content of an action plan, the form of an action plan, what manner it will take and even its frequency. There is no detail at all on what sanctions employers face if they do not comply with the yet not detailed regulations. It is very difficult to scrutinise such vagaries, and I fear it reduces the issue to nothing more than a virtue-signalling clause to claim that something positive is being done—action is being taken. What action? We do not know.
What we do know is that here is another clause that requires workplaces to create more paperwork. I fear that the noble cause of women’s equality is being reduced to bureaucracy. I am a tad cynical because, since 2017, employers have been required to publish gender pay gap data annually. Now the demand is for actionable steps, yet what is the problem that we are trying to solve here?
The implication is that more needs to be done to crack down on gender discrimination in the workplace, but I am not convinced that that is such a major problem today as is inferred. Which actions would be deemed acceptable might help us understand what this clause is trying to do, but it is never considered. For example, we are frequently given a reference statistic that men earn roughly 20% more than women. But such figures are misleading, as this is an on-average figure reached through combining part-time and full-time earnings and takes no account of age or employment sector.
Are women continually disadvantaged in the workplace in 2025? When we compare how much women and men are paid for doing the same number of hours each week, there is virtually no pay gap. Of course, it would be illegal to pay men more than women. To illustrate the complexities of age, occupation and hours worked, it is worth noting that women in their 20s earn more than men of the same age—not just like-for-like but also on average. Even for all women under 40 working full-time, the pay gap is negligible. Indeed, it was acknowledged by the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, when she was a Government Minister bringing in the pay gap notices. She said then:
“We’ve virtually eliminated the gap for full-time workers under 40 and the gap for the over-40s is shrinking too”.
If we only look at these issues in a technocratic way, do we not we miss nuances?
You could say that a decline in jobs traditionally associated with men earning more is actually a decline in old industries, because there has been a decline since 1979, when 40% of GDP was those old industries in which men earned more. But I am not sure that is something to celebrate. In other words, if you only view equality through the gender pay gap, you could actually end up arguing for the suppression of men’s pay or celebrating its decrease.
More to the point, what are employers being asked to action here, when many of the changes are broad social and cultural shifts, rather than sexist employment practices? It is true that, in the past, the labour market was rigidly segregated according to sex. As a consequence, men and women in their 50s and older today entered a labour market in which women were often not treated fairly. There was a cultural situation where women were more likely to take considerable time out of work to raise a family. This alone explains pay differentials that are still being felt today. But, as I say, as young women are earning more, these things are less of a problem. If we end up thinking that the reason the pay gap exists is older women and those differentials, I am not keen that we end up dumping older female employees so that, on paper, the gap is narrowed. I am not suggesting that anyone is saying that, but I am saying that we should not deal with this in a technical fashion.
I now arrive at something in which I have more expertise: older women. We arrive at the menopause part of the new section to be inserted by this clause. My concern here is that the Bill may end up amplifying the problems caused by the menopause for female employees, unintentionally presenting menopausal women as victims unable to cope. This could re-stigmatise the menopause—the opposite of what is intended. We should remember that the menopause is a natural life stage that all women go through and experience, and they all experience it differently in its duration and symptoms.
I worry that some of this has led to awareness raising that can mystify the menopause and turn it into an imagined horror story. I remember talking to a group of young students some years ago. I made a quip about being menopausal and they all said, “Oh no—how awful. That’s grim. How are you coping? Are you feeling all right?” They seemed terrified at the prospect. The menopause suddenly appeared to be an insurmountable series of anguishes that they would never cope with. Inevitably, they had been on a well-being course that had given them awareness training on the menopause. Do we want such attitudes becoming embedded in attitudes to female staff in the workplace, along with the association that, if you are menopausal, you are a delicate flower who needs to be worked around?
What exactly will employers be required to do to make reasonable adjustments to accommodate the specific needs of menopausal women? I have read activist demands that include the widespread availability of cooling fans; menopause champions and ambassadors in every workplace and department to encourage anti-stigma dialogue across the workforce; therapist sessions, including the availability of therapy dogs; and training courses for HR and management to look at everything from thermostat levels to developing menopause-sensitive language codes. To be honest, lots of these ideas stray dangerously close to condescending women. It might well be that this is not what the Government have in mind at all, but we have no idea if that is true because there are no details in the Bill—in fact, the details are all deferred until after the Bill is passed.
Do not get me wrong—I have been a vocal supporter of improving access to HRT on the NHS and, as a woman of a certain age, I am rather too familiar with some of the debilitating symptoms. But we should be wary of the calls, for example, for menopause leave and time off, with no questions asked, when using the word “menopause” would be enough to mean that—without any evidence and based on lived experience—employers are just meant to accept that there is a problem. There is a danger of green-lighting a mission creep not dissimilar to the crisis of so many not in work citing mental health problems—and I am really pleased to see that the Health Secretary, Wes Streeting, has raised this. That is a new social problem, and I do not want the menopause to become another one.
Again, possibly none of this is what the Government intend, yet we are using legislation to demand that employers must take steps to support employees going through the menopause. That seems completely inappropriate and unjustified, and it is bound to lead to mission creep if this legislation is used to that end, with this clause in it.
I will make two quick points as a PS. Can the Government please be careful with their language? Usually, it is the Government lecturing people like me on the Back Bench about watching our words and what language we use, but, whether we like it or not, the word “gender” has been corrupted by ideology. The pay gap that the Government seek to tackle is between the two sexes—a fear that biological women may be discriminated against as women. I am not being pedantic or referencing the culture wars here; I have been at a number of official corporate events over recent years where businesses were patted on the back for helping women break through the glass ceiling and for their work on the pay gap only for the examples of success given to be trans women—that is, men who identify as women—on corporate boards. I want to avoid that con happening.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
My Lords, I am against Clause 31 standing part of the Bill. The 2010 Act protects against gender and other types of discrimination. It replaces earlier Acts, as your Lordships will know, including the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, the Race Relations Act 1976 and the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.
The principles of equality are commonly supported. The aims are those on which people agree and under which employers are bound. Section 78 of the Equality Act stipulates that:
“Regulations may require employers to publish information relating to the pay of employees for the purpose of showing whether, by reference to factors of such description as is prescribed, there are differences in the pay of male and female employees”.
We have an Act that is commonly agreed on and obeyed, and known by those to whom it is addressed.
Clause 31 proposes to add a new Section 78A after Section 78, which stipulates:
“Regulations may require employers to … develop and publish … an ‘equality action plan’”
in respect of gender and equality,
“showing the steps that the employers are taking in relation to their employees with regard to prescribed matters related to gender equality, and … publish prescribed information relating to the plan”.
This will oblige more compliance, more bureaucracy and higher costs on employers—and it is unnecessary because we have the law.
We have just been listening to the discussion of the strategic defence review. We are going to have to spend a lot of money on defence. There are going to be lots of demands on the public purse. To oblige more compliance and bureaucracy on employers at a time when things are tight will not be a great help to the other demands on the public purse. It is not only about compliance and bureaucracy; much worse than that it leads to something beyond the principles of the Equality Act. It prompts institutions in practice to devise and interpret action plans that result in a 50:50 balance between men and women, and steps will be taken to achieve that level playing field and to discriminate positively.
Take the example of academic shortlisting, where, in order to achieve a 50:50 balance, things can be so ordained at the shortlisting stage in order to appoint women, and as they are so ordained, discrimination takes place against men and appointments are made not on merit but on gender. This results in action plans under which men are discriminated against. It is also unfair for women because, once positive discrimination comes into play, women too suffer. The women who are appointed are perceived to have been appointed not because they come first on merit, or in a fair competition, but on account of their gender.
I shall comment briefly on new Section 78A(4), which sets down that
“matters related to gender equality include (a) addressing the gender pay gap, (b) supporting employees going through the menopause”.
New Section 78A(4)(a) is too broad. Take the case of a male and female employee appointed at entry level to similar positions. They start with the same salary, but one may do far better than the other, be given far more responsibility and be promoted eventually to a higher role. How is the gender pay gap to be addressed, given that the talent, resourcefulness and ability of one employee naturally results in more responsibility and higher payment?
The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, has already mentioned new Section 78A(4)(b), which has no place in the workplace. It is discriminatory in its assumption that women need special help at certain times of their life. It also violates the professionalism of a good workplace in treating the personal as public, and it puts the employer into a discriminatory role in requiring special support for a select group of employees, rather than acting as a dispassionate employer who treats all employees well and fairly.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, I also support the proposition that Clause 31, on equality action plans, should not stand part of the Bill. We meet tonight with the knowledge that the OECD has downgraded the UK’s likely GDP for this year and next year. Less than an hour ago, the Minister said, I think I am right in saying, that it was not the intention of the Government to impose any onerous obligations on businesses as a result of the Bill. This is an example of exactly that.
I am very concerned about this clause, because it is very widely drawn and relies disproportionately on regulations that will be tabled, or laid before the House, once the Bill becomes an Act. I pay tribute to the very powerful intervention of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, and the thoughtful comments of my noble friend Lady Lawlor. Is it really the duty and responsibility of a Minister in the sixth-biggest economy in the world, a mature economy of 68 million people, to impose by ministerial fiat, in primary legislation, the minutiae, the weeds, of
“the content of a plan”
for every business that has more than 250 employees,
“the form and manner in which a plan or information is to be published; when and how”
that plan is published, and, in new subsection (5)(d)—maybe I am being obtuse, but I do not even understand the meaning of this—
“requirements for senior approval before a plan or information is published”?
What does that even mean? Does it mean the chief people officer, the chief executive, the managing director or what?
It would be much better were the Government to use their energy, and the good will that is behind significant parts of the Bill, to work with people such as the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, the Equalities and Human Rights Commission, ACAS and others to develop professional, timely briefings for employers. But they are not doing that. They are instead insisting, in the Bill, that they will direct these equality action plans, irrespective of what type of business is being transacted and whether it has a workforce of 251, 25,000 or 250,000.
In fact, the clause does not even define “employee”, “employer” or “descriptions of information”. It fails to define them and says that those details will be reserved for regulations to be laid after the Bill gets Royal Assent. New subsection (7) is also very opaque when it states:
“The regulations may make provision for a failure to comply with the regulations to be enforced, otherwise than as an offence, by such means as are prescribed”.
Again, that is very loosely drawn. We do not know what it means or what sanctions will be in place and available for Ministers to lay down in regulations. New subsection (6) states:
“The regulations may not require an employer, after the first publication of information, to publish information more frequently”.
It does not say “must not”, so Ministers can still use regulations to enforce periodic publications of and changes to these regulations.
For all those reasons, this is an unnecessary clause. It will add costs and administrative burdens. It will certainly take a significant amount of time, for instance, to get in specialists in human resources as consultants to draw up these plans on perhaps a 12-monthly basis. It will take a lot of administrative time and take away from employing people, for the bottom line and profit, which will impact employability. For that reason, I support the proposition that this clause should not stand part of the Bill.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
My Lords, I rise to express a view that I did not think I would be expressing in your Lordships’ House. I am utterly appalled by this proposition and the speech from the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, who, lest there were any doubt, has given the clearest possible indication of her political journey from the extreme left to the extreme right, which is there for all to see.
It is an absolute disgrace to suggest that to seek to help women in the workplace gain equality is somehow to treat them as victims. I did my university dissertation in 1974 on the Equal Pay Act, when the gap between men and women was 25%. Half a century later, it is down to something like 7% or 8%. Yes, that is a huge improvement, but the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, and others who have spoken have said, “Well, that’s okay. We can leave it there. We don’t want to push it any further, because it’s going to burden industry with costs”. What about the women who are burdened with wages lower than they are entitled to get for the job they do on a day-to-day basis?
It is well known that inclusivity in the workforce increases levels of production, is good for problem solving and enhances job retention. I am talking not just about gender issues but wider diversity. The speech that the noble Baroness made and others have echoed will be cheered to the rafters by Nigel Farage and Donald Trump, because it is exactly the sort of thing they have been saying, and I think it is a very dangerous line for Members of this House to push. It is a perfectly legitimate expectation in a Bill such as this that an equality action plan is something that employers should be expected to have. Many already do—they do not need to be told. Good employers have one in place and are benefiting from the standard of output they are getting from employees who are more satisfied because they are clearly better valued. To suggest that we just leave it there is absolute nonsense.
I will not talk about the menopause, but I just could not believe what I heard—that, somehow, women are being painted as victims. As a man, it is difficult for me to comment, but there is a broad spread of opinion that the issue has to be dealt with by employers. To be perfectly fair, some employers do, but others do not, and there should at least be the opportunity for women who want to take advantage of this to be able to do so. To try to slam that door in their faces is an absolute disgrace.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, what a relief to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Watson—I thought I was going to be on my own with the comments from the noble Baronesses, Lady Fox and Lady Lawlor, and the noble Lord, Lord Jackson. They were prophets of doom and living in another world.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, and my noble friends Lady Lawlor and Lord Jackson of Peterborough because they rightly question whether this clause is necessary to establish what we all agree should be the vital place for equality of opportunity.
It is vital in the workplace that merit should win the day, but there should also be equality of opportunity. Women and men should have equal opportunities, fair treatment and the freedom to thrive regardless of their background. So I hope all those who have spoken, including the noble Lords, Lord Watson of Invergowrie and Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, would agree that we all support equality of opportunity, not just in principle but in practice.
Therefore, it is right that every time there is another step, particularly when it creates more paperwork and more bureaucracy—as the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, put it—it is important that we just question whether this is the right way to proceed, particularly, as my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough pointed out, because this is really giving the Government power to do whatever they want to do whenever they wish to do it, by regulation. We do not know what the Government will do because they have not yet consulted on the power that we are about to give them. It is exactly what this House has always preached long and hard against. We should not give Henry VIII powers to the Government to do whatever they would like to do by statutory instrument.
I would have thought that my successor as chair of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee—the noble Lord, Lord Watson of Invergowrie—would know that more than anyone else. Giving the Government this power has to be justified. My noble friend Lady Fox of Buckley does not need me to defend her against the noble Lord, Lord Watson of Invergowrie, as he saw her move across the political spectrum, but she is right to question this in the way she did. As my noble friend Lady Lawlor put it, we are, in a way, promoting positive discrimination, which undermines achievement on merit.
I hope that the Minister will give very serious thought to explaining exactly what is proposed, rather than wait for the secondary legislation. Let us know, straightaway and in detail, what additional equality action plans are being proposed. We have to pause for a moment to worry about the serious and often unintended consequences that policies such as these can have, particularly for women on the margins of the labour market. The principle behind the measure is commendable —to close the gender gaps, to support women through challenges such as the menopause, and to shine a light on structural inequalities—but, in practice, these kinds of top-down mandates too often result in box-ticking compliance, statistical quotas and public relations targets, and never in real progress.
What gets measured drives what gets managed. When employers are judged by headline figures—gender pay gaps, representation in senior roles—there is an inevitable temptation for them to focus their efforts where the optics are best improved, on high-status, high-visibility roles. As a result, employers might feel pressured to hire or promote individuals with certain characteristics into elite positions just to improve those diversity statistics, rather than genuinely supporting a larger number of people, who are often the minority, who hold lower-paid, insecure or part-time roles and who would benefit most from meaningful reform.
Regardless of sex, ethnicity or sexual orientation, merit should always be the basis for the advancement of an individual. I worry that we risk a situation where the beneficiaries of an equality policy are disproportionately those who are already relatively privileged, while those in cleaning jobs, care work, warehouses, and food processing and service are pushed further to the margins. Even worse, if statistical appearances become the basis of legal or reputational risk, employers may become reluctant to hire minority women at all into lower-paying roles for fear of what the data might suggest. That is not progress; it is perverse.
I warmly applaud the fact that this debate is taking place. Equality is not achieved by engineering the statistics; it is achieved when every person, regardless of sex, class, race or role, has access to fair work, safe conditions, proper pay and genuine opportunity to get on in life. I ask colleagues to consider: will these equality action plans bring meaningful change for working-class young men, people from ethnic minorities and women on zero-hours contracts, or will they largely serve the HR departments of large organisations by helping to polish their diversity reports while little changes on the ground? We cannot effect equality by appearance; we must demand equality by substance.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Collins of Highbury) (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, for initiating this probing debate on Clause 31. As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, highlighted—I like to call him my noble brother after all these years of working together—it enables us to put forward a very strong case. One can always be concerned about Henry VIII powers and secondary legislation, especially when employers are not consulted and the objective is to undermine good industrial relations. I remind my noble brother about the debates we had on the strikes Bill, which was precisely about those issues of unintended consequences.
Ensuring that women can remain in and progress in work is crucial—vital—to economic growth, and yet the national gender pay gap remains at 13.1%. We know that women often face barriers in the workplace that impact their pay, progression and economic participation. Eight in 10 menopausal women say that their workplace has no basic support in place. This lack of support is a barrier and can lead to a significant loss of talent and, just as importantly, productivity.
This is not new. As a trade unionist, I, and my noble brother opposite, know full well—we have heard about all the legislation that has been brought in—that real progress has been effected in the workplace by supporting and amplifying that legislation and giving people the tools to ensure that that legislation has an impact. As a trade unionist, I have seen many initiatives that have delivered better facilities and ensured that women can remain active in the workplace.
I remember a campaign in the 70s and 80s about breast cancer. Many women would not even dare talk about it, but the trade union movement launched a campaign for workplace screening and opened up a debate, so that people could acknowledge the risks and address them, rather than live in isolation and fear. It is important that women are able to talk about the menopause openly and can address it. Breast cancer does not make women victims. We should all be focused on how we can deliver for women. That is really important, and there are many examples.
Since 2017, large employers have been required to publish gender pay gap data. The additional publication of an action plan is precisely to do what the noble Lord opposite has said. How do we see and assess the impact? The additional publication of an action plan has been encouraged, but it is voluntary. However, analysis in 2019 discovered that only half of employers reporting data were voluntarily producing a plan on how they can make improvements. What the noble Lord described is what has happened: they produce the data and do nothing. That is why this legislation is so important, and the next step for improvements for women in the workplace is to make that mandatory.
Of course, we recognise and applaud the best employers, which already recognise the value of supporting women to thrive and are already taking action—many noble Lords addressed that. Following their lead, large employers will be required to detail the actions they are taking to improve gender equality and support employees during the menopause. The intention is to motivate employers to take meaningful action, to break down the barriers and help all women to thrive.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who spoke, some of whom were more sympathetic than others to what I was trying to raise.
The noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, made an important point when he talked about the importance of accurate data. I agree, but data and statistics are not flat lines; they are complicated. I tried to indicate, without boring your Lordships with lots of statistics, that the gender pay gap number in relation to statistics is to do with age, the past, the change in relation to young women, and so on, which nobody has come back on. In fact, there are books written, and I have papers, and I have read them all—I will not bore your Lordships now—but I suggest that this is not the key issue facing women at work today.
The noble Lord, Lord Collins, came back on a lot of the points in terms of the aspirations, and I agree with him. However, the Government are overcomplacent about the problems of delegated powers and legislative oversight, which I also raised as a substantial part of my complaint. There was no comeback. I supported the Government when they were in opposition. They constantly raised these issues, and I went along with them and supported them.
Despite what the noble Lord, Lord Watson of Invergowrie, suggested, I thought this was a modest proposal, but somehow I have managed to be accused of fuelling Donald Trump and Nigel Farage, and this was called an illustration of my political journey from far left to far right. I will not do a full critique of the attack on me, which was very personal and personalised, but I would like to point out something.
I was and am a member of the left, and the fact that the Labour Party and the left have moved in a different direction from mine does not necessarily mean that I am the one who has moved to the right. I spend a lot of time talking to ordinary working-class people—women and men—who are tearing their hair out at the attacks on the living standards that they are going through under this Government. Therefore, to be lectured about not understanding the fight against inequality, and the idea that anybody who stands up and challenges an orthodoxy on a potentially bureaucratic plan—by the way, I never mentioned employers and costs; I said it was an insult to women that we got reduced statistics and bits of paper, which was a different point. But anyway, it is crucial that we should challenge the orthodoxies of gender equality when they are presented in this way without being treated as though one is a far-right pariah. It is unworthy of the nature of this House, which is to debate and scrutinise, in my opinion. I simply try to do that.
I still want to push this—more so now than before—on Report, but for now I will not oppose this clause standing part of the Bill.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
“Use of positive action in the workplace(1) In this section—(a) “P” is a public sector worker who reasonably thinks that the application by P’s employer, in relation to P’s employment or a working practice, of sections 158 and 159 of the Equality Act 2010 has caused or risks causing detriment to P,(b) “R” is P’s public sector employee, and(c) P reasonably thinks that R is responsible for the detriment in subsection (1)(a).(2) A Minister of the Crown must by regulations make provision for—(a) forms through which P may anonymously question R on any matter relevant to subsection (1),(b) forms through which R may answer questions by P, and(c) such forms to be made publicly available.(3) Within six months of the passing of this Act and every three months thereafter, R must publish a report setting out―(a) the number of forms received under subsection (2), and(b) a summary of the nature of the complaints to which they relate.(4) A Minister of the Crown may by regulations require R to report on the use of sections 158 and 159 of the Equality Act 2010.(5) This section does not apply to activities undertaken by R under paragraph 1 of Schedule 9 of the Equality Act 2010.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment introduces a mechanism for public sector employees who believe they have been disadvantaged by their employer’s use of positive action under sections 158 and 159 of the Equality Act 2010. It would require the Government to create a process allowing such employees to anonymously question their employer and requiring employers to respond.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 145 standing in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral. This amendment introduces a mechanism for public sector workers who reasonably believe that they have been subjected to detriment as a result of their employers’ use of positive action under Sections 158 and 159 of the Equality Act 2010. It does not seek to outlaw such action, nor does it obstruct efforts to promote fairness. Rather, it seeks to ensure that fairness extends to all employees, not only those whom the state or the employer happen to deem underrepresented.
We must confront the uncomfortable truth that some public bodies have begun to apply positive action in ways that no longer reflect the careful balance envisaged by Parliament when the Equality Act was passed. We have now entered territory where lawful positive action shades into unlawful positive discrimination —where the scales of justice have been not merely tipped but turned. For example, let us consider West Yorkshire Police, a force whose conduct in this area raises urgent and serious concerns. It has come to light through both media investigation and internal whistleblowers that recruitment processes have been operated in a manner which in practice delays, restricts or even excludes applications from white British candidates. Candidates from certain ethnic minority backgrounds were allowed to apply early and, in some cases, were mentored through the process by dedicated positive action teams. Meanwhile, white British applicants were told to wait until a general window opened, often for as little as 48 hours. This, we are assured, is not discrimination but rather the fair operation of the law. I do not agree. This is not the spirit nor, arguably, even the letter of the Equality Act. It is a distortion of the law, and it demands redress.
What makes this all the more troubling is that these actions are being taken not by private corporations but by the state, or at least by institutions that act in the name of the state and are funded by the public purse. The taxpayer in this case is being forced to subsidise policies that they might find discriminatory and from which they may be excluded. There seems to be something especially perverse, indeed, almost Orwellian, about that.
This is not merely an abstract concern. West Yorkshire Police, for example, reportedly spent over £1.4 million in recent years on equality, diversity and inclusion staff—more than any other force in the country. That is public money. It is money earned by ordinary citizens, some of whom now find themselves effectively barred from entry into public service not because they lack ability but because their ethnic background does not satisfy an internal diversity target. When questions are raised, when whistleblowers from within these forces speak up, what happens? We hear of them being silenced, reprimanded or warned not to interfere. We hear of secret job listings marked “hidden” in the system, visible only to certain candidates. We hear of candidates greeted with hugs and reassurances that their interviews are merely a formality. That is not recruitment, and it is not equality. It is institutional manipulation.
The amendment before your Lordships seeks to restore a measure of transparency and accountability. It proposes a system by which a public sector worker who reasonably believes that they have been harmed by the operation of positive action can submit a formal question anonymously to their employer. The employer, in turn, must respond. Moreover, employers will be required to publish data on such queries, allowing Parliament and the public to monitor the use and potential abuse of these provisions. This is not a punitive or burdensome requirement; it is the most basic form of procedural fairness.
Let us be clear. This amendment does not challenge the principle of inclusion; it does not deny that discrimination has existed; but it says unequivocally that the answer to past unfairness is not the imposition of new unfairness, that the pursuit of diversity must not come at the expense of justice, and that inclusion must include everybody. Equality before the law is not a suggestion or a secondary consideration to be weighed against modern ideological preferences. It is a constitutional principle that underpins this very Chamber. When we allow it to be weakened quietly and gradually by well-meaning policies that turn into arbitrary practices, we invite division, resentment and, ultimately, more injustice.
The Minister may say that everything that I have described—the delays, the exclusion of white British applicants, the unequal mentoring and the hidden vacancies—is perfectly lawful under existing legislation. He may say that this is precisely how the Government intend for positive action to operate in the public sector. However, I sincerely hope that is not the argument that is to be advanced. Alternatively, the Minister may offer reassurance to the Committee and to the public that existing law already contains sufficient safeguards, and that what we have heard from West Yorkshire Police, Thames Valley Police and others would not and should not be permitted under any reasonable interpretation of the Equality Act. If that is the case, I would welcome that clarification. I would also welcome assurance that there is already a functioning system of redress for individuals who believe that they have been mistreated on the basis of how positive action has been applied.
If the Minister agrees with the points that I have made—that West Yorkshire Police should not have discriminated against white applicants and that there is no mechanism to stop this—then I very much look forward to the Government accepting this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
I came into this debate by chance, but it seems to me that this is part of a very undesirable development: an attack on the principle of equality, diversity and inclusion policies. These principles are at the heart of my politics. I have fought for racial equality ever since I was a student, when I went on marches against Enoch Powell and what he stood for. I thought that the response of the Labour Government in the 1960s—to make racial discrimination illegal—was very important. In more modern times, when I was chair of Lancaster University and looking at the question of student admissions, I always thought that we should make allowance for the fact that some working-class people had not had the best chance in life and take this into account in admissions procedures Therefore, I rather regret what the Opposition Front Bench is trying to do, which is to undermine the political acceptability of these policies.
There is a danger here. I have seen it from some people in my own party who say that, in response to the alleged great Reform upsurge, we should start abandoning EDI. That would be catastrophic for a social democrat like me, who has always believed in these things. I hope that the Members opposite will withdraw their amendment.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
I would gently advise the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, to have read the amendment before he pontificates down memory lane on his great campaigns of the past for equality.
This amendment is about fairness. It ill behoves his party to lecture us on equality when it needed the Supreme Court to tell its own Prime Minister what a woman was. We will take lessons on equality from many people but not from a party that was found to be institutionally racist by the Equality and Human Rights Commission not that long ago.
Let us move on from there because, if noble Lords read this amendment, they will see that it is an amendment that speaks of fairness. All it says, very simply, is that anyone who construes a situation where they have felt themselves personally discriminated against should have a proper, legal and transparent opportunity to question the decision of a person who is taking a big decision in their life: whether to appoint them to a post or not. It is not draconian and does not include fines; it is merely an occasion for that person to challenge a decision taken by authority in a fair, open and transparent way.
Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)
I hardly know where to start.
Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)
Certainly, I believe that everybody at work—whatever background they come from and whatever their class, sex, gender or sexuality—should have the right to be treated fairly. I believe that our legal system, our Equality Act, precisely provides that protection for people, but that we can build on it through equality action plans and so on. But I have to say that maybe some noble Lords opposite also need to consider people’s real experience.
I was elected as the first ever woman general secretary of the TUC. Clearly, we were not a movement that rushed things, because it took an awful long time to get to that point. I have enough self-awareness to know that it was not because there were not talented women, black or white, who could have been elected and who had the talent, skills and ability. There was something else going on, and I hope that there would be enough honesty in this House to recognise that black people and women face real barriers that will not be overcome unless we take positive action.
The other point I would just like to reflect on is that, whenever I spoke about seeing more women playing active roles in not just the trade union movement but in public life, including, by the way, lending my support to women who were arguing that we needed more women in the boardroom—I supported that principle—I was always fascinated that, whenever I raised those issues, people, largely men I have to say, would start talking about merit. Well, I have to say, when I look at the upper echelons, I do not always see in those male-dominated and white-dominated ranks people who got there on the basis of merit. I have never seen an advert for a position on a board. I have never known any board member to go through an open recruitment process to get that position. It has very often been a case of a tap on the shoulder.
If we look at how many judges and newspaper editors we have, and specifically at race, sex and gender, yes, the picture has progressed, but we still have a very long way to go. Therefore, I think this amendment is a little disingenuous in trying to suggest that people who have been held back for years because of their class background, race or gender, if given a helping hand and a bit of encouragement to go for it, will somehow cause a meltdown of society.
Achieving what my noble friend said is, quite rightly, part of my history and our history. I hope that it is part of our progress as a country that we value equality. We know that ultimately it is good for all of us, and long may we keep struggling to achieve that goal.
Baroness Carberry of Muswell Hill (Lab)
My Lords, my noble friends on this side of the House have commented on this amendment in far better terms than I could, but I will make a supplementary point. I was very surprised to see this amendment, because one of the perennial themes that we have heard throughout all stages of the Bill in this House has been a complaint about the alleged level of extra bureaucracy that it is supposed to impose on employers. Yet here we see a veritable feast of form-filling and requirements to report on those forms at regular intervals. I suggest that this amendment is not needed; it is surplus to requirements because it places unnecessary burdens on employers.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I will be very brief. It is very important that we do not suggest that giving a helping hand to those who have been politically deprived of equality equals equality. It can also equal tokenism. Working-class people, women and people from ethnic minorities have been promoted to positions in authority, and people basically point them out and say, “Look at them: they succeeded”. That is the opposite of equal treatment, and condescension is not a good look.
Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab)
My Lords, I can hardly follow my noble friend Lady O’Grady in being the TUC’s first woman general secretary, but I was the first woman leader of Newport City Council after decades and the first woman leader of the Welsh Local Government Association—and am still the only one.
I was also a public service employee for 35 years, when I taught in schools in London and south Wales, so I know about positive action. When I became a public service employer, as the leader of Newport, what I tried to do with positive action was to actively take a range of measures and initiatives to encourage people from communities that were underrepresented. We wanted them to bring their talents, experiences and expertise to our organisation, and we wanted them to join us.
Our selection process was no different: through the use of positive action, we did not seek to remove competition; rather, we wanted to allow everyone the same level of opportunity. That final selection for a post was always made on the merit of the applicant. We built our workforce so that it reflected the rich diversity and complexities of our community of Newport and we attracted the best talent from the widest pool of people.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, this has been an interesting debate on positive action, and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, for initiating it. It raised important issues but, when the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, spoke of straw-man debates, I thought he was a good example in the issues that he raised, because we are not talking about positive discrimination here. As the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, acknowledged, all Governments have supported positive action, for very good reasons.
The positive action provisions in the Equality Act 2010 enable, in a work context, both public and private sector employers to prioritise the recruitment of and promote people who have protected characteristics that are underrepresented generally or at certain levels in their workplace.
This is permissible only where the available candidates are considered equally qualified for the particular role. In other words, it is a tie-break based on workforce diversity. We therefore do not accept the premise of the new clause that another employee has suffered an unjustified detriment by not being selected. Of course, we are absolutely clear that it is illegal to positively discriminate, and I will give reasons.
The noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, raised something that I read in the Daily Telegraph about West Yorkshire Police. One of the things that, sadly, many of our newspapers fail to do is to issue the full statement. I thought West Yorkshire Police issued a commendable statement. It said:
“In West Yorkshire Police, we are committed to improving equality, diversity, and inclusion within the organisation, and strive to be more representative of the communities we serve.
Our Diversity, Equality and Inclusion team supports and consults with those with different protected characteristics such as sex, disability, sexual orientation, and race to ensure their views can influence and improve the service the force delivers. They also work to improve the wellbeing of everybody in the organisation and inclusivity overall.
The most recent census found that 23 per cent of people in West Yorkshire identified as being from an ethnic minority background. Our current police officer representation from ethnic minority backgrounds is around nine per cent. To address this under-representation, we use Positive Action under the Equality Act 2010. Our use of this was recently reviewed by His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire and Rescue Services in an Activism and Impartiality inspection and no issues were identified.
Positive Action allows people from under-represented groups who express an interest in joining the force to complete an application, which is then held on file until a recruitment window is opened. No interviews are held until the window is officially opened to all candidates. Enabling people from under-represented groups to apply early does not give them an advantage in the application process, it simply provides us with more opportunity to attract talent from this pool of applicants”.
I think that is the point that my noble friend Lady O’Grady was making. It is a pity that the Daily Telegraph did not report the full statement from the police because I think it sets this whole thing in perfect context.
A detriment arises where someone is treated unfairly by their employer—for example, where someone is promoted over them who is clearly a weaker candidate. If the reason for that was based on a protected characteristic, it would be unlawful positive discrimination under the 2010 Act and would be rightly challengeable, but this is not the situation under positive action. I think that has been extremely well illustrated by West Yorkshire Police in terms of how it adopted that policy.
We also have doubts as to whether the processes envisaged could be truly confidential. This could have undesirable implications for both the successful candidate and the complainant. Lawful recruitment decisions are confidential for good reason, and opening them up to this kind of probing risks creating interemployee bad feeling, particularly in smaller departments where the identification of people by inference or guesswork is easier.
The Bill is about improving employment rights, not creating new and unnecessary conflicts. Positive action can work effectively only as part of a confidential recruitment process, where transparency is often good for equality. What is proposed would, I fear, work against that, and as such the Government cannot support the proposed new clause.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I thank the Minister for that comprehensive answer, and I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this quite lively debate. I have to say I was disappointed that the greatest lady of them all who did not need a helping hand did not get a mention, so I will mention her: Margaret Thatcher.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, that we are not seeking to undermine anything in this; I was very clear about that. I want to make it clear that, as I said in my opening remarks, this amendment does not seek to outlaw such action, nor does it obstruct efforts to promote fairness. It just seeks to ensure that fairness extends to all employees, not only to those whom the state or the employer happens to deem underrepresented.
I am grateful to the Minister for his extended quote from the Yorkshire case, but I also mentioned the case in Thames Valley. A tribunal there ruled that the three white police officers who won a claim after they were passed over for promotion were overlooked by Thames Valley Police because of their race and an ethnic-minority sergeant was promoted—this is the killer line—
“without any competitive assessment process taking place”,
which is precisely not the spirit of the laws that we have just been discussing.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
That is why we were asking these questions and laying this amendment. It is good to have it out in the open. The amendment sought not litigation but clarity. It sought not courtroom battles but a simple mechanism for transparency and accountability. It would have been a route for asking questions and a structure for reporting. It would be a reminder that positive action must remain within the bounds of the law and fairness, and not become a euphemism for sanctioned discrimination. However, I have heard the arguments from the Minister and, not least because of the lateness of the hour, I am content to withdraw the amendment.
Employment Rights Bill
Thursday 5th June 2025
(9 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Employment Rights Act 2025 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 81-VII(a) Amendment for Committee (Supplementary to the Seventh Marshalled List) - (4 Jun 2025)
Lord Holmes of Richmond
“(A1) After section 5(1)(ec) of the Employment Agencies Act 1973, insert—“(ed) requiring employment businesses participating in employment arrangements to be subject to a licensing authority nominated by the Secretary of State.””
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to begin this Committee day on the Employment Rights Bill. This is probably the most straightforward of the amendments I have on the Order Paper this afternoon; it simply seeks to bring clarity, consistency and fairness to this whole area. What does the amendment do? It simply states that employment businesses participating in employment arrangements must be subject to a licensing authority.
The fairness this brings is across both employment businesses that operate in this country and those that may be outside this country but involved in employment arrangements in this country; thus a licensing authority would bring them into the same regime as businesses in this country. It also reflects the situation in other sectors of the economy, so it has an element of consistency and is thus easily understandable to people who come to this from other domains within our economy. It is simply a question of clarity, consistency and fairness in employment businesses. I beg to move.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I am quite concerned about this amendment, although I rarely disagree with my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond. I am just concerned about the number of agencies or government bodies that keep being created. We already have considerable regulation in this country; I am not convinced that this will add value. Although I recognise the reasons why my noble friend put this forward, I hope he might reconsider tabling it again on Report, if he was so minded.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, I start by saying how pleased we are to see my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond in his place. I had the privilege of moving his previous amendments in his absence, but we are delighted to see him back with us and I thank him for proposing this important amendment.
The way my noble friend did it was very welcome because, at the heart of his speech, was a recognition that the labour market—especially the supply of temporary and agency workers—has to be fair and transparent. He used those particular words and stressed their importance. I agree with him that it is essential that all companies involved in these arrangements operate under the same clear set of rules. Too often, we see instances where umbrella companies or certain intermediaries do not meet the standards expected of traditional employment agencies, whether on pay, workers’ rights or transparency. This inconsistency undermines the integrity of the labour market and can put vulnerable workers at risk. Licensing could, in theory, help address this by ensuring that any business participating in employment arrangements meets minimum standards and is subject to proper oversight.
However, as my noble friend Lady Coffey stressed, the amendment raises some other important questions. Clause 34 broadens the definition of “employment business” to encompass a range of activities connected to supplying workers who are employed by one party but work under the control of another. This means that the regulatory net will be set much wider than before, potentially to cover businesses beyond traditional recruitment agencies.
Moreover, it is worth considering whether the same objectives could be achieved through improved enforcement of existing regulations rather than by introducing a new licensing framework. In this Chamber, we have to weigh carefully the costs and benefits, particularly to smaller businesses that may struggle with additional compliance burdens. We must also consider the impact on businesses and the wider economy. Many employment businesses operate with tight margins; for them, licensing means added costs, added paperwork and longer lead times to launch new services or respond to labour demand.
This is not an argument against regulation per se; it is simply a recognition that badly designed or poorly phased licensing can create barriers to entry, reduce competition and even push some providers underground, where abuses are harder to detect. In sectors that are already experiencing labour shortages, such as social care, hospitality and logistics, the cumulative impact could be significant.
As my noble friend Lady Coffey pointed out, there is also the risk of regulatory duplication or conflict. Some sectors already have licensing or registration schemes; others are subject to sector-specific standards set by Ofsted, the Care Quality Commission or the Financial Conduct Authority. Without co-ordination, we risk creating overlapping regimes, with businesses subject to multiple audits, rival codes of conduct and inconsistent enforcement. Workers too may be confused about their rights and the mechanisms available for redress.
I also note that the amendment does not contain any provisions for parliamentary oversight or consultation. The power it seeks to create is broad and, while it is subject to the discretion of the Secretary of State, it is not constrained by any statutory duty to consult stakeholders. In a sector as economically important and socially sensitive as this, there must be consultation. Against that background, I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, for his amendment concerning the licensing of employment businesses. I join the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, in saying how nice it is to see him in his place this afternoon. I share the privilege that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, noted as I responded to the amendments that were tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, and these were on important issues that he was right to raise. As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said, these are around fairness, transparency, equity and the problems that some less than scrupulous umbrella organisations and employment agencies currently raise in the market. He is not raising unimportant issues.
As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has already noted, through Clause 34, the Government have sought to amend the definition of “employment business” in the Employment Agencies Act 1973, so that it includes the concept of employment arrangements. This expanded definition will capture so-called umbrella companies and place them in the scope of regulation. As your Lordships know, employment businesses are subject to regulation through the Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses Regulations 2003, which were enforced by the Employment Agency Standards Inspectorate and subsequently will be enforced by the new fair work agency that Part 5 of the Bill creates.
The Government acknowledge that the current regulations are not appropriate for application to umbrella companies so, following consultation, we will set out a new regulatory framework that will apply to umbrella companies. In our view, these regulations are the most proportionate way of reducing non-compliance in the umbrella company market, without introducing a new regime that would add complexity for business. The creation of a licensing authority at this time would therefore not be appropriate. I am happy to say that on this rare occasion, we share the concerns of both the Opposition Front Bench and the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, from whom we heard earlier on this amendment.
The regulation-making powers in the Bill have been carefully considered and included only where the Government consider it justified and necessary. We are not convinced that the amendment will provide additional benefits for businesses or workers significant enough to expand this power, as it proposes.
The Government want to take care to get the regulations right. We have heard throughout our wonderful time spent discussing the Bill in Committee so far that there is a balance to be sought between the burdens that we create through new legislation and regulation on businesses, including small businesses, and protecting the rights of workers. It is a balance we get right, and we want to make sure that we get regulations right in relation to the new definition of employment businesses in this case. Our focus will be on that, alongside the establishment of the fair work agency.
Taking all these factors into consideration, I therefore ask the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble lords who contributed to this short debate. I listened very carefully to the Minister, and I am extremely grateful to my noble friend Lord Hunt for his comments. His drafting pen is always both sharper and smarter than mine, and we all benefit from that. I thank him for moving my amendment on Monday in my absence, and I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, for doing so on a previous group. I accept the comments at this stage and am very keen to see what might be possible between now and Report. But, for now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Clement-Jones
“Definition of AI System(1) For the purposes of this Act, “AI System” means an engineered or machine-based system that, for explicit or implicit objectives, infers, from the input it receives, how to generate outputs such as content, predictions, forecasts, recommendations, or decisions influencing real or virtual environments. (2) AI systems may operate with varying degrees of autonomy and include use of algorithmic techniques such as natural language processing, large language models, multi-modal models, machine learning, speech or image recognition, neural networks, deep learning, or decision trees.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies the definition of an AI System within the context of employment rights as an engineered system generating outputs from inputs using algorithmic techniques.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, first of all, I must make my apologies that this is my first contribution to the Bill. I have waited until day 7—I am not quite sure that that is entirely my fault—but it is a pleasure to speak in this group, particularly as I know that the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, is on the same page, even if he has put forward a different set of amendments.
In moving Amendment 148, I will also speak to Amendments 149 and 150. I hope that these amendments are of interest to the Committee; they are certainly close to my heart. They address the profound and rapidly evolving impact of artificial intelligence systems on the modern workplace. Reports by the Institute for the Future of Work and the All-Party Group on the Future of Work paint a clear picture: the wide spread of AI at work is transforming lives and livelihoods in ways that have plainly outpaced or avoid the existing regimes per regulation. The impact of AI will be profound and, although there are potential benefits, there are also significant risks or impacts on employment rights and conditions in the workplace. We must make sure that AI benefits are realised but also that the detriment is avoided.
As the All-Party Group on the Future of Work found, there is an urgent need to bring forward robust proposals to protect people and safeguard our fundamental values in the workplace. Existing regulatory frameworks are strained. Technical approaches commonly deployed before deployment of algorithmic systems are often inadequate. That is why a systematic framework for accountability is urgently required.
The workplace AI risk and impact assessments—WAIRIAs, as we have coined them—proposed by these amendments, are intended to provide such a framework. As the Institute for the Future of Work and others have argued, mandating such regimes of impact assessment is a practical response to a deficit of responsible foresight.
It is important for WAIRIAs to be made a legal requirement and for accompanying guidance to be issued to outline a framework. Amendment 148 defines what constitutes an “AI System” in this context as:
“an engineered system generating outputs from inputs using algorithmic techniques”.
That very clear definition ensures we are all addressing the same technology when discussing its regulation.
Amendment 149 introduces the cornerstone requirement for workplace AI risk and impact assessments. This amendment mandates that:
“Before implementing or developing an AI system which may have significant risks or impacts on employment rights and conditions in the workplace, an employer must conduct a workplace AI risk and impact assessment”.
The rationale for this is crucial. AI systems can have a potential significant risk or impact on areas vital to workers, including:
“the identification or exercise of rights … work access or allocation … remuneration or benefits … contractual status, terms or conditions …”
and even
“mental, physical or psychosocial health”.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my friend the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. In doing so, I declare my technology interests as set out in the register. It is a pleasure to follow him because this has always been his “WAIRIA” of expertise—bear with me. I will speak to my Amendments 289 to 298 and 314 to 316, but before doing so, I give full-throated support to everything the noble Lord said and his amendments. We are very much on the same page.
There is a strange situation with government at the moment when it comes to AI. That is not specific to employment rights but across the piece. We have been subject to it for the past year. We are told consistently that the Government will not be bringing forward cross-sector AI legislation. That position is to be defended if it is taken—the Government have decided on a domain-specific AI approach. But the difficulty with that is that whenever we have had domain-specific legislation coming through your Lordships’ House—be it product regulation, data or any of the Bills that I, my friend the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and others, have worked on—we have been told that those are not the Bills where AI is to be considered. In only a slightly reductive way, we currently have a situation, to be clear, where the Government are saying they are not bringing forward cross-sector AI legislation and specific Bills are largely—not exclusively—not the place to incorporate AI issues.
The amendments that noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and I set out in this group are key to one of the most important sectors—it is broader than a sector, and such an important aspect of our lives. It is how we are employed, what that employment looks and feels like, and how it is experienced by all of us. These amendments do not seek to address issues that will occur next year, next month or even tomorrow. AI is impacting workers right now, oftentimes without them even knowing that it is in the mix.
My first amendment seeks to suggest that the principles that have variously appeared in White Papers and other reports are put on a statutory basis in the Bill. We give ourselves the best opportunity to optimise with AI if we take a principles-based, outcomes-focused and input-understood approach. Similarly, I set out in Amendment 290 that all employers and organisations that develop, deploy or use AI should have an AI responsible officer. For this, do not think burdensome, bureaucratic or overcompliance. Because of the proportionality principle, it simply means that there is an obligation on those employers to report on their use of AI in the workplace. It can be well understood through reporting obligations such as those set out in the Companies Act, which employers will be very familiar with at this stage.
My amendments then move to questions of use. What happens where IP or copyrighted material is being used in the workplace? There needs to be labelling so that everybody is clear on, and there is transparency about, what is going on. What about the use of workers’ data? This is an incredibly rich resource that should not in any sense be served up or sold off to the highest bidder. The use of AI in the workplace should be clear and transparent, and workers should have an opt-in, not an opt-out, responsibility, as set out in the amendments.
Then, as the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, has touched on, there is the question of automated decisions. It is clear that workers not only have to be aware that ADM is being used—and have the right to opt out—but also need the right to a human explanation of what is happening in those situations. If we are to optimise things with these technologies, concepts such as “human in the loop” and “human over the loop” must be understood. Safeguards need to be in place, not least where ADM is used, and this could form part of the data protection impact assessment that employers have to undertake.
Then there is the question of regulators. Employment and recruitment currently find themselves wide open to the use of AI. An individual may find themselves not getting shortlisted, not getting hired and not even knowing that the reasoning behind that was algorithmic processing rather than human judgment and human reasoning. It is critical to consider the right approach to fill that regulator gap. Would a specific employment and recruitment regulator do the job? My view—and I think there is evidence to support this—would again be that we could have a cross-sector AI authority. Again, do not think of a bureaucratic and burdensome AI regulator; instead, think of a nimble, agile, adaptive and, crucially, horizontally focused AI regulator, not only in the area of employment rights but across the whole of our economy and society. It would deliver that clarity, consistency and certainty that we all need wherever we come across AI in our working, professional and private lives.
It is so significant that, in Amendment 315, I believe there should be a commission on AI in the workplace. Mindful of comments from Monday, I am certainly no fan of setting up a commission to delay or kick issues into the long grass. But perhaps by using the technology to solve some of the issues that are created by the technology, we could have a reimagined approach to commissions and consultations.
Finally, I come to Amendment 316 and the algorithmic allocation of work. This is already happening, and it has already been in front of the courts. It is clearly an issue and one that needs to be fully understood. The Government need to state clearly their position on this most significant of matters. I look forward to other speakers and to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow two of the House’s acknowledged experts in this area of the impact of AI. I will speak to my own Amendment 323B and also note that I attach my name to Amendments 294 and 298 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes.
My Amendment 323B is quite a modest step. It calls for a review to be published within 12 months. In saying that, I thank the Ministers for having a meeting prior to the discussion of these amendments, which I very much appreciated. But I think the time for talk is over; the time for action is now. Twelve months is still too short, but it seemed the best timeframe I could reasonably give for this call for a review of the electronic monitoring of workers in the workplace. This picks up some points made by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes. It also crucially points to the need to look around the world and see what else is happening and what we can learn from what has happened in other places. The companies selling these systems are global giant multinational companies. The companies deploying these systems are giant multinational companies in many cases. It is important that, rather than trying to pick this off ourselves, we look around the world and say that we want to be leaders in creating a different kind of model of how workers can be protected.
Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)
My Lords, following the invitation from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, I do feel obliged to say some very brief words on this group of amendments. I was at the helm of the TUC when we produced an AI manifesto for workers and that manifesto was AI-positive and optimistic about the potential for AI to help us create more satisfying work for workers and also boost productivity if we share those gains fairly. But it was also realistic, because the real experience of workers at the sharp end in terms of technology more generally is that it has often been used to drive, for example, the gig economy that this Bill proudly is looking to tackle in terms of insecurity and low pay.
Workers also experience oppressive surveillance, with Amazon being right at the top of the rogues’ gallery in that respect. And, of course, technologies such as facial recognition have been developed that bake in race discrimination. So, of course workers are right to be wary and concerned. That is why one of the key demands in that AI manifesto was, as the noble Lord has talked about before, the right to a human review when it comes to decisions about hire and fire. The right to a human review is a fundamental human right. Critically, the manifesto called for a voice for workers in agreeing new technology, including AI agreements, so that workers’ concerns are addressed directly and agreements are made with employers about how AI is introduced and used.
Given that, in a very welcome sense, there has been such broad interest and concern expressed in this short debate, can the Minister reassure us that we will be addressing not just problems such as the gig economy that we saw growing in the 20th century but the new challenges of the 21st century, where workers urgently need protection?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, for their amendments in this group and for their thoughtful introductions and contributions to what is clearly a vital and timely discussion around the future of artificial intelligence in the workplace.
Amendments 148, 149 and 150, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, seek to define AI systems in statute, mandate a workplace AI risk and impact assessment, known as a WAIRIA—I was not sure how to say it—and impose statutory consultation duties on employers prior to the deployment of such systems. In my respectful opinion, these measures go a bit too far at this stage.
To begin with the proposed definition of an AI system, I fully accept the need for clarity in legislation, but the definition offered here is overly expansive and risks capturing a vast range of tools, from predictive text and email sorting to payroll systems and basic data analytics. Technology evolves rapidly, and we think that any attempt to lock such a broad and fluid concept into rigid statutory language at this point risks hindering innovation and forcing employers into compliance regimes for systems that may pose no meaningful risk at all.
On the proposal for workplace AI risk and impact assessments, the intentions behind this are understandable. However, the execution here reads a little more like a blueprint for a full-scale regulatory regime rather than a light-touch safeguard. Employers would be expected to carry out detailed documentation, consult staff, assess and monitor impacts on mental health, contractual terms, pay and more, and then repeat that process at least annually or upon any system change—and that is no small task. For large employers it might be possible, but for SMEs it would surely be burdensome and, in many cases, entirely unworkable. Our concern is not with the principle of transparency or fairness but with the disproportionate bureaucratic weight that these provisions would place on businesses, particularly those outside the technology sector, which simply may not have the capacity or technical knowledge to meet such a standard.
The third proposal, which is a statutory duty to consult employees or trade unions at least one month before deploying AI systems, again assumes a degree of foresight and technical certainty that may not always exist in practice. The development and use of AI systems is often iterative, and definitions, use cases and impacts evolve over time. Requiring formal consultation at every turn risks paralysing technological progress and may well deter even the cautious adoption of beneficial systems.
I recognise that the amendments are rooted in a desire to protect workers and uphold ethical standards, but we have to resist the temptation to reach immediately for sweeping, front-loaded legislation in a domain that is still very much in its infancy. Regulation in this space, as I am sure all noble Lords would agree, must be agile, proportionate and grounded in practical reality.
We are entering a new phase where AI is no longer confined to research labs or boardrooms. It is appearing across ordinary workplaces, public and private alike. There are tremendous opportunities to improve productivity, streamline operations and foster collaboration between human workers and AI tools, yet we think many of the proposals in this group—including those seen elsewhere, such as the mandatory appointment of AI officers, rights to personalised algorithmic explanations, opt-in clauses, and statutory principles of fairness and explainability—share a common shortcoming, which is that they attempt to legislate about highly technical and fast-evolving systems with a degree of rigidity that may prove counterproductive.
We on these Benches share the Government’s ambitions to become a world leader in this space, and therefore we must remain mindful of all those factors, as well as of existing protections. Several of these proposals risk duplicating duties already present under UK GDPR, data protection law and various existing employment safeguards. The creation of overlapping, inconsistent or duplicative regimes could confuse employers and regulators alike, all while doing little to prevent truly harmful practices.
While we acknowledge all the opportunities that are potentially offered by AI, we must remain vigilant to the risks that it poses, including algorithmic bias, opacity and decision-making—which we have heard a lot about—and the misuse of personal data. But that vigilance must be coupled with regulatory restraint. We ought to be cautious to not impose premature, overly burdensome rules that stifle innovation and overwhelm well-intentioned employers, particularly in low-risk use cases, such as rota planning, document handling or payroll automation.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Information and Technology (Baroness Jones of Whitchurch) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for his Amendments 148, 149 and 150; the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, for his Amendments 289, 290, 291, 292, 293, 294, 295, 296, 298, 315 and 316; and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for her Amendment 323B. I thank them for generating an important debate on these issues. I thank my noble friend Lady O’Grady for her wise words on this issue.
I will take the amendments in turn. Amendments 148, 149 and 150 seek to introduce mandatory AI risk assessments in the workplace where there are significant impacts on workers, and would place a requirement on employers to consult employees and trade union representatives before implementing AI systems that might significantly impact employment rights and conditions. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for his Amendments 315 and 316, which would establish an independent commission on AI in the workplace and a project to investigate the potential challenges posed by the algorithmic allocation of work by employers. Amendment 323B, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, proposes a government review of the electronic monitoring of workers in the workplace. I agree with her that the cases that she cited were completely unacceptable.
As noble Lords will be aware, under data protection law employers are required to fulfil obligations as controllers if they collect and use their employees’ personal data. This includes the provision of meaningful information to the workers when collecting their personal data if any decisions about them having a legal or similarly significant effect will be based solely on automatic processing. Furthermore, as noble Lords know, the Data (Use and Access) Bill includes a range of safeguards relating to solely automated decision-making with legal and significant effects on individuals. I reassure noble Lords that the Government’s plan to make work pay makes it clear that workers’ interests will need to inform the digital transformation happening in the workplace. Our approach is to protect good jobs, ensure good future jobs, and ensure that rights and protections keep pace with technological change.
The Government are committed to working with trade unions, employers, workers and experts to examine what AI and new technologies mean for work, jobs and skills. We will promote best practice in safeguarding against the invasion of privacy through surveillance technology, spyware and discriminatory algorithmic decision-making. The plan’s proposals regarding the use of AI and monitoring technology in the workplace were not included in the Employment Rights Bill to allow time for the full suite of options to be considered with proper consultation, given the novel nature of AI-enabled technology. However, I assure the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, that the Institute for the Future of Work will be welcome to make an input into that piece of work and the consultation that is going forward. I reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and all noble Lords that this is an area that the Government are actively looking into, and we will consult on proposals in the make work play plan in due course.
I turn to the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, beginning with Amendments 289 and 290. The Government agree with him that AI should be used ethically, with proper mechanisms for redress. That is why existing data protection legislation provides safeguards for solely automated decision-making with legal and significant effects on individuals and the use of AI where personal data is processed, including in workplaces.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, for his Amendment 291, which would require workers and employers to maintain records of data and IP used in AI training and allow independent audits of AI processes. As he knows, this issue is under active consideration in the Data (Use and Access) Bill. A public consultation sponsored by DSIT, the IPO and DCMS on issues relating to copyright and AI, including questions on transparency, closed in February 2025. Transparency in the use of intellectual property material in AI training has been acknowledged in debates and government amendments as a critical issue. I committed only yesterday that the Government will publish a report on the subject within nine months of Royal Assent. I respectfully suggest that it is not helpful to have the same debate running across these two Bills at the same time.
In addressing Amendments 292 and 293 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, I am happy to reassure him that the UK’s data protection framework already provides robust and effective protection for processing personal data, including for workers. Consent is a lawful ground for processing personal data, but it may not be freely given in employment contexts due to the power imbalance between the employer and the employee. That is why we would not deem it appropriate to restrict the lawful grounds on which data can be processed in this way. In addition, when processing personal data, organisations are required to notify data subjects, such as employees, of matters such as the purposes for data processing, any automated decision-making, any recipients of the data and the data subject’s rights. This includes the right to object to it being processed or to restrict what can be done with it.
Amendments 294, 295 and 296 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, concern the use of automated decision-making. I reaffirm that, under data protection law, employers must fulfil their obligations as controllers if they collect and use employees’ personal data. They must provide meaningful information to workers when collecting their personal data if any decisions about them, having a legal or similarly significant effect, will be based solely on automated processing. This ensures that workers are informed about the logic involved in the automated processing, as well as the significance and envisaged consequences for them.
The reforms in the Data (Use and Access) Bill include a range of safeguards after a decision about an individual has been taken based solely on automated decision-making. I hope that noble Lords, including my noble friend Lady O’Grady, will be reassured that these safeguards include that the individuals receive information about significant decisions, as well as the opportunity to make representations and obtain human intervention.
Further, the Government agree that human intervention in automated decision-making should be carried out competently. The UK’s data protection regulator, the ICO, has existing guidance explaining how requests for human review should be managed. When it comes to high-risk automated decision-making, the Government do not feel it necessary to introduce an outright prohibition of processing of the nature described in Amendment 294. Specific requirements already apply for processing that could result in a high risk to the rights and freedoms of individuals. Organisations must carry out an impact assessment and consult the ICO where such an assessment indicates a high risk to individuals in the absence of effective measures.
I turn to Amendment 298, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, on the creation of a new regulator for the use of AI in recruitment and employment. As the noble Lord may be aware, last year the previous Government published guidance on responsible AI in recruitment, which was developed with stakeholders and relevant regulators such as the Information Commissioner’s Office and the Equality and Human Rights Commission. The Government, via the AI Security Institute and the central AI risk function, are already progressing our understanding of AI risks, including AI and its impact on the labour market. This work is being carried out across government, with the involvement of each department where specific sector knowledge is valuable.
I remind the noble Lord that AI is not currently unregulated. Given the cross-cutting nature of AI, the Government believe that it is best regulated at the point of use by the UK’s existing sectoral regulators. As experts in their sectors, they are best placed to understand the uses and risks of AI in their relevant areas. That is why, in response to the AI action plan, the Government have committed to supporting regulators in evaluating their AI capabilities and understanding how they can be strengthened.
As set out in our manifesto, the Government are also developing legislative proposals that will allow us to safely realise the enormous benefits of the most powerful AI systems. These proposals will be highly targeted and designed to be future-proofed and effective against this fast-evolving technology. We look forward to engaging further with a wide range of stakeholders on our legislative proposals, including providing clarity on where responsibility for compliance with any new rules will lie.
Noble Lords have provided some interesting areas for consideration, but we are keen that these far-reaching amendments are properly assessed. I reassure noble Lords that this is an area that the Government are actively looking into. In this respect, I am pleased to note the active engagement between my officials and stakeholders, most recently with the IPPR, whose recent report on surveillance technologies makes a helpful contribution to the awareness and understanding of this context. As already mentioned, we intend to consult on these make work pay proposals in due course. Furthermore, I remind noble Lords that in response to the AI action plan the Government have committed to supporting regulators in evaluating their AI capabilities and understanding how they can be strengthened.
Finally, I thank noble Lords for their interest in how AI is being adopted in the workplace and the helpful way in which they have focused on these issues. I reassure my noble friend Lady O’Grady that we are working with the relevant stakeholders to build a strong evidence base to tackle the 21st-century challenges relating to these technologies. Our public consultation will be a crucial part of future-proofing the proposals. I assure noble Lords that the Government are committed to making sure that workers’ interests inform the digital transformation taking place in the workplace. I therefore ask the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, to withdraw his Amendment 148.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister. That is probably the most comprehensive statement about the Government’s intentions on AI regulation that I have heard in this Parliament, so I thank her and her officials for taking the time and trouble to set out their approach.
The noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, talked about gap analysis. I am very much in favour of that. I do not want to see duplication of regulation; I want to see effective regulation. The noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, set out the challenge: will the Government address the new challenges? That seems to be absolutely at the heart of this.
I thank the Minister for her assurance that there will be an imminent consultation. I think all of us with an interest in this will very much want to take part in that. I hope that this mini-debate has started the ball rolling in getting people’s thoughts about what we can do. What the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, said was crucial; the illustrations she gave were exactly why we are concerned about these issues.
Talking of gap analysis, this morning I helped to launch the ICO’s new AI and biometrics strategy. We are all a bit nervous about this because we do not think the current ICO regime covers all the issues relating to AI use, particularly in the workplace. We are subject to exactly the issues that the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, put his finger on. The Government have no appetite for cross-sectoral regulation, but what does that mean? Does it mean having to pick off individual sectors, sector by sector, only to be told on individual Bills, “I’m sorry, it’s not appropriate to start legislating about AI in our particular bit of legislation”?
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
My Lords, before we move to the next group, I must inform the Committee that if Amendment 151 is agreed I will not be able to call Amendments 152 to 158 for reason of pre-emption.
Schedule 4: Pay and conditions of school support staff in England
Amendment 151
Baroness Barran
“(1) In the case of staff employed under subsection (3)(b) of section 148C, matters within the SSNB’s remit are limited to the establishment of a framework to which employers of school support staff must have regard when discharging their functions.(2) A framework under subsection (1) must include information on—(a) the remuneration of school support staff,(b) the terms and conditions of employment of school support staff,(c) the training of school support staff,(d) career progression for school support staff, and(e) related matters.(3) When taking any action related to the matters in subsection (2), an employer may disregard the framework only in exceptional circumstances.(4) For the purposes of subsection (3), the definition of “exceptional circumstances” shall be set out in regulations.(5) In the case of staff employed under subsection (3)(a) of section 148C, the matters within the SSNB’s remit are matters relating to the following—(a) the remuneration of school support staff;(b) terms and conditions of employment of school support staff;(c) the training of school support staff;(d) career progression for school support staff.(6) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide that, for the purposes of subsection (5)—(a) a payment or entitlement of a prescribed kind is, or is not, to be treated as remuneration;(b) a prescribed matter is, or is not, to be treated as relating to terms and conditions of employment of school support staff;(c) a prescribed matter is, or is not, to be treated as relating to the training of school support staff;(d) a prescribed matter is, or is not, to be treated as relating to career progression for school support staff.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would change the matters within the SSNB’s remit in relation to academy staff, limiting it to the creation of a framework to which academy employers must have regard in all but exceptional circumstances.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 151, 174 and 180, which are in my name. These amendments would address one of the most crucial challenges in our education system: how we value, support and compensate more than half the school workforce—the non-teaching staff. These teaching assistants, business managers, IT technicians, cleaners and catering staff form the backbone of every successful school.
While the Government’s intention to establish a school support staff negotiating body demonstrates a genuine commitment to these vital employees, and indeed fulfils a manifesto pledge, I am really concerned that the proposals as drafted are unworkable, expensive and time-consuming. They will add to the complexity and workload of every single school, not just academies. Individual maintained schools will often not be aware that the pay structure in their local authority is different from that in a neighbouring one. My amendments focus on academy schools, but the thrust of my argument to the Government is to think again because of the impact on every single school.
Amendment 151 seeks to mitigate potential damage by limiting the SSSNB’s powers to creating a framework that academies must consider regarding remuneration, terms and conditions, training, career progression and related matters. I believe that these flexibilities should extend to maintained schools. Amendment 174 would require the Government to produce before introducing these changes an impact assessment of the cost to the whole education sector, both academies and maintained schools. Amendment 180 would require annual reports of the SSSNB to include an assessment of the increased costs to the sector of any pay and conditions agreements.
It is important that we are clear what we mean by support staff. Support staff are not a homogenous group but an extraordinarily diverse workforce spanning many different roles, skill levels and contexts. Teaching assistants, while crucial, comprise less than half of all support staff. The remainder includes roles ranging from pastoral care to facilities managers, finance assistants, network administrators and school receptionists.
A small maintained primary school might employ a part-time administrative assistant handling multiple responsibilities, while a large multi-academy trust might maintain specialised finance teams, HR professionals and IT specialists serving multiple schools across a region. This diversity is intentional and beneficial. Schools and trusts have developed different approaches to organising their support functions because they face varying challenges. They serve distinct communities and operate at very different scales. What serves a 100-pupil rural primary school will not suit a 2,000-pupil secondary academy. What works for a stand-alone school will not fit a trust operating across multiple regions. Any national framework that fails to acknowledge this reality risks becoming either too vague to be useful or too rigid to serve communities effectively.
I am not trying to suggest that the status quo is perfect. The current National Joint Council arrangements have significant weaknesses in their application to schools, leading some local authorities such as those in the so-called London fringe to opt out of the Green Book terms and conditions entirely.
First, the NJC terms and conditions were designed for general local government workers—from refuse collectors to office administrators—but they barely address schools’ specific working environments and unique demands. Secondly, there is insufficient co-ordination between teacher and support staff pay negotiations. These separate processes often reach conflicting conclusions about affordability and appropriate pay increases. Did the Minister consider expanding the remit of the STRB to include support staff? Thirdly, the Department for Education has minimal influence over support staff pay decisions, and school affordability is not factored into NJC decision-making. Consequently, when resources are limited, teachers’ pay becomes the residual after other decisions are made, which is clearly an extraordinary outcome.
The current legislative approach is fundamentally flawed. Mandating a single detailed set of terms and conditions for all support staff will create more problems than it solves and certainly will not address the challenges schools face with recruitment and retention. First, it is essentially impossible to have a national set of pay scales for this very wide range of roles, given the vast variation in how schools and trusts organise their functions and their work. Consider this example: how can one write a generic job description for a finance assistant that serves both a small primary school’s sole financial administrator and a large trust’s specialist management accountant? Although sharing a title, these roles require entirely different skills, qualifications and responsibilities. What schools do for themselves, and what is done by the local authority or trust’s central team, varies hugely across the country. How many people there are to run finance or technology in a school, and therefore their seniority and skill, depends on the size of the school and on its legal status.
Secondly, at present, under the NJC each local authority sets its own grading structure. Even if you could find a role which was commonly defined across the country, you would find that it was graded and paid somewhat differently in different areas. The SSSNB would be expected to override these 150 grading structures and produce one national one. This would inevitably entail paying some people more, at potentially substantial cost in some areas, or paying some people less. I would argue that neither outcome is palatable.
Furthermore, much of this variation is driven by local labour markets. Some areas have to pay more than others to get decent IT skills, for example. It would be extraordinary to require schools in Cambridge to pay the same for IT skills as other schools if it meant that they could not get the skilled people they needed or that other schools had to pay significantly more than they do now.
I have heard Ministers suggest that their aim is to create a pay floor, not a ceiling, but that does not change the fundamental problem. It represents a full pay negotiation beyond NJC agreements, and therefore an effective national grading structure in which roles are mapped to a national spine in a consistent way across the country, rather than the more than 150 ways that currently exist. The task of trying to do that could begin only after considering every local variation. The floor points negotiation faces another challenge: employers cannot afford floors above current pay rates, plus cost of living adjustments, and understandably unions will not accept anything lower, even as a minimum. Given that the same role currently receives different pay across local authorities within the NJC, achieving both goals everywhere is impossible.
I hope the Minister acknowledges that this will create complications for local authorities, as their grading structures will likely not align with nationally mandated school support staff pay scales. Must authorities alter their grading structures to match the national framework, or will they apply it only to schools, or neither? Every possible answer creates serious problems of complexity and comparability within individual local authorities.
Most concerningly, this fiendishly complicated approach addresses non-existent problems. Despite repeated allegations of academies cutting and poaching support staff, sector colleagues can find no evidence of this. I find it hard to imagine that any rational person would take a cut in their salary to be poached. In fact, academies that have departed from standard terms and conditions have done so to enhance pay and improve conditions and career prospects, not to reduce them. Claims that support staff lack clear contractual terms are just not correct. Like teachers, they have specific contracts, often referencing established national or local frameworks. Contractual arrangements are not the issue.
Our school support staff deserve recognition, proper pay, good working conditions and career development opportunities. Above all, they need a policy framework that serves them and their schools effectively. We can build this through pragmatic reform, building on existing strengths, addressing real weaknesses, and respecting the diversity and complexity of modern school organisations. However, we cannot achieve meaningful improvement through legislation that ignores schools’ practical operations and imposes uniformity where variety better serves everyone. My amendments seek to make some progress towards this goal. I strongly urge the Minister to reconsider the Government’s approach. I beg to move.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to the amendment in my name, but first I fully endorse what my noble friend Lady Barran has said. It is worth the Government reflecting on her direct experience of this before Report.
My amendment is quite simple. It is about the practice and conventions behind whatever we get into primary legislation. Candidly, I object to the naming of an organisation that is not a regulator in this country as needing to be consulted by the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State can consult anybody they like when considering making regulations. I do not see why the TUC should be named in primary legislation. That is the reason for my amendment. This is poor legislation and adds nothing to the Bill.
Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)
My Lords, I support my noble friend Lady Barran in her amendments, as I am rather confused by how this will improve the education system.
I speak as someone on the front line. As of today, my academy trust employs 717 non-teaching staff across our 18 schools. We provide high-quality benefits to our staff. We have to match the terms and conditions of the local authority, including a very generous pension, and we are proud to do so—but we go much further. For example, we offer a health scheme for all our teaching and non-teaching staff, which provides an online consultation with a GP and online access to prescriptions, so that they can get treatment far more quickly than through the NHS backlog, and we provide a dental scheme which gives access to one hygienist appointment a year, as well as theatre and retail discounts.
On top of that, we have been very assertive in pushing through apprenticeships for our non-teaching staff. We have put 69 staff through apprenticeships over the last couple of years, which is a pretty high percentage of the 700-odd staff we employ. We did that knowing full well that we would lose a lot of them as they became skilled and moved on to jobs elsewhere, which is what they have done.
How will this improve anything for teaching? It will add another layer of administration and costs, and more HR resource will have to be deployed to wade our way through these regulations. Listening to my noble friend Lady Barran, they sound extraordinarily impractical because, frankly, an IT support staff member in, say, Thetford, which is where we have our most westerly school, is in a very different market from anything in Cambridge. Indeed, what is an IT role? The role is changing almost monthly, as we try to create data lakes to access a large language model for our own teaching data. These things are undefined—you will have to create bands that are so wide as to be meaningless.
To the point made by my noble friend Lady Barran, we cannot afford to go higher and we cannot go lower, so what is the point of all this? I would be grateful for the Minister’s comments.
Lord Prentis of Leeds (Lab)
I rise to speak in favour of the proposed school support staff negotiating body, as set out in the Bill. Noble Lords may remember that such a body was established in 2010. All the things that have been said in the Chamber today on this issue were talked about prior to that. Unfortunately, there was a change of Government. The coalition came in and even though the arguments were dealt with, everything was set up and moving forward, and the school support staff negotiating body—which we had great hope in—had met once, the coalition’s first act was to abolish it.
Through the Employment Rights Bill, we can rectify something which was wrong. The new body referred to in the Bill is long overdue. It will work towards a number of goals for support staff, some of which have already been mentioned. It would give them a voice in the education debate, achieve fair pay, which is the law of this land, and create unified pay and conditions across the country—what is so wrong with that? Local government, which has been mentioned, negotiates on behalf of millions of local government workers who do different jobs in different communities, with different arrangements in place to meet the local conditions where the service is being provided. All that has been in place not for decades, but for a century. Look at our National Health Service. We all applaud joint working and the implementation of fair pay and conditions—fair pay for work of equal value— across the NHS and all the different disciplines it provides in our communities. Collective bargaining works well. Those bodies address and deal with any issues as they arise.
We are talking about a group of school staff who, for many years, have seen teachers have collective bargaining—which we obviously support. Other school staff have nothing; they are at the whim of the headmaster or headmistress, and of local conditions. Little is done on their behalf, which is why school support staff across the country welcome the re-establishment of the school support staff negotiating body.
The TUC is a voice for good. It is at the heart of the trade union movement and is respected by employers and governments alike. If there are differences or issues that need to be tackled, why not go to the heart of the trade union movement and ask for its advice and assistance? It has been doing it for nearly 100 years and doing it well. There is no reason whatsoever why it cannot be part of the arrangements for establishing the new body. I am proud of the work the TUC does.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for giving way. I was clear that the Secretary of State could consult whoever they liked, and I would not be surprised if that was the TUC. My point is, why is this being put into primary legislation when it is completely unneeded?
Lord Prentis of Leeds (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for that comment.
The whole intention appears to be to limit the scope of any collective bargaining. It is as clear as day. Different forms of words can be come up with concerning who is involved, who should clear what, and so on. That delays things, and that is the intention of the amendments before us.
Noble Lords have to understand that the proposals legislate for the Secretary of State or their nominee to be involved in the negotiating body. I personally have no reservations about that. We want to talk to the people who have the power and the influence to make decisions that improve the service and teaching in our schools. This proposed new body is intended to improve schools and education. What better way of doing it than to bring people together, give them a voice, allow it to be heard and come to conclusions which are for the benefit of all?
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, this has been a very important debate, and I thank my noble friends Lady Barran and Lady Coffey for their amendments in this group. We have had some very interesting real-life examples given by my noble friend Lord Agnew of Oulton, and an important dimension from the noble Lord, Lord Prentis of Leeds, to which I will return in a moment.
I am, however, pleased to speak in support of Amendment 151, introduced by my noble friend Lady Barran. This amendment highlights an essential but often underappreciated part of our school workforce: the support staff. That is where I would agree with the noble Lord, Lord Prentis of Leeds. Those support staff keep schools running smoothly every day. From teaching assistants to catering teams, their work is vital, and as my noble friend put it, they form the backbone of the whole system.
The Government’s Bill takes a step forward by proposing the creation of a school support staff negotiating body, and I make it clear that I believe that is a welcome move. However, the Bill’s current approach, with its push for a single set of national pay and conditions, risks overlooking the real differences which exist between schools, as my noble friend Lord Agnew of Oulton pointed out, especially between maintained schools and academies.
What this amendment does so well is to recognise the need for a flexible framework for academies, one that they must consider and may depart from only in exceptional circumstances. This respects academies’ independence while still promoting fairness and consistency.
We must of course remember that “support staff” is a broad term covering a wide range of roles and responsibilities. The needs of a small primary school and a large multi-academy trust are not at all the same, and any framework has to reflect that diversity. Like in most areas of the Bill, the Government have taken a rigid, one-size-fits-all model that I am concerned could create confusion and strain resources. Instead, a balanced framework such as the one my noble friend proposes offers a practical way to support staff fairly, without unnecessary bureaucracy.
My noble friend also raised an important point about the potential costs and bureaucratic complexity that come with establishing another negotiating body such as the school support staff negotiating body. This is not just about money but about the practical demands placed on schools and trusts, especially smaller ones with limited administrative capacity.
Setting up and maintaining a new national negotiating framework involves significant resources: time, personnel and funding. Schools will need to engage with the school support staff negotiating body’s processes, potentially adapt to new systems for pay, terms and training, and ensure compliance with frameworks that may be complex and constantly evolving.
For large multi-academy trusts, this might be manageable, but for smaller schools—already stretched thin—it adds a layer of bureaucracy that can divert valuable time and resources away from teaching and supporting pupils. Moreover, the negotiation and implementation processes risk becoming slow and cumbersome, delaying important decisions on staff pay and conditions. This could lead to uncertainty and frustration among support staff and their employers alike.
I particularly thank my noble friend Lady Coffey for her insightful remarks. She makes a compelling and important point: the Secretary of State is already required to consult the prescribed school support staff organisations, which represent the full spectrum of support staff voices, yet this amendment rightly challenges why the Trades Union Congress should be given a special, privileged position with an additional mandatory consultation in primary legislation that risks unnecessary delay, added bureaucracy and potential obstruction.
Although the TUC is of course a major trade union umbrella—many colleagues across the Chamber will remind us of its history—it does not have a monopoly on representing school support staff. Many staff organisations operate independently and effectively without TUC oversight. Therefore, by insisting on formal TUC consultations, we risk entrenching a narrow set of interests, potentially sidelining smaller or non-TUC affiliated groups that also deserve a seat at the table.
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)
What can I say? It is an utter pleasure to be here to respond to this debate. I was not aware that I had a choice; nevertheless, I am very pleased to make my first appearance in Committee on this Bill, which I see that noble Lords have been enjoying for several days already.
I am very pleased to consider these amendments on such an important provision in the Bill. Establishing the school support staff negotiating body is an important part of this Government’s plan to make work pay and of the opportunity mission. As several noble Lords have already identified, the nearly 800,000 support staff in our schools are playing a vital role in children’s education and development, are supporting teaching staff and parents, and are ensuring that our schools can run effectively. Despite their contribution, there is an acute recruitment and retention challenge. It is that issue that the SSSNB seeks to remedy and improve, along with providing a voice for those staff in negotiations.
We have heard from my noble friend Lord Prentis that a previous version of the SSSNB was established in 2009, but it was abolished very soon afterwards by the coalition Government when they came to power. Despite the arguments made by noble Lords opposite, in the 14 years between then and the opportunity now in this legislation, the previous Government did not choose to set up a framework to reduce complexity around the negotiation of terms and conditions for school support staff. They did not choose to make it more straightforward for schools. They stuck with the complexity inherent in the current negotiating arrangements through the NJC, which do not give a voice to the particular issues relating to school support staff that our proposals will. That is why the SSSNB, which is being established in this Bill, has a remit designed to reflect the needs of all state-funded schools in England today, bringing together employer and employee representatives with an independent chair to negotiate on pay and conditions and to advise on training and career progression.
As my noble friend Lord Prentis said, that enables the voice of those involved in this work to be represented both in negotiations about pay and conditions and in important considerations on how to make these roles something that people will want to come and do, will be trained to be as effective as possible in doing, and will want to carry on doing, staying in our schools doing their enormously important roles.
In thanking the noble Baronesses, Lady Coffey and Lady Barran, for tabling Amendments 151, 174, 175 and 180, I hope I can respond and provide some assurance on those. First, on Amendment 175, introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, on the role of the TUC in this legislation, it will be the case that the SSSNB will, as is clear in the legislation, allow representatives of the employers and representatives of the employees to engage in these negotiations. The Secretary of State will consult on regulations about precisely who those representatives should be, and that will be named then in secondary legislation.
It does not seem wrong to me—in fact, it seems quite sensible—when thinking about who from the trade union side should represent employees, that the TUC, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said, is the umbrella body for trade unions, should be consulted about which would be the appropriate trade union representatives for school support staff. It is for that reason that we have included this within the legislation: to enable the Secretary of State to make an informed decision when deciding which unions should represent school support staff on the body.
Turning to Amendment 151, and several of the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, about the nature, complexity and coverage of the SSSNB, we are, in this legislation, creating a new system for support staff in 2025. We are not trying to amend an existing one. It is appropriate, therefore, that we consider the coverage of that board in the light of the current make-up of the school system. Roughly half of the 22,000 state-funded schools in England are academies, compared to around 200 when the original SSSNB was set up in 2009. Academies are a significant element of the state school system now, and it is therefore right that they should be included in the statutory remit of the SSSNB in the same way as maintained schools to ensure there is greater national consistency.
Our intention, however, is for the SSSNB to agree floors, not ceilings, for pay and conditions. Beyond minimum agreements reached by the SSSNB—which, by the way, I would have thought would actually make it easier, not more complicated, for head teachers, particularly those in small schools, to understand the context in which they were operating when considering the employment of school support staff—all schools will be able to innovate with pay and conditions to attract and retain the best workforce that they need for our children. The noble Lord, Lord Agnew, gave us some good examples of the ways in which schools are able to innovate and support the school support staff in his academy chain. Those things are admirable. They are facilitated by this Bill; they are not prevented by it. What is more, I am not quite sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, meant this, but there was a sort of implication that what was being proposed here was a body that would direct schools and head teachers as to whom and what they could employ with respect to support staff. That is not the intention of this body: it will remain the responsibility of the head teachers to determine whom they want in their team to meet the objectives that they have set. Nothing will mandate whom or what should be employed.
So, for all those reasons, we do not need to see the provisions that have been proposed in Amendment 151, which would in fact run against the idea that there should be a national, consistent approach to our school support staff. We already have the ability for academies to innovate, but we underpin that with a floor and a consistent national approach, informed by the voices of those who are employing school support staff and those who are representing their voice to enable it to be much more coherent than is the case at the moment.
On Amendment 174, the costs associated with changes to the constitution which are covered in this amendment are very unlikely to impact on the education sector. There will be limited administrative expenses and fees in setting up the negotiating board, but, for the reasons that I have already outlined, if anything, it is actually likely to make it more straightforward for schools to understand the scope—the pay levels that they would be offering to school support staff. So I do not think that it is necessary for the Secretary of State to publish an impact assessment on the constitutional arrangements. There will be the consultation that I have already referenced with respect to the arrangements and the process for setting up those arrangements. We will work hard with stakeholders to ensure that the arrangements work for all schools, including academies, and provide all schools with a core pay and conditions offer in doing that consultation.
I think I have responded to the point about costs, although I will come to the broader point that is made in Amendment 180, which is about assessing the cost implications of agreements reached by the SSSNB on pay and conditions. It will, of course, be important for the Department for Education to be able to assess the implications of recommendations made by the negotiating body prior to the Secretary of State ratifying any agreements. The legislation also gives the Secretary of State the power to refer matters back to the SSSNB, or to make regulations otherwise than in terms of the agreement if agreements reached are not practicable. That is to ensure consideration of the affordability of agreements reached for the education sector. At that point, of course, changes to terms and conditions would be implemented through the use of statutory instruments.
Just to re-emphasise the point that I made about school employers deciding who they employ, there are also powers in legislation to allow the Government to determine, after consultation, which school employees come within the remit of the SSSNB. Yes, this is a complex area, and there may be some categories of school support staff whom it is not appropriate to include within this body, but that will be determined through a process of consultation and set down in the regulations that I previously referred to.
I hope I have covered, and provided some reassurance in relation to, Amendment 180. This is a reasonable balance between enabling the voice and the expertise of the employers and the employees of school support staff to be able, through this body, to reach agreements around pay and conditions, to be put to the Secretary of State, and to do that important work around advising on improvements to training, development—all the types of things that are likely to lead to even more effective school support staff, and therefore even better support for our children, our schools and the teachers that these staff play such an important role in supporting.
I hope, on the basis of those assurances, that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who contributed to this debate and add my support to in principle to the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady Coffey: she makes a very sensible, practical point.
In picking up on some of the points made by the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Prentis of Leeds, I just make it clear for the record that I am not quite sure why the Minister thought I was suggesting that the legislation directed who—or “what” was, I think, her word—schools employed. I can re-look at my notes, but I am not clear why she got that impression. Of the many concerns in my mind, that was absolutely not one of them. Again, just to be absolutely clear, as I said in my remarks, we accept the principle of the SSSNB—I think the noble Lord, Lord Prentis, questioned that, but it was a manifesto commitment, and we acknowledge and accept that. What I was arguing for in relation to his remarks was a due regard framework, which I believed would deliver what the Minister says is the Government’s ambition: to create a floor, not a ceiling, and to create a system which permits innovation of the type that we heard about from my noble friend Lord Agnew.
I am sure that the noble Lord knows this, but in recent years, the pay increases for support staff have actually been significantly higher than for teachers. I think his concern was that somehow this group had been left behind, but, certainly in recent years, that has not been the case. I think my question to the Minister goes back to the cost. I understand the emotional pull, even if I do not think it reflects reality, of a single voice and a single settlement. The reality is that we live in different micro-economies around the country. But if that is the Government’s aim, surely, to be responsible, they need to work out up front what it is going to cost. If we are not going to take a cut, and every IT assistant is going to be paid the same as those who live in Cambridge, and that is applied to every other role, could the Minister kindly write to me and put the letter in the Library setting out what those adjustments are? To introduce legislation without having worked out what the cost will be once implemented risks being irresponsible. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment, but I fear that we may revisit this.
Lord Hendy
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is intended to make the Negotiating Body a collective bargaining body rather than a consultative body by leaving it to the industrial parties to determine the matters which require to be collectively bargained (within the statutory definition of collective bargaining in s.178) and so partially fulfils the requirements of the ILO for free and voluntary collective bargaining.
Lord Hendy (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 152 to 179, which are intended not to undermine but to improve the SSSNB.
First, I will say a word about collective bargaining relevant to these amendments and to later amendments dealing with that subject. The term was coined by Beatrice Webb in 1891. It means negotiations between one or several trade unions on the one side and one or more employers or employers’ associations on the other, with a view to agreeing rates of remuneration and other terms and conditions of employment for a defined group of workers. The term is defined in Section 178 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, which sets out various matters which may form the basis of such negotiations—not just pay, terms and conditions, but including dismissals, allocation of work, union facilities, dispute resolution machinery, and so on. The International Labour Organization—ILO—has a similar, but less detailed, definition in Convention 154.
Collective bargaining may be on a sector-wide basis across a particular industry or it may be confined to a particular enterprise. Where there are sectoral agreements setting minimum terms, they are usually improved upon by enterprise agreements with individual employers in the sector. The UK was the first country to establish widespread collective bargaining coverage. By 1948, the then Prime Minister could say in a broadcast to the nation that:
“We have built up in this country a system of collective bargaining without parallel in the world”.
That coverage was built upon two pillars: the statutory wages councils introduced by Winston Churchill in the Trade Boards Act 1909, latterly regulated by the Wages Council Act 1979, and the voluntary joint national councils, or Whitley councils, pursuant to the reports of the Reconstruction Committee after the First World War by JH Whitley. Governments of all persuasions were committed to the promotion of collective bargaining, particularly because of its very positive effect on productivity in both world wars. In consequence, collective agreement coverage of UK workers was in excess of 80% between 1945 and 1980.
Significantly, the proportion of workers covered by only an enterprise-level collective agreement was almost insignificant and had grown to only 9% by the late 1970s. The dismantling of sectoral collective bargaining since 1980 has produced a steady downward curve in the coverage, which was not halted by the introduction of the recognition machinery for enterprise-level bargaining in 2000. The percentage of workers whose terms are negotiated now is likely to be around 25%. The remaining three-quarters must take what they are offered.
The staggering decline from over 80% coverage to 25% has had a devastating effect on workers. The stagnation in the real value of wages and the meteoric rise in zero-hours contracts and job insecurity can be attributed, at least in part, to that dramatic decline. To achieve the growth and improvement in living standards rightly sought by the Government necessitates restoration of extensive collective bargaining coverage.
There are considerable benefits to that. A few years ago, the Supreme Court of Canada pointed out that:
“The right to bargain collectively with an employer enhances the human dignity, liberty and autonomy of workers by giving them the opportunity to influence the establishment of workplace rules and thereby gain some control over a major aspect of their lives, namely their work. Collective bargaining is not simply an instrument for pursuing external ends ... rather [it] is intrinsically valuable as an experience in self-government ... Collective bargaining permits workers to achieve a form of workplace democracy and to ensure the rule of law in the workplace”.
It has also been said that collective bargaining
“is the mode in which employees participate in setting the terms and conditions of employment, rather than simply accepting what their employer chooses to give them”.
Workers enjoy the benefits of increased wages and improved minimum terms and conditions. Trade unions can negotiate on a sector-wide stage without diminishing their ability to negotiate better terms locally.
The benefits of sectoral collective bargaining extend to employers too. Sectoral collective bargaining prevents undercutting and steadies labour costs. Employers in the same sector must compete instead in investment, innovation, efficiency and productivity—the fields of competition which foster growth. Employers, especially SMEs and micro employers, benefit from not having to research or negotiate wages with their workers. Instead, the minimum terms and conditions for their sector are contained in the sectoral agreement.
Employers profit from the increase in consumer demand, consequent on increased earnings generally. Governments enjoy increased tax from higher earnings and the diminished need to fund social security payments to subsidise low wages. Sectoral collective bargaining has proved to reduce inequality, not just between high and low earners but between women and men, and to reduce the pay gap suffered by disabled and ethnic-minority workers.
There is much research from academic institutions to support these conclusions, as well as from the ILO, OECD and IMF. In 2024, the European Union went so far as to adopt a directive requiring member states that have less than an 80% coverage of collective agreements to put in place an action plan to achieve such coverage.
A letter in last week’s Financial Times pointed out that Sweden—notwithstanding its conversion over the last 30 years from neosocialism to neoliberalism—preserved, at the insistence of employers and unions, the very extensive sectoral collective bargaining that characterises Nordic industrial relations.
Collective bargaining, and in particular sectoral collective bargaining, is not just desirable in itself; international law requires the UK to promote and encourage it. That is a subject I will return to in the next group.
It is unclear why the Bill does not stipulate the creation of collective bargaining bodies. The UK’s long and successful experience of statutory wages councils and voluntary joint national councils provides fine precedents. There are many other such precedents as well.
With that introduction, I turn to the proposition that the SSSNB is not the collective bargaining forum it should be, and which many unfamiliar with the detail of the Bill assumed it would be. To save time, I will also refer to the adult social care negotiating body—I wish the Government had chosen easier acronyms—since the Bill’s proposals and the arguments about them are virtually identical.
The relevant features are these. First, the Bill expressly states that nothing in the SSSNB is to be regarded as collective bargaining as defined by Section 178 of 1992 Act, and that any agreements reached are not to be regarded as collective agreements. The ASCNB is slightly different, in that the relevant Minister is given power to exclude the application of Section 178.
Secondly, the Bill defines a negotiating body, but its functions do not include negotiation. The parties have no power to decide for themselves the matters they wish to discuss and are confined to the four subjects permitted to each by the Bill, plus any additions conferred by the Minister. The very limited subjects so far permitted exclude, for example, work organisation, diversity and inclusion, eradication of pay gaps, health and safety, deployment of new technology, formulation of a dispute resolution procedure and the legal status of workers in the sector.
Thirdly, the Bill gives the Minister power to make regulations as to the nature of the consideration the negotiating body must give to the authorised subjects, with power to direct specific factors the body must take into consideration and any conditions that must be met in reaching agreement. Matters can be discussed by the SSSNB only with the permission, or on the direction, of the Minister, who can also specify matters that may not be discussed.
Fourthly, if the body reaches an agreement, the Minister can override it and require reconsideration, specifying factors that must be taken into account and conditions that must be met to reach a reconsidered agreement acceptable to Minister. Ultimately, the Minister can override agreements of the negotiating body.
Fifthly, if the negotiating body fails to agree, the Minister has the power to assume its functions and impose a settlement, regardless of the wishes of the parties, who may, of course, prefer their own dispute resolution procedure, or conciliation, mediation and arbitration by a third party in whom they have confidence.
Sixthly, terms agreed and approved, or simply dictated, by the Secretary of State will be set for all relevant workers. Consequently, any genuine collective agreement for more favourable terms will be void. Far from promoting collective bargaining, the effect of this provision is to preclude it.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Scott of Needham Market) (LD)
I must inform the Committee that, if Amendment 152 is agreed to, I will not be able to call Amendments 153 and 154 by reason of pre-emption.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to support the noble Lord, Lord Hendy. I have put my name to only two of the amendments in this group, Amendments 154 and 164. Quite honestly, it took a lot of time and energy to read through all of his amendments; it must have taken an astonishing amount of time to write them all, so I am in awe of the work that the noble Lord has put into this Bill.
I was slightly nervous about the noble Lord’s mention of growth. I would like to know more about that later, perhaps, because growth obviously has to be of the right kind.
For me, collective bargaining is a way of making the world of work fairer. There are those who are vulnerable or not as talented who cannot argue for themselves, so they need support to do that. In a healthy economy, there is no place for poverty or for ultra-low wages, where people cannot pay their bills, feed their children or buy new shoes if they need them. It is incredibly important that people have a good wage.
My noble friend Lady Bennett of Manor Castle tabled an amendment to be discussed later in Committee for a 10:1 pay scale, such that you can pay your senior managers or CEO whatever you like, but you have to pay at least 1/10th of that amount to your cleaners, doormen or catering staff. The idea is that everybody needs a proper wage and, honestly, what would rich people do with even more money? They usually plough it not into the economy but into yachts and things like that.
I support almost every one of these amendments, and I am sorry that I have signed up to only two, but this is an incredibly important area. I hope the Government are able to shift a little on this and take advice from a very well-known lawyer who knows what he is talking about. We all want a fair world, and this is part of actually developing it.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, it will amaze the Committee to know that I do not support the amendments in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. This could be a golden moment—I do not want to spoil it before it happens—where the Minister and I are on the same page. We will hold our collective breath.
I will make a few points. It was helpful and genuinely interesting to hear the history, context and examples that the noble Lord gave in relation to collective bargaining, but the fundamental concern that we have is that we find it hard to see how many of those—he talked about zero-hour contracts, for example—really apply to public sector employees across our schools and academies.
Our sense is that, in a world in which the Secretary of State receives advice from the negotiating body—the SSSNB, although I noticed that in my amendment on the Marshalled List I cunningly dropped one of the S’s, which makes it easier to say—the principle that the Secretary of State retains discretion is a good principle to stick to. I think the noble Lord explained that there could be ways in which the Secretary of State could overrule, but I feel that that makes it unnecessarily complicated. Perhaps more importantly, it fundamentally changes the relationship between unions and employers, and risks—perhaps more than risks—creating a much more oppositional relationship, where trade unions on one side and local authorities and trusts on the other are directly opposing one another in these negotiations. I also question whether it is practical, given the nature of our schools landscape.
Can the Minister clarify a couple of points? Amendments 153, 159, 160, 162, 167 and 170—the amendments that would leave out “employment”—would make the clause broader, to cover staff who are under contract rather than under contract of employment. Our concern is that that could cover people such as casual exam invigilators, peripatetic music teachers or staff who are under contract to look after the grounds. I would be grateful if she could confirm that the remit of the Bill refers to “terms of employment” as we understand it to mean.
Amendments 155 to 158 say to leave out “or is not”. This relates to the Secretary of State’s ability to prescribe the SSSNB remit through regulations. As the Bill is currently drafted, the Secretary of State can say that something is or is not to be treated as remuneration or a term of employment. For example, at present it could be said by the Secretary of State that an honorarium payment is not to be treated as being within the SSSNB’s remit. Removing “or is not” would mean the Secretary of State would have to be very specific indeed about what is to be considered remuneration. The current wording allows enough specificity about what is—and, importantly, what is not—within the remit of the SSSNB. We would argue that it is very important that that wording remains as is to avoid unnecessary confusion, tension or debate on its scope.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and my noble friend Lady Barran for their contributions to this debate. I commend the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, for getting rich people and yachts into a debate on the School Support Staff Negotiating Body. That is no mean achievement and she deserves our congratulations. I very much enjoyed the history lesson from the noble Lord, Lord Hendy. I learned a lot and I am very grateful, but I am afraid I have not necessarily arrived at the same conclusions or been swayed by his arguments.
I turn to the amendments. Amendment 153 seeks to confine the School Support Staff Negotiating Body’s remit solely to matters defined under Section 178(2) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, effectively transforming the body from a consultative forum into a collective bargaining entity. It seems to us that this is a dangerous and fundamental shift. The negotiating body was designed to provide flexible, pragmatic consultation tailored to the diverse and complex nature of school support staff roles across a variety of settings. As we have heard, these range from small rural primaries to large multi-academy trusts. To impose the rigid and often adversarial legal framework of collective bargaining, as defined by industrial law, is to ignore the realities and needs of schools and academies. It risks bogging down negotiations in legal disputes and inflexible procedures that seem wholly unsuited to education.
Secondly, it dangerously extends the remit to include those working under contracts other than contracts of employment. That would create a vague and problematic category that threatens to blur employment relationships, dilute employer responsibility and foster legal uncertainty. Introducing such ambiguity would lead to confusion, disputes and potential litigation, detracting from the core mission of supporting school staff effectively.
Thirdly, Amendment 154, signed also by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, demands a formal dispute resolution process involving conciliation by ACAS and binding arbitration by the Central Arbitration Committee. While dispute resolution is important, mandating binding arbitration at multiple levels removes essential local discretion and flexibility. Schools and trusts require the ability to resolve issues quickly and pragmatically without resorting to protracted and costly arbitration. This amendment risks entrenching lengthy legal processes that are incompatible with the fast-moving and diverse educational establishment and environment.
Additionally, expanding the negotiating body’s remit to include discipline, grievance procedures and any “other matter” agreed by the parties is dangerously vague. It threatens to overload the body with operational matters that should be handled locally by employers, who understand their context best. It risks creating bottlenecks in decision-making, delaying essential actions and ultimately frustrating both staff and management. In essence, these amendments push for a highly legalistic industrial relations model that is inappropriate for school support staff and the complex, varied environments in which they work. It will increase bureaucracy, create inflexibility and heighten the risk of industrial conflict rather than fostering practical co-operation.
Building on these concerns, I will emphasise the significant risk of unmanageable negotiations that other amendments in this group introduce. If the negotiating parties are free to consider any payment, entitlement or matter without clear limits, the scope of discussions could become unwieldy and unfocused. Instead of concentrating on core issues, such as fair remuneration, reasonable terms and meaningful career development, negotiations would risk becoming mired in peripheral or impractical demands. This would risk slowing down the entire process, making it less efficient and ultimately less effective in delivering tangible benefits for school support staff.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I ought to clarify my comments on yachts. I have had a yacht of my own, but it was 21 feet long and I was referring to yachts that are 200 to 400 feet long. Sorry about that.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I am desperately searching for the note in my folder on yachts. I may have to write to the noble Baroness on that issue later.
I thank my noble friend Lord Hendy for his introduction to these amendments. As others have said, it was an interesting and important history of the progress that has been made in this country through a recognition of the strength of the collective voice of workers represented through the trade union movement, which is, of course, the basis of our party on this side of the House. Although I will not be able to go as far as my noble friend would want me to go in this, I hope I can reassure him that I think these proposals for the SSSNB make considerable progress in recognising the need for the voice of school support staff to be properly heard in bargaining about pay and conditions and improving the training and development options for those staff.
I know my noble friend Lord Hendy has had the opportunity to meet with my noble friend Lady Jones to talk about these principles. I hope he recognises, as I certainly do, the phenomenal work that she and other members of the team have done in this House in taking forward this piece of important legislation for the Government and the difference it is making to the rights of workers across this country. Those of us on this side of the House are proud of this piece of legislation and the work that has gone into it.
I can also reassure my noble friend that this Government support the work of the ILO, value its role in upholding and enhancing workers’ rights globally and remain committed to upholding international standards. In fact, the UK is in full compliance with all our international obligations on collective bargaining.
I turn to the SSSNB and the associated amendments in this group. I know my noble friend is here for the other elements of negotiating bodies that my noble friend Lord Hendy referenced, but first I shall speak to Amendments 152, 154 to 158, 161 and 173 to 179, which relate to collective bargaining, the role of the Secretary of State and concerns about the remit of the SSSNB.
The existing remit is broad. It covers the areas that will help to address the recruitment and retention challenges that state-funded schools are facing for support staff. As it is a negotiating body, employee and employer representatives will be able to meaningfully negotiate on pay and conditions as well as advise on training and career progression. As I spelt out in the previous group of amendments, this is a major step forward in the process for supporting our school support staff, who play such an important role in our schools.
As it is a statutory body, it is essential that agreements reached by the SSSNB can be imposed in contracts only through ratification by the Secretary of State, and that the interests of the Secretary of State are represented on the body with a non-voting representative. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, that the current wording provides the appropriate specificity on the remit for this body, appropriately involving the Secretary of State in the statutory role of the body but making a major step forward in enabling employees and employer representatives to negotiate on those areas.
I turn to Amendments 153, 159, 160, 162, 167 and 170, which relate to those who work under a contract that is not a contract of employment—in other words, to the remit of the employees covered by this body. The vast majority of school support staff are employed by local authorities, governing bodies and academy trusts as employees. The remit for employees is consistent with the approach taken in the 2009 legislation that first established the SSSNB and the current remit of the NJC. I hope that answers the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, about the definition. We are content that the policy intent of the SSSNB provisions is met through the current remit, so the amendments are not required. They would broaden those under the auspices of the SSSNB in a way that would distort its role and responsibility, and they would introduce the sort of complexity that other noble Lords have talked about.
The remainder of the amendments in this group—Amendments 163 to 166, 168, 169, 171 and 172—relate to the protection of more favourable terms in staff contracts. As drafted, the Bill does not require regulations ratifying agreements of the SSSNB to impose limits on the terms and conditions under which school support staff can be employed. The intention is for support staff in all state-funded schools in England to benefit from a core pay and conditions offer, while providing the flexibility to respond to local circumstances above minimum agreements reached, and with more favourable pay and conditions for individuals protected.
We are taking concerns about the protection of individuals and room for innovation seriously. We will be consulting on the remit of the SSSNB and calling for evidence on terms and conditions in the summer. I therefore have some sympathy with those who might express concerns about whether there is sufficient protection for individuals, and I hope we will be able to clarify that.
I will not be able to go as far as my noble friend Lord Hendy asks the Government to go in his amendments, but I hope he will recognise that, in line with the progress of the collective representation of workers that he identified in his speech, this development under this Government represents a considerable improvement in the position of our vital school support staff. I hope that, on that basis, he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Hendy (Lab)
My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for her fulsome support of the amendments.
I am of course shocked that the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, and I have reached a point of disagreement, and will make one or two points arising from what she said. She thinks that I was wrong to refer to zero-hours contracts. Of course, I accept what she said, that there presently are no zero-hours contracts in the school sector, but, as I am sure she is aware, there are zero-hours contracts in the university sector, and the fear is that they might then be introduced into the school sector.
The noble Baroness was worried about the reference to non-employees—that is, self-employed workers. Again, the problem is not so much the existing situation but fear of the future. The self-employed sector now has 5 million workers, who, on average, earn a lot less than employed workers. It is a growing sector, and the fear is that employers will resort more to the device of self-employment to avoid the consequences of employment.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, for his thoughtful contributions. He said that he thought the inclusion of the self-employed would bring ambiguity and be unworkable, but I respectfully disagree. The point is this: if people are doing similar work but with a different legal status, similar terms should apply to them. If there are few people, or none, in that category, I cannot imagine for a moment that the negotiating body, unions or employers will wish to say anything about it. What I am suggesting by enlarging the remit of the bodies is not that they should be compelled to negotiate all the matters under Section 178, but that it is an option open to them if those parties feel that it is profitable for them to negotiate those things.
The noble Baroness, Lady Barran, was uncomfortable with my opposition to the Minister’s power to override agreements, or indeed disagreements, in the negotiating body. I point out that, in truly voluntary and free collective bargaining, it is always possible to have tripartite collective bargaining between the Government, employers and unions—but that is not what this body is. This body is bipartite, but with the addition of third parties and the power in the Minister to override any agreement that is reached. That does not seem to be compatible with proper collective bargaining.
I know your Lordships want to move on, so I will not deal with any more detail, but will make just one more point. The noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, was against the inclusion of dispute resolution procedures, including arbitration. I make the point again that the purpose is not to impose this on the parties but to enable them to choose their own means of resolving disputes—whether that is conciliation, arbitration or some other means—and not to leave it to the Minister.
I am very grateful to my noble friend Lady Smith of Malvern for her thoughtful and full response. She is right, of course. I do not think she goes as far as I would like her to, but I understand the reasons she does not. I agree that what is proposed in the Bill for the SSSNB is a “considerable improvement”, to use her words, on what exists. I accept too that it is a step on the road to proper collective bargaining in due course. I am very grateful for the two meetings I had with my noble friend Lady Jones of Whitchurch. I was honoured and grateful to be allowed to spend time discussing my concerns with her. On that basis, I am very happy to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
Can I seek a point of clarification on the noble Lord’s clarification, which I am very grateful for? Was his argument that extending and future-proofing—I think those were his words—this for the self-employed is because he feels that there will be more self-employed people as a consequence of this Bill?
Lord Hendy (Lab)
No, not at all. Growing self-employment has been a trend for the last 20 years, which has perhaps accelerated a bit in the last 10 years. The worry is that school employers may adopt the device of allocating work to the self-employed, rather than to employed persons. If that is the case, there ought to be room for the negotiating body to deal with that issue and the consequences of it. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Hendy
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is one of several intended to make the Negotiating Body a bilateral collective bargaining body, in this instance to allow the industrial parties to select the Chair instead of it being a ministerial choice.
Lord Hendy (Lab)
I apologise to noble Lords for inflicting my voice on them again. The amendments in this group are intended to convert the ASCNB into a collective bargaining forum and achieve the purpose we have already discussed for the SSSNB.
I mentioned earlier that there is some relevant international law. I propose now to deal with it. The UK is bound by the international treaty provisions it has ratified. That applies no matter the subject matter of the treaty obligation—whether it be trade, security, environment, labour, extradition or whatever. The obligation of conformity is not confined to the black letter of the treaty provision. It applies also to the decisions of the bodies on which the treaty has constitutionally bestowed the power of deciding whether or not a state is in compliance. If a state does not like the treaty provisions or decisions made under it, it has the right to denounce the treaty and cease to be bound by it.
The great jurist Lord Bingham made state compliance with international obligations his eighth principle of the rule of law. He said in his seminal book on the subject that
“the rule of law requires compliance by the state with its obligations in international law as in national law”.
Consistently with this, the current Ministerial Code binding on British Ministers places on them an
“overarching duty to comply with the law, including international law and treaty obligations”.
The point was reinforced by the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General in this House on 26 November 2024, when he said of compliance with international law:
“We should all be immensely proud of it, and this Government will seek at every turn to comply with our obligations”.—[Official Report, 26/11/24; col. 680.]
He developed the point in a lecture to the Royal United Services Institute last week.
The relevant international law is based on two legal instruments. The first is the ILO, which since its founding in 1919 has acknowledged collective bargaining as an instrument of social justice. The 1944 ILO Declaration of Philadelphia, part of the ILO constitution, recognises the obligation to further
“the effective recognition of the right of collective bargaining”.
The 1998 ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work reiterates that
“all Members … have an obligation … from the very fact of membership in the Organization, to respect, to promote and to realize … the principles concerning the fundamental rights”,
which include the effective recognition of the right to collective bargaining.
ILO Convention 98, Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949, was ratified by the United Kingdom almost 75 years ago on 20 June 1950. It is one of the fundamental conventions, binding, regardless of ratification, as a consequence of membership of the ILO. Article 4 imposes the following obligation on states:
“Measures appropriate to national conditions shall be taken, where necessary, to encourage and promote the full development and utilisation of machinery for voluntary negotiation between employers or employers’ organisations and workers’ organisations, with a view to the regulation of terms and conditions of employment by means of collective agreements”.
The Government were recently reminded of that obligation by the decision earlier this year of the ILO tripartite Committee on Freedom of Association, on which the UK is represented, on a complaint against the UK arising out of the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Deliveroo in 2023. The committee had previously stated in the case of the United Kingdom that
“whereas governments are not under a duty to enforce collective bargaining by compulsory means, they are under a duty to encourage and promote voluntary collective bargaining in good faith between the parties”.
The Bill is the opportunity to fulfil that obligation. As yet, it does not.
Turning from the global to the European, I refer to the European Social Charter of 1961. Article 6, headed “The Right to Bargain Collectively”, materially provides:
“With a view to ensuring the effective exercise of the right to bargain collectively, the Parties undertake … to promote, where necessary and appropriate, machinery for voluntary negotiations between employers or employers’ organisations and workers’ organisations, with a view to the regulation of terms and conditions of employment by means of collective agreements”.
The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, on which a number of your Lordships sit, elects a supervisory body of jurists called the European Committee of Social Rights, which regularly includes eminent UK nominees, with the purpose of examining compliance by member states with the provisions of the charter which they have voluntarily ratified. Decisions of that committee are reported to the Committee of Ministers, which includes the UK Foreign Secretary.
The European Committee of Social Rights has held of the obligation of states under Article 6.2 of the charter that
“if the spontaneous development of collective bargaining is not sufficient, positive measures should be taken to facilitate and encourage the conclusion of collective agreements”
and that
“where only 30% of the total number of employees are covered by collective agreements, voluntary negotiations are not sufficiently promoted in practice”.
The level of collective bargaining coverage in the UK is now significantly below 30% but, in any event, it is clear that spontaneous development of collective bargaining is not occurring in fields that desperately need it, such as social care. The duty on the UK to promote collective bargaining, at least in these sectors, is thus triggered. The committee has also held:
“States Parties should not interfere in the freedom of trade unions to decide themselves which industrial relationships they wish to regulate in collective agreements”.
That is a matter to which the ILO Committee on Freedom of Association has also turned:
“It is for the parties concerned to decide on the subjects for negotiation … Matters which might be subject to collective bargaining include the type of agreement to be offered to employees or the type of industrial instrument to be negotiated in the future, as well as wages, benefits and allowances, working time, annual leave, selection criteria in case of redundancy, the coverage of the collective agreement, the granting of trade union facilities, including access to the workplace beyond what is provided for in legislation etc.; these matters should not be excluded from the scope of collective bargaining by law”.
Yet in the subsectors of adult social care and school support staff, this Bill proposes to violate than principle. The subject matter which the two negotiating bodies are permitted to discuss is limited to that specified in the Bill, to which the Minister may unilaterally add. Indeed, as we have already discussed in relation to school support staff, their negotiating body is not permitted to discuss even the matters within its statutory remit, unless directed or expressly permitted by the Minister.
Both the social rights committee and the ILO have made it clear that self-employed workers should not be excluded from collective bargaining machinery, a matter which we discussed earlier.
I also draw attention to Article 6.3 of the charter, which I did not mention earlier. It requires that
“conciliation, mediation and/or arbitration procedures must be introduced to facilitate the settlement of labour disputes”.
The European Social Rights Committee has held that
“recourse to arbitration should be voluntary (subject to the agreement of the parties) … All arbitration systems must be independent, and the outcome of arbitration may not be predetermined by pre-established criteria. Any form of compulsory recourse to arbitration is a violation of this provision”.
Yet, under this Bill, the remit open to negotiating bodies does not permit them to agree any kind of dispute resolution procedure. Quite the contrary: as we have seen, the Minister has power to override both the agreement of the industrial parties or their disagreement, and to impose an outcome on them—in my view, a wholly impermissible form of compulsory arbitration.
There is no disputing that the UK permits collective bargaining. However, the duty on states ratifying this provision of the charter, as the UK did on 11 July 1962, is not merely to permit; the duty is to promote collective bargaining machinery. It is true that we have legal recognition machinery in the 1992 Act, Schedule A1. However, there is no mechanism in UK law to establish or support sectoral collective bargaining. This Bill is the opportunity to establish that in the many sectors crying out for it, including social care.
I turn to my amendments in this group. Amendment 181 would allow unions and employers to choose their own chair. Amendment 182 would restrict membership to persons nominated by unions and employers. Amendment 183 would restrict third parties to those agreed by unions and employers, and to ensure that they will be in a minority. Amendment 184 would allow discussion of Section 178 matters. Amendment 186 would add training and career progression dispute resolution machinery, discipline and grievance procedures, and anything else the unions and employers want to discuss, to the list of permitted topics. Amendment 187 would broaden the definition of social care worker to that in Section 20 (3) of the Courts and Criminal Justice Act 2015.
Amendment 191 would substitute, where there is failure to agree, a dispute resolution machinery in place of the unilateral power of the Minister to substitute his decision. Amendments 193, 194, 198 and 199 mirror Amendment 192 from the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, making the output of the process a minimum floor permitting subsequent or indeed prior agreements for more beneficial terms. Amendment 197 would bring in the self-employed, so the arguments are much the same as we have already covered.
As your Lordships will have noted, I also seek to oppose Clause 51 standing part. It gives power to permit the Minister to disapply Section 178 to the adult social care body. I will not repeat the arguments. I beg to move.
Baroness Browning (Con)
My Lords, in the middle of all those amendments is Amendment 185, to Clause 38, which would ensure that training and education for social care workers are clearly within the remit of the social care negotiating bodies the Bill makes provision to establish, and that they are therefore considered as part of the fair pay agreement process in the sector.
I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, who is in her place, for her support for this amendment, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, who, regrettably, is at a funeral today. I also declare my interest as co-chair of the All-Party Group on Dementia and as an Alzheimer’s Society ambassador. I am very grateful to the Alzheimer’s Society for its input into this amendment.
I do not need to tell this House that the social care workforce remains turbulent, inhibited by high vacancies, high staff turnover and limited career advancement opportunities, all of which significantly impact the quality of care that those drawing on it receive. I understand that the Government’s intention with fair pay agreements is to help address the recruitment and retention crisis in the sector, in turn supporting the continued delivery of high-quality care.
This has been reinforced in recent weeks in the Government’s Immigration White Paper, which points to proposed fair pay agreements as a means to improve domestic recruitment in response to ending overseas recruitment of care workers. With Skills for Care figures revealing that there were 131,000 vacant adult social care posts in 2023-24—almost three times the vacancy rate in the wider economy—there is no doubt that this drive to improve recruitment is necessary and that without it, our social care sector is at risk of further volatility.
However, as I highlighted during my speech at Second Reading, despite the clearly beneficial impact of training on recruitment and retention of adult social care workers, education and training are not currently specified as matters for the negotiating bodies to consider as part of the fair pay agreement process. We know from last year’s The state of the adult social care sector workforce report by Skills for Care that access to training was among the top five factors influencing the retention of adult social care staff, and that turnover rates were 7.4% lower among adult social care workers who had received training, compared with those who had not.
Despite the large numbers of those with dementia drawing on adult social care and their unique needs within this setting, there is no legal requirement for staff to undertake training in dementia, as I know from my own personal family experience. The Alzheimer’s Society is therefore calling for dementia training to be made mandatory for all adult social care staff. I support that, and I hope the Government, as well as the noble Baroness, Lady Casey of Blackstock, are giving serious consideration to this as part of their plans for future social care reform.
While Amendment 185 would not mandate dementia training, it would ensure that the training needs of the social care workforce are considered as part of the fair pay agreement process, which I hope will lead to improved training opportunities for staff in the sector, including training in dementia, and improved care for those receiving it.
I appreciate the indications that I received from the Minister at Second Reading—the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, not the Minister responding to this group of amendments—that the scope of the negotiating bodies could be expanded through secondary legislation. I am very grateful for her letter and for her staff’s time in seriously considering this. When I read in her letter that the intention is to put this into secondary legislation and not into the Bill, I was immediately alert to the fact that I did not see any indication as to whether this would be secondary legislation in the affirmative or the negative. I hope that more information can be given in the response to this debate.
I maintain that improving training and education for social staff is so fundamental to improving quality of care, and to tackling the recruitment and retention crisis in the sector, that the Government should look again. What good reason is there not to include this in the Bill? That needs to be clarified.
On that point, training is very often just ditched when times are hard or when budgets are tight. I refer the Minister—the noble Baroness, Lady Merron—to the Employment Rights Bill: Economic Analysis, published in October 2024, which I am sure is part of her bedtime reading. Under the heading “Unintended Consequences”, it says:
“Where businesses cannot absorb the increase in labour costs, they may look to pass them onto workers by reducing expenditures that benefit workers (e.g. staff training)”.
I repeat to the Minister that I am grateful for the work put in so far, but I believe that it needs to be brought up a level. I hope that she will assure me of that when she replies.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, I too will speak to Amendment 185, to which I was very pleased to add my name. It is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, on this amendment and my noble friend Lord Hendy, who spoke to his amendments in this group.
As the noble Baroness already indicated, Amendment 185 relates to training and education for the social care workforce, which is a critical imperative given the care and attention required by the people they care for. I declare my interest as vice-chair of the APPG on Dementia, and I thank the Alzheimer’s Society for its support in preparing for this debate.
Our social care workforce is vital in providing care to those who need it. However, they have been undersupported for too long. This amendment seeks to include training and education in the remit of the social care negotiating bodies that the Bill will create. These bodies will then determine the fair-play agreements in the social care sector, and, in so doing, improve training and education, which will also make a significant contribution to tackling the recruitment and retention crisis that the social care workforce faces.
However, of particular concern is the level of training and education in dementia among the adult social care workforce. The Care Quality Commission’s 2024 State of Care report highlighted dementia as a key area of concern and, specifically, that
“health and care staff do not always understand”
the specific needs of people with dementia. Many of those who, like me, have people with dementia in their families only realise this either when they are training to deal with it or when they are working with them on a daily basis.
A Nuffield Trust report from November also found that people with dementia in England are not consistently receiving good-quality social care, so this amendment seeks to build the foundations to change that, not only for people living with dementia but for all who draw on care, through the prioritisation of training and education within the workforce. That is a simple but vital aspect of ensuring that workers receive the recognition and the value that they deserve. That is what this amendment, if included in the Bill, would do. It would help in introducing opportunities for progression and development within the workforce and improving the quality of care that people receive.
I come to this debate as someone who strongly supports the Employment Rights Bill, because I believe it introduces a number of measures to increase the protection and rights of workers. In so doing, I hope that my noble friend the Minister and the Government ensure that training and education form a part of this legislation. I hope that the Government share these sentiments and see the value of the changes that this amendment would implement. I look forward to the winding-up comments from the Minister.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I will begin by mentioning that my sister and I cared for my mother in the last fortnight of her life, and we were significantly helped by carers—to whom I will be forever grateful—in that short time.
Of course, our social care workers right across the country were genuine heroes during Covid-19, and that recognition needs to continue. At the time of Covid-19, I was Secretary of State in DWP and, clearly, the workers there were carrying out tremendous acts of heroism right across the country—but there is a recognition, in a similar way to the NHS, that this drove quite a lot of burnout. However, recognising the importance of carers and the choices that people made in taking up that really important role, I felt it was absolutely vital that we tried to get better organised, to encourage people not only to stay in the sector but to join the sector. That is why I worked with the Department of Health and Social Care at the time, with my honourable friend Helen Whately.
I do not wish to lower the tone entirely, but I turn to the explanation of the creation of this negotiating body and to one of the things that I think is key. I am not at all opposed to it in principle. However, it suggests that the bargaining power of care workers has been low, partly because of low unionisation rates. This is only 20%, it is suggested, of a workforce of 1.6 million, which is about 5% of the total workforce in this country. I must admit I am somewhat sceptical about that.
I do not want to get into a huge debate about social funding. This is a challenge that the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, is taking up. With her capabilities, I am sure she will find a way through in this regard. However, I think we should recognise that there are a whole bunch of employers right across the country, and that social care funding is provided for through national government, through the hands of local government and, of course, council tax payers through the social care levy. That is the key challenge that we need to recognise, and we need to consider how this negotiating body could address that.
I will apologise to my noble friend Lady Browning for not speaking on something. When I looked at my amendment—I have an amendment coming up in the next group—I de-grouped it because I was trying to differentiate thinking about the progress of social care in regard to trying to split it away from the negotiating body. Perhaps I will explain briefly why and then, in the next group, come on to what I suggest could happen instead.
I have already set out that I started working on this, getting DWP to be engaged and thinking through about swaps and similar things. Indeed, one of the things that came out of that was the care pathway on a journey after People at the Heart of Care at the end of 2021, leading to the Next Steps consultation. I would say that the care workforce pathway is working.
Baroness Browning (Con)
Perhaps I can just clarify that we were very much sighted on the fact that in education, people who are on the non-teaching staff are included in the Bill in the pay negotiating bodies. We were not clear why it should be different for social care workers.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My noble friend makes an excellent point. I must admit that I had almost to force-fit Amendment 200A, which I am coming to, into the Bill in order to be able to talk about a very valid concern about the progress and retention of social care workers in our country, recognising the absolutely vital role that they play in many care homes across the country.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Browning, Lady Ritchie and Lady Coffey, for adding flesh to what we are discussing here today in these amendments.
I hope we all agree that the adult social care workforce plays a vital and often undervalued role in supporting some of the most vulnerable in society, as previous speakers have underlined. Care workers show remarkable dedication, compassion and professionalism in often challenging circumstances, yet the sector continues to face high turnover, inconsistent conditions and, as we have heard, limited opportunities for training and career progression. There is growing recognition that this must change. Supporting a stable, skilled and respected workforce is essential to delivering high-quality care and ensuring the long-term sustainability of the system.
The provisions in Chapter 2, including the proposal for a social care negotiating body—that is the principle that we are discussing—are a response to that wider need for reform. They seek to introduce a more formal framework through which pay, conditions and progression can be discussed and agreed between trade unions and employers. The inclusion of statutory mechanisms for negotiation, as outlined in Clauses 37 and 44, reflects an effort to bring greater consistency and accountability to the way the workforce terms are determined. Clause 48, addressing agency workers, is a notable recognition of the diverse nature of employment in the sector and the need for fairness across the board.
It is the amendments we are discussing, not the wider situation of the country. These amendments have been brought forward to explore how these proposals might operate in practice, including the remit, independence and legal weight of any agreements. These are important questions and it is right that the House scrutinises how this framework would function and how it may be made most effective. I would welcome the Minister’s response in relation to the amendments.
While views will differ on the detail, the broader case for supporting and strengthening the adult social care workforce is widely accepted. The Bill forms one part—and only one part—of a longer-term process to address this challenge. Sustained attention to training, career development and workforce planning will be needed, alongside any structural changes introduced here.
The future of adult social care depends not only on funding or legislation but on whether people who deliver care feel valued, supported and able to build lasting careers. This should be our shared focus as this Bill progresses. I hope the Minister, when she replies, will talk about how we can value those care workers and make sure that they stay there, are educated, progress and are an addition to the values of this country and the way we work. Too often, they have been neglected. This is a chance to remedy that.
Lord Prentis of Leeds (Lab)
My Lords, many of my noble friends have spoken about the possible collapse of the social care system. The toxic combination of chronic underfunding and the dysfunctional market system means that thousands of elderly and disabled people do not get the care that they need. I welcome the proposals in the Bill to establish a framework to establish legally binding agreements that, at long last, would set pay, conditions and terms for workers in the adult social care sector: an adult social care negotiating body in England made up of relevant employers and trade unions.
Staff in the sector are voting with their feet. They are leaving in droves. The vacancy rate is one of the highest in the economy and 130,000 jobs remain unfilled. Low pay is endemic. Over 400,000 adult care workers live below the real living wage, and 40% of the whole workforce live below the real living wage. A quarter are living on the verge of poverty and one-tenth are living with food insecurity. That is hardly a vote of confidence in our social care system.
Perhaps the most important reason for not delaying the action that is so desperately needed rests in the costs to our National Health Service. The latest State of Care report from the Care Quality Commission stated in April this year that waits for care home beds and home-based care accounted for almost half the delays in discharging patients who had been in hospital for more than 14 days. Nearly 4,000 people were delayed on an average day. The proposed fair pay agreement for adult social care staff has the potential to do so much good. Low pay, the lack of any career ladder and limited professional recognition are all inextricably linked in the social care sector. Experienced care workers with over five years’ service are paid, on average, just 8p an hour more than a new starter. There is little or no incentive for care workers to remain in the service; there is no meaningful career progression.
I cannot support the idea, which has been floated, that the new negotiating body would not apply to providers of care in the private sector. The whole point of the proposed fair pay agreement is that it will address low pay across the whole sector, not just those who are publicly funded. It would be deeply divisive, creating a two-tier care workforce with some benefiting and others shut out.
Privately funded providers should be requested to sit on the proposed adult social care negotiating body. We need that body to cover the whole sector, not just the public sector. If it is to work and to be successful in driving up pay standards across the whole sector, it must apply to the broadest definition of care workers. The proposed fair pay agreement is the first step towards a more structured pay system that over time should enable employers to offer a career pathway into social care, rather than low-status, low-paid employment with a high turnover rate.
So many of our citizens who need social care will benefit from the suggestions in this Bill. It is the first building block to a national care service. It will help with one of the most intractable problems facing our public services. The chief executive of the National Care Forum stated:
“We welcome any measures to strengthen the rights and improve the pay, terms and conditions of the social care workforce who make a significant contribution to our economy and the lives of millions of people”.
I ask that we allow this proposal, which will do so much good, to go forward, and that any amendments are no longer pursued.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, I say at the outset what an important debate this has been. We on these Benches support fair pay, decent working conditions and recognition of the vital work that social care workers do. I join the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, in his tributes, and welcome and thank all noble Lords for their contributions in this group. I want to say how pleased we all are that the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, has decided to come and deal with this issue, in a Bill for which she has no immediate responsibility but certainly does in the context of the social care negotiating body.
I had no part in deciding which group of amendments I would respond to, and I find myself in some difficulty, because the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, gave us the most brilliant exposition of the 126 years since the ILO was established in 1919 and the right to collective bargaining. However, in a way, that was directed not so much to the Minister but to his noble friend Lady Jones of Whitchurch, who, under the European Convention on Human Rights, signed to say that:
“In my view the provisions of the Employment Rights Bill are compatible with the Convention rights”.
Therefore, is it not the noble Baroness who should be responding to the tour de force that we received from the noble Lord, Lord Hendy? Perhaps she has already communicated to the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, what she would say in response.
We on these Benches cannot support a structure that hands over the steering wheel of national employment frameworks to a narrow group of trade union and employer representatives with little regard for broader public interest, service user experience or the realities of a publicly funded care system. By insisting that the chair be chosen exclusively by agreement between union officials and employer representatives, and in the event of disagreement by ACAS, these amendments would introduce unnecessary complexity and risk deadlock. By removing ministerial appointment, a crucial source of impartial leadership and accountability disappears. We cannot afford a negotiating body that stalls at the first sign of disagreement.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)
My Lords, I start by acknowledging and associating myself with the very warm words about the value of care workers on whom we rely so much. The challenges are immense, as we have heard many times and not just in this debate—I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, that it is an important as well as a very interesting debate—and this is key to how we will support the provision of social care into the future. I too look forward to the work from the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, and feel confident that we have Whitehall’s number one doer on the case.
On the value of care workers, I extend my thanks and appreciation for all that they do in very difficult circumstances. I can say to noble Lords and care workers across the country that that is exactly why we are bringing in the Employment Rights Bill. That is what we, the Government, are here to do.
I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for his appreciation of my presence at the Dispatch Box. I am delighted to be—in the nicest possible way—across the Chamber from him. This is a key matter and one that is very relevant, because it is about the future of social care.
I now turn to the amendments and will then return to the more general points. On Amendment 185, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, and supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and my noble friend Lady Ritchie, I am very grateful for the engagement of the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, on this matter with my noble friend Lady Jones, who, as the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, said, has written setting out the steps we are taking on dementia training. I hope that it is useful reassurance that regulations can indeed provide for additional matters to be included in the remits of the negotiating bodies rather than being included in the Bill.
The noble Baroness, Lady Browning, asked about procedure. I can confirm that the Bill states that any regulations to add a matter such as training to the remit of the bodies will be subject to the affirmative procedure in order that it may be fully scrutinised by Parliament. I can see that the noble Baroness is very pleased about that, and therefore I am very pleased.
I am sure the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, and my noble friend Lady Ritchie will understand that I very much appreciate the intent behind this amendment. Taken at face value, it is no comment on the importance of dementia training—to which I am very committed—but, by specifying in the Bill the extent of the bodies’ remits, it would prejudge consultation and limit the opportunity for sector engagement. That would create difficulties that we do not want to create.
My noble friend Lady Ritchie raised the importance of training in dementia, and its absence, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Browning. I reassure them that the adult social care learning and development support scheme in England supports adult social care employers through funded training opportunities, including a range of opportunities that cover the Dementia Training Standards Framework, and we are pleased that the scheme will continue in the financial year 2025-26, backed up by up to £12 million.
The noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, raised a question about engagement with Skills for Care. I confirm that Skills for Care is consulted with and that our working group, and task and finish groups, bring together trade unions, representative bodies of adult social care providers and other relevant stakeholders such as Skills for Care. I hope that will be of interest to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, who made specific reference to the role of trade unions. They do have a role; they represent and are a voice for working people, and we are extending our consultation beyond trade unions because, as the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, rightly said, there are groups such as Skills for Care and others who also have a very helpful voice.
I turn now to Amendments 181, 182, 183, 184, 186 and 191 by my noble friend Lord Hendy. I know that he met the Minister, my noble friend Lady Jones, to discuss them on 3 June, and I am grateful to him for his time and engagement. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, might agree with some of the points, if not all the interpretations, in each amendment.
Amendment 181 seeks to change the appointment process by making the selection of the chair subject to a public appointments process. That is not an amendment we find favour with, because the Bill as it stands will improve transparency and confidence and ensure that all the right processes are followed. We feel that that is the right way forward.
Lord Hendy (Lab)
My Lords, I thank everybody who has participated in this debate. In particular, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Browning and Lady Ritchie, for their Amendment 185. I completely support the idea that training and education should be part of the remit of the adult social care negotiating body. As the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, touched on, training and career progression are expressly part of the remit of school support staff and it seems inexplicable that they are not part of adult social care as well.
I agree with the noble Lords, Lord Palmer and Lord Prentis, that the adult social care negotiating body, in establishing minimum terms and conditions, will play a key part in the improvement of the provision of social care and of course the improvement of the lives of those who provide that care. I was moved by the fact-filled description by my noble friend Lord Prentis of the need for the adult social care negotiating body in that sector.
I realised the other day that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and I have known each other a lot longer than I remembered. He mentioned going to the retirement dinner of Albert Blighton, formerly legal officer of the Transport and General Workers Union, and I was there too, but I had forgotten. Of course, I do not agree with much of what the noble Lord has said today.
As for the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and a certificate in relation to the European Human Rights Convention, I have not argued that there was any incompatibility with that convention. My arguments were about incompatibility with ILO provision and the European Social Charter—two very different things. States cannot pick and choose which of the obligations binding on them they wish to abide by.
With the greatest of respect to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, I think he misunderstands the nature of collective bargaining—not that I have done much of it myself, but I have been present when it happens and have had a lot to do with its consequences. It is not necessarily a confrontational process; it works collaboratively. That is why it has been so successful for decades—indeed, centuries—now. I was not suggesting—and do not think it ever is—that it is a legalistic process; it is an informal process.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, also perhaps misunderstood what I was saying. I was suggesting not a dominant role for trade unions but a balanced role, where trade unions and employers have equal power. It is in their mutual interests to agree future terms and conditions and so on. I say to the noble Lord, as I said to the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, that I am not suggesting that the subject matter for negotiation should be confined to Section 178 matters, but simply that those should be permissible matters for discussion, and that parties should be allowed to resolve whatever differences may occur between them by negotiation or by a dispute resolution mechanism chosen by them.
In relation to non-employment, or the use of my word “engagement” rather than “employment”, the purpose of that is to ensure that self-employed workers in the adult social care sector are covered by the benefits of whatever negotiations emanate from the social care negotiating body. Why not? Why should they not have the benefit of minimum hours, terms and conditions, and so on? In this sector, there are a lot of self-employed workers, because employers have resorted to that device.
I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for her full response. I disagreed with one or two points that she made. I do not think it is right to say that Section 178 of the Act is confined to local agreements; that provision in the legislation, of very long standing, applies to all collective bargaining, sectoral or local. I noted that she did not say anything about the international law obligations on which my speech centred. Nevertheless, I am happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Coffey
“Registration scheme: duty to provide access(1) Social care providers must ensure that their employees have access to any registration scheme which Social Work England may establish.(2) In subsection (1), a “registration scheme” is system where social care workers’ training is centrally logged, allowing their previous training to be recognised by a new employer.”
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I have already set out, in the debate on the previous group, my appreciation of social care workers right across our country. I said that I would try to set out in this group one of the ways that we can achieve the outcomes that the Government, and, I think, this Committee, are seeking to see: improved pay, terms and conditions for social care workers, including for the benefit of the people they help, to try to increase retention and tackle some of the challenges faced.
In my previous role, I commissioned my noble friend Lady McGregor-Smith to consider in-work progression. While in DWP, I was concerned more broadly about people getting stuck in low-paid roles and what we could do to help increase their prosperity. In looking at a wide range of sectors, her commission highlighted the challenges facing the care sector right across the United Kingdom. A variety of research elements went into it. It cited research that found
“little incentive to gain qualifications in a sector viewed as low status”,
and that:
“Those working in care perceive it as involving highly skilled work, but workers tend not to view care work as a profession”.
As I referred to in the debate on the previous group, and therefore will not repeat, it set out, in effect, the care workforce pathway, which got going and has been enhanced by the current Government recognising the progress that could be made.
It used to be the case that a lot of people went into the care sector through the apprenticeship route. A decade ago, Skills for Care would cite nearly as many as 100,000, but that has significantly changed and has gradually fallen over time. Some of that might be to do with the nature and the variety of the work, which does not necessarily lend itself entirely to being appropriate for the apprenticeship levy for everybody in that sector. Last year, we ended up with about 24,000, one quarter of which were at level 2 entry, with, I hope, some of the people who had already completed level 2 securing level 3, but it represents quite a shift. It is testimony to the Department of Health having put together and worked with an Ofqual-registered qualification at level 2 as part of this new way to try to make sure that there is progress.
I agreed with one recommendation that my noble friend made, but she made a recommendation that I did not agree with. One of the challenges she set out was the hugely diverse nature of the social care sector. In financial support, as much is given to adults, as opposed specifically to pensioners, when it comes to social care. Indeed, my longest-standing friend Dawn spent most of her career as a social care worker for adults with learning disabilities. There is variety within the work that 1.6 million people in the workforce undertake every day. One of the challenges—whether you are self-employed or are moving to an agency or local authority—is that there is no way of recognising your experience and any training that you might have done. That is one of the key challenges of people leaving the sector, or getting stuck—instead of, perhaps, the sector expanding.
One of the recommendations was to emulate what happens in the construction skills certification scheme in the UK construction industry. This has been developed with a card and it shows that individual workers have transferable proof of a level of training and qualifications. When you start with a new employer in the social care sector, you would then not have to go through all the training that you have already done heaven knows how many times. If you are perfectly well skilled that is a frustrating element as well.
I do not agree with one of the recommendations. I strongly do not believe we should be regulating this sector. I think that would become more of a barrier. There are now many careers and jobs that are regulated by some separate authority. My noble friend made this recommendation on the basis that Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland have done exactly that. Anyone who wants to be a social care worker has to become registered and be regulated by, for example, Social Care Wales or the Scottish Social Services Council. I am not convinced that we should be getting into that in this sector.
However, it could be possible—perhaps not for the negotiating body we have just spoken about, and I was suggesting why I did not think it would be appropriate—for Social Work England to establish something if people wanted to register and get their training recognised so that they had an equivalent to the construction scheme card. Again, the workers under that are not regulated by the construction industry in that regard. However, it has become a useful tool so that employers and workers are clear on what they can bring to the next employer they are seeking to have.
It will vary around the country but, quite often, social care workers will be contracted by multiple agencies. This recognises the flexibility of work that is available and wanted. This can sometimes lead to significant differential pay rates. Quite often, when working for a local authority, the pay will be considerably less than working for a private agency. It is important that we allow people to have this flexibility but, dare I say it, without the draconian regulation a whole body starts to bring about.
That is why I have put forward the suggestion that, if Social Work England chooses to establish such a scheme, any employees must be able to register training and any existing certificates with Social Work England to facilitate their personal choices on how to progress in work. I beg to move.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I was unfortunately delayed in getting here for the start of the previous group of amendments. I had added my name to the amendments on education. However, I am delighted to be here. I would have added my name to the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, if I had realised what she was going to say.
I reinforce the need for education and monitoring what people do. The social care workforce is absolutely amazing. Its members work across an enormous range of people. When I chaired the National Mental Capacity Forum over six years, it was very evident that some people wanted to and had great talent for working with people with impaired capacity, and they wanted to learn how to do it better. There were others who did not like working with people with impaired capacity or people who had early dementia or even mental health issues, but they were extremely good at working with people with physical disabilities and impaired mobility. They were very good at manual handling, lifting and so on.
Over many decades, I have worked with social care workers in my field of palliative care. In the report of the palliative care commission that we wrote recently, we recognised the important role of many of these workers. When they look after people in their own home, they are often the person who spots deterioration first. Very often, patients will confide in them because they do not have the mantle of power that nurses and doctors have, and people speak very openly to them. They understand the problems and fears that people have in themselves and their lives. But they can see what is happening only when there is continuity of care—when they have seen the person before and will see them again.
I have to defend Social Care Wales; it has helped having a registration system because it has improved the perception of the status of people working in the field. When looking at this in detail in my field, we found that, although their time in post was transient, they often moved to a different employer. Although they did not remain with one employer, they would take their skills and what they had learned with them.
It has struck me over the years that this is a workforce thirsty for knowledge, skills and education, yet the group is not normally included among those considered as educated. When I first set up the hospice in Cardiff, it was the carers and kitchen staff who came in on their days off because they wanted to learn. Very often, because I had worked with them for 20 years or so, they knew best of all when I was worried about something and when to trigger calling me out of hours, because they had a whole set of skills.
Registering those skills will be very important in allowing career progression and recognition and allowing people in this workforce to work in the domains in which they have the best personality and skill set that suits them—where they feel appreciated and know that they are rewarded emotionally as well as financially. Some people are happy to drive around from one house to another in the ghastly traffic of the outer London suburbs or in cities. Others do not want to do that; they want longer one on one. Some are better working with disturbed young people or people with addictions. If we can have a way of recognising and building on that, we can go a very long way to improving the overall security of this very important workforce, which has, sadly, been tremendously undervalued across our society until now.
It was heartening to hear the Minister summing up on the previous group. I was absolutely delighted to have my name on the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, and to hear that the training will be set out via regulations under the affirmative resolution, which I think was going to be our next negotiating point when we were discussing what to do next. I hope that, with these amendments at different points in the Bill, we might find a way forward to get something on education and training recognised for the specific areas that people are in, so that they can gain credit for it, personally and in terms of career progression.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, I had not intended to speak because, in a sense, this is a continuation of previous amendments. I want to put in a word for this amendment, which recognises that there should be a registration scheme so that peoples’ talents, education and training can be recognised across the country. It is important to give them the credit for that accreditation and to use their talents. This amendment adds more to what we have already spoken about, because it provides a scheme that helps the patient and the client, as well as the care worker, in fulfilling needs. I hope the Minister will take account of this and include it in her reply.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Baroness Coffey for her amendment and for her thorough and comprehensive introduction to it. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, for her perspective and experience, which are very valuable contributions to this debate.
This is a measured and constructive idea. As we have heard, the social care workforce is highly mobile, and too often valuable training is overlooked or repeated when someone moves to a new role. A centralised system that records training could easily help ensure that skills are recognised across the sector, improve efficiency and reduce unnecessary duplication. As the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, pointed out, in many cases a unique expertise would be brought that deserves to be recognised. It would also show respect for the professional development of care workers. It would signal that their time, effort and learning are worth tracking and carrying forward and are not lost at the point when they change jobs.
I of course acknowledge that the practical arrangements for such a scheme would need careful planning, but the principle is sound. Enabling continuity in workforce development would support retention, raise standards and bring consistency to a fragmented sector. I seriously hope that the Minister is listening.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to the debate on Amendment 200A. I certainly can assure the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, that I am listening very closely. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, for tabling this amendment, which would require social care providers to ensure that their employees have access to any scheme logging training achievements that Social Work England may establish. Let me say at the outset that I understand the intent of the amendment, which is to give care workers development and extend their skills. As the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe and Lord Palmer, said, this would contribute to what this Bill seeks to do, which is to improve retention, the quality of work and the regard for care workers, and encourage recruitment, among many other very positive outcomes. However, unfortunately, the amendment does not do the job that I know is intended, because Social Work England does not regulate the work of social care workers, but only that of social workers. The amendment as drafted gives us difficulty, but I do completely understand what it tries to do.
Let me respond to a number of the points that were made. There are currently no plans to add to the existing regulation of care workers in the sector undertaken by CQC, but let me refer to the care workforce pathway, which may be of interest and assistance to a number of the noble Lords who contributed. The care workforce pathway is the first universal career structure for the adult social care workforce. On 9 April this year—not so long ago—my department published the expansion and revision of the care workforce pathway, which includes the crucial role categories for registered and deputy managers and personal assistants, as well as the new enhanced care worker role. That speaks to some of the issues the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, raised about the social care workforce. When we talk about the social care workforce, this is a wide group; it is a team of people, and they are all working to support whoever is in receipt of their care.
On the issues raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, and the noble Lord, Lord Palmer—in particular, how we recognise experience and training—I completely take the point. I can give the assurance that the department is already undertaking work on skills and learning and developing a digital skills record, which will provide a permanent and verifiable record of skills and achievements for members of the adult social care workforce. Most importantly, to the point raised by the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, it can be shared with new or potential employers, which can help to reduce unnecessary duplication of training and make taking on new recruits faster, which is key. So, we are all in extreme agreement about the importance of training for the social care workforce, if not about the actual letter of the amendment.
On regulations being able to provide for other matters relating to employment, as we discussed in the previous group in respect of Amendment 185, the Bill already sets out that regulations will be subject to the affirmative procedure in respect of matters that will be included in the negotiating bodies’ remits, which can of course include training and other matters. As a gentle bit of clarification for the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, I was making clear in the previous group that any regulations in this regard are subject to the affirmative procedure. I was not being as specific as I know she hoped I would be, but it is important to make that position a bit clearer. So, on any matter within its remit, the negotiating body could determine employee entitlements, which could be incorporated into relevant workers’ contracts.
The noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, asked about apprenticeships. Just last week, the Department for Education announced the launch of a health and social care foundation apprenticeship, set to begin from August 2025, which I am sure we will all welcome. This will offer young people a paid route into the health and adult social care sectors; I will not be alone in very much welcoming that.
The noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, talked about professional development and transferring across jobs. That principle is certainly being included in our health and social care sector, in respect of the digital skills record. As the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, said, this is a teamwork approach based around whoever needs the care. It requires different skills, which can be transferrable across different jobs, so the noble Lord makes a fair point.
With that, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, will agree to withdraw Amendment 200A.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
I thank all noble Lords for contributing and for again recognising the great value we attach to social care workers across the country. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, that I am not trying to do down Social Care Wales at all; it was more that there is almost a regulation approach, which I am keen to avoid and which I believe is not entirely necessary. I welcome the words of the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, and my noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom in that regard.
I am really pleased that the Minister has flagged this digital record, which I was not aware of. I am really excited to hear about that. I had already referenced the care pathway in the previous group, and it is great to see it being built on, which is something the sector was keen to achieve.
With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“(10A) But regulations under section 84A may not provide for provision made for the purpose of giving effect to an agreement, or an amendment of an agreement, to come into force—(a) before the United Kingdom has ratified the agreement, or(b) in a case where—(i) the provision is for the purpose of giving effect to an amendment of an agreement, and(ii) the United Kingdom would not be required to give effect to the amendment until it had been ratified by the United Kingdom,before the United Kingdom has ratified the amendment.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would make clear that regulations under new section 84A of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 may not provide for provision made for the purpose of giving effect to an international agreement, or to an amendment of an agreement that requires separate ratification, to come into force before the United Kingdom has ratified the agreement or amendment.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment of clause 54 at page 72, line 16.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester
“Chapter 4Industrial undertakingsRestriction on the employment of children in industrial undertakingsIn section 1 of the Employment of Women, Young Persons, and Children Act 1920 (restrictions on the employment of women, young persons, and children in industrial undertakings), at the end of subsection (1) insert “(but voluntary work on a heritage railway or heritage tramway is not employment in an industrial undertaking)”.”
Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 201 is in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay. I thank him for agreeing to put his name to it—I am delighted, and I look forward to his speech.
The amendment’s purpose is to remove what is, in effect, an unintended consequence of a piece of outdated legislation on the training, education and skills development for a group of young volunteers, particularly young female volunteers, on heritage railways. The Employment of Women, Young Persons, and Children Act 1920 was passed in a very different era, some 33 years before the first preserved railway started operation using volunteers. It makes it unlawful to employ young people under 16 on railways and—by an extension through later legislation—that work now includes unpaid work by volunteers.
No prosecution has ever been brought under Section 1 of the 1920 Act, and the provision languished unknown on the statute book for many years until it was brought to light in 2015. The Heritage Railway Association—I declare an interest as its president—was so concerned at the implications that it sought counsel’s opinion, which confirmed that the 1920 Act remained in force and that it was unlawful to allow volunteers under 16 to undertake work on a heritage railway.
The All-Party Parliamentary Group on Heritage Rail held an inquiry into the subject and published a report with recommendations in July 2018. On 15 July 2022, I introduced a Private Member’s Bill that sought to repeal the relevant sections of the 1920 Act. My Bill passed all its stages through your Lordships’ House unamended and received widespread support across the Chamber. Disappointingly, however, the Bill made no progress in the Commons.
Subsequent meetings with, among others, the Health and Safety Executive and the Office of Rail and Road produced some helpful assurances—namely, that any prosecutions would rely not on this outdated Act but on more recent legislation, particularly the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act and the safety management regulations produced following the Railways Act 1993. Officials were unwilling to repeal the relevant sections of the 1920 Act, partly because, in their view, it was unnecessary, and partly because it might have unforeseen implications on other activities, although those were never specified. To address this point, my Amendment 201 seeks to disapply the relevant sections of the 1920 Act to heritage railways and tramways, rather than to repeal the whole section.
Although they were helpful, the HSE and ORR views do not solve the basic problem if the 1920 Act remains on the statute book. That is because, even if a prosecution may not be brought by official bodies, it could be brought by a local authority or by a relative of a young person, regardless of the assurances given. Heritage railway managers, not surprisingly, do not wish to break the law even if it is moribund and other safeguards exist.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I rise to add my support to Amendment 201, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, to which I have added my name in an expression of cross-party support for this very sensible endeavour. In doing so, I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, for his tenacity on this issue, as well as to the hard work over many years by the Heritage Railway Association and the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Heritage Rail, of which I am a member.
As the noble Lord outlined, he has been campaigning on this issue, along with those colleagues, for a number of years, including through the Private Member’s Bill that he brought in the previous Parliament. It was debated in this House when I was Heritage Minister but was responded to for the then Government by my noble friend Lady Stedman-Scott. She, and indeed all the noble Lords who spoke in the Second Reading debate on that Private Member’s Bill, spoke very sympathetically about it. My noble friend Lady Stedman-Scott spoke also with fondness of the Kent and East Sussex Railway, which passes very close to where she lives. Speaking from the Labour Front Bench, the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox of Newport, who also mentioned the Talyllyn Railway and the Pontypool and Blaenavon Railway, said in her remarks from the Opposition Front Bench then:
“I have little doubt that achieving and delivering the desired objectives will eventually be managed, whether it is through this Bill or by the Government’s hand”.—[Official Report, 15/7/22; col. 1724.]
Sadly, that “eventually” is still outstanding, and I hope that the Government will take the opportunity of this Bill to achieve what the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, and others have been campaigning for so long.
The noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, set out very clearly the legal position as it stands, as well as very powerfully the beneficial impact that heritage railways have in communities up and down the country: the social skills that they provide to young volunteers; the employment that they offer in rural areas; the linchpin that they often are to the visitor economy in their parts of the United Kingdom.
It is very welcome that, as the noble Lord highlighted, both the Health and Safety Executive and the Office of Rail and Road have made clear that they would not seek to enforce the 1920 Act to prevent children, women or young people volunteering on heritage railways. But the point, as the noble Lord rightly said, is that this confusing provision remains on the statute book. That has a potentially chilling effect for the voluntary organisations that look after our heritage railways. They are dependent on volunteers, not just for restoring and running locomotives, welcoming the many visitors from around the world who come to this country to enjoy them, but also the volunteer trustees and custodians who have to get their heads around the legal and regulatory position in which those organisations are operating. They take their duties in relation to the safety of the staff and visitors to heritage rail very seriously indeed, and the Heritage Railway Association does excellent work in providing advice and guidance to its member railways. But we should do our bit as legislators to make the job of all those volunteers easier by making sure that the law is up to date and clearly understood.
Amendment 201 does not seek to repeal the 1920 Act but to amend it, to put beyond doubt that it does not prohibit women, young persons and children from volunteering on our heritage railways and heritage tramways. The noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, referred in the previous exchanges he has had with many Governments that one of the arguments against doing this is “unintended consequences”. I have seen that many times myself in the briefings that I was given as a Minister at the government Dispatch Box. Often unintended consequences are also unspecified ones. It is hard to think what the unintended consequences might be, but the noble Lord has very sensibly drawn Amendment 201 very tightly in order to obviate that problem, so I hope the Government will look favourably upon it.
We all want to encourage volunteering, not just to help these cherished organisations to continue to bounce back from the pandemic and the challenging time that they had during Covid-19 and the challenges they face in relation to the supply of coal; their very purpose is to pass on to future generations an appreciation of our industrial past, the vital role that the railways played in the history of our nation, and to use the scientific and engineering advances of the past to inspire new generations to come up with world-changing advances of their own. As the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, said, some 22,000 volunteers are involved in keeping our heritage railways going, but too few of them are women or young people. The sector very much wants to welcome volunteers from an ever-wider background, and this piece of more than 100 year-old legislation stands in the way of their valiant efforts.
This is the year in which we are celebrating Railway 200, the bicentenary of the first passenger rail journey between Stockton and Darlington, in my native north-east. I am very pleased to see my noble friend Lord Mendoza in his place. Historic England, which he chairs, is among the many organisations that are supporting Railway 200 with great enthusiasm to inspire new generations to get involved in our heritage railways but also to inspire them in the exploits of the future.
So, as we mark that important 200th anniversary, I hope we can finally take the opportunity to amend this law, which is already more than 100 years old and which has caused confusion for too long. I know that the Minister has a background in rail, and I hope he will look favourably on this amendment from his noble friend and agree to discuss with both of us how we might take this opportunity, finally, to solve the problem that he has been seeking to address for so long.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, briefly, I support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner. I certainly do not have the expertise that he has in heritage railways, but steam railways are an important part of this country’s heritage and, as each year passes, that importance surely grows. We are getting closer to a time when there will be no one with a personal memory of such trains in their working life. As well as being an enjoyable activity for interested and enthusiastic children and young people, this is also an educational opportunity for the next generation, as the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, says, in supporting our heritage—and support for our heritage is something that this Government have pledged to give. This is an instance that shows the world of work in all its manifestations as a very varied one, including voluntary work undertaken by young people. I hope that the Government show some flexibility in this regard and accept the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I shall also briefly support this amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, has made the case very well, well supported by my friend Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay. The noble Lord., Lord Faulkner, will recall how we worked together to save Thomas the Tank Engine when we were having difficulty getting fuel for the heritage railways. I always like to take the opportunity of encouraging this extraordinary bit of our heritage, and I think this very simple and minimal amendment would help with that.
Lord Mendoza (Con)
My Lords, I also support the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester. I have been pre-declared by my noble friend Lord Parkinson as the chairman of Historic England, but I am glad to see that we also have the chairman of English Heritage, the noble Lord, Lord Lemos, here on the other side. If I can give the heritage argument, which has been made already, one of the most difficult things in the heritage sector is to encourage young people to come into it, to learn the skills, to learn the trades that we need, to keep our heritage environment going for as long as we can.
The heritage railways are no less a part of the heritage sector. In fact, they are a very important part of it. When I was commissioner for culture during the Covid period, we tried as much as we could to send a lot of money to the heritage railways to make sure that they were maintained and could survive that terrible period for them when they could not have any visitors. We want to do as much as we can to prevent there being barriers for young people to come into this sector and learn these trades and be able to volunteer, help and learn.
Next week, I have the great pleasure of going up to the Stockton and Darlington Railway 200 celebration, where we are going to be opening a series of murals made by artists along a walking trail. The point of this is exactly that we are bringing in young artists from the area, working with their local communities, to provide fantastic, illustrative visual content along the trail to attract young people and others to come into the celebrations for the 200th anniversary of the railways. We want to encourage them, and then, of course, we would like them to come and volunteer.
This whole celebration, as we know, has been put on by Darlington Borough Council, Durham County Council and Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council, all very proud indeed that this is the very site of the beginning of the railways, the technology that changed the world. We want these young people to come and learn the skills, technology and heritage. Perhaps the Minister could see his way to accepting this very minor, tiny change suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, that would really help. I commend him for having looked at this for such a long time. I also commend my noble friend Lord Parkinson for an excellent speech as well, so thank you.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
I support the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, whom I have known for many years, mainly through aspects of the railways. There was a programme on television a little while ago showing youth workers working on the railway. They did everything, including collecting the tickets; they did everything but drive the trains. It was really great. The national memories will die. Who will remember “The Titfield Thunderbolt”, the film about a local group who took over a railway? I still look on my railway to see the Pullman car that does not exist.
Heritage railways are important. It is important to make sure that young people know what heritage railways are and are employed—or used—within the railway system. It will give them education as well as everything else. This is a strange addition to the Employment Rights Bill that I would never have thought of, so my compliments to the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, for including it. I hope that this rather unusual addition to the Bill will be considered by the Minister before Report.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, we all owe a great debt of gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, and my noble friend Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, for introducing a fascinating debate. My own relationship with heritage railways goes back some 45 years, to when I participated in all those wonderful railways in north Wales. I took my daughter Daisy to the top of Snowdon in one of these wonderful train rides. Sadly, the Western Mail had a picture of Daisy and me driving the locomotive, illegally, with the headline, “Daisy drives Dad around the bend”. I shall never forget that.
Therefore, like my noble friends Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lord Mendoza, the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, and the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, I approach this debate with some degree of positive expectation, because the noble Lord, Lord Katz, is going to reply. If ever there was anyone who would understand the need for this amendment, it is the noble Lord, Lord Katz. Whether his brief will allow him to show that level of understanding, we will have to wait and see.
This amendment brings welcome clarity and common sense to an area where outdated legislative definitions risk interfering with well-established and valued community practice. Heritage railways and tramways are not industrial undertakings in the conventional sense. They are, overwhelmingly, charitable or volunteer-led organisations dedicated to preserving history, offering educational experiences and engaging communities, often in rural or heritage-rich areas. This amendment recognises the important distinction between exploitive industrial labour and safe, structured, voluntary participation. Many young people who volunteer on heritage railways gain practical skills, develop a sense of responsibility and form connections across generations. It is, for many, their first taste of civic engagement and teamwork and is often a path into engineering, public service or the arts.
By inserting this narrow and well-defined exemption into the 1920 Act, this clause would ensure that young volunteers can continue to participate safely and legally in activities that benefit not only themselves but the broader public. Importantly, this does not in any way dilute protections against child labour or weaken employment law. It simply makes sure that our legal framework does not unintentionally penalise or prohibit what is clearly a public good.
Lord Katz (Lab)
My Lords, my reputation seems to precede me on this amendment. I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Faulkner of Worcester for tabling Amendment 201 and have enjoyed a slight diversion in subject matter on the Employment Rights Bill. It is truly a pleasure to be able to continue the discussions that I have had with my noble friend Lord Faulkner about the railways for many years, both inside and outside this House. My noble friend is a true champion of heritage railways across the whole piece, not simply on this issue. I pay tribute to his role as president of the Heritage Railway Association.
It has been fantastic to hear from a number of noble Lords, including the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, and the noble Lords, Lord Mendoza and Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, all of whom extolled the virtues of heritage railways in providing a positive way of involving young people in transport, industry and civic engagement—as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, was just saying—as well as contributing to the tourist sector and the Government’s mission for growth. The noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, spoke very strongly about that, and, as he pointed out, it is the 200th anniversary of the railway this year. We are doing a lot to commemorate that, and heritage railways will have their own role in that. I pay special thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, for being the first person to out me as a rail nerd in this debate, and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, also had that pleasure.
The noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, took us on a little tour d’horizon of the Private Member’s Bill debate we had in this House on this topic a few years ago, and mentioned a number of heritage railways. I can speak of the pleasure I had as a young child travelling on the Ruislip Lido railway, which was small in scale but mighty in reputation for those of us in north-west London. The noble Lord is right to point to the virtues of heritage railways, both as an economic activity and in individual engagement.
As a Government, we recognise and support the valuable opportunities young people have through volunteering to do a wide range of different work activities, including on heritage railways. Obviously, it is important that these things are carried out in a safe way, with employers, organisers and volunteers supervising activities to make sure that risks are properly controlled. To give some background, I will say that noble Lords will be aware that the Health and Safety Executive is responsible for regulating health and safety at work, but, in the case of the heritage railways, the Office of Rail and Road is the enforcing authority. Both these regulators have considered carefully what powers they have and how these would be applied in the case of young people aged between 14 and 16 volunteering on a heritage railway.
The Employment of Women, Young Persons, and Children Act 1920, which my noble friend Lord Faulkner of Worcester referred to, is a long-standing piece of legislation intended to prohibit the employment of children carrying out high-risk work, such as construction in industrial settings. To be honest, amending or repealing it would not be a straightforward matter.
The law protecting children in the UK is also a complex area, and this amendment touches on not only health and safety protections but other legislation and local authority by-laws. These are all devolved matters in Northern Ireland, and this amendment would impose changes there too. The 1920 Act is old legislation; amending it should be considered only after a thorough review of the impact on other areas of law, as there may be unintended consequences. It is worth pointing out that the primary legislation governing child employment, including light work, is the Children and Young Persons Act 1933. Amending or repealing the 1920 Act would still leave the 1933 Act in place, which—together with any by-laws made under it by local authorities—limits children to undertaking only light work. So repealing the 1920 Act could have unintended consequences across a number of sectors, and a full impact assessment would be required.
As we have heard, modern health and safety legislation does not prevent children and young people volunteering on heritage railways. I was pleased that my noble friend Lord Faulkner of Worcester referred to the Heritage Railway Association survey, which demonstrated that there are around 800 under 16 year-olds volunteering on heritage railways across the country. There may be activities that are unsuitable for young volunteers to carry out—for example, safety-critical tasks such as train diving—but I am pleased to say that both regulators are very willing to work with the Heritage Railway Association, as we have heard from my noble friend Lord Faulkner of Worcester, to determine what sorts of activities would be safe, appropriate and suitable for young volunteers aged 14 to 16 to perform on the railways.
Of course, regulators should, and do, take a proportionate approach to enforcement action. It is worth noting that the last time the 1920 Act was used to support health and safety enforcement was in 2009. As my noble friend Lord Faulkner of Worcester told us, there have been no prosecutions under the 1920 Act, either of public bodies or private individuals, which proves that the status quo is not absolutely terrible.
The aim of this amendment is to remove any barriers to allow children to gain valuable experience volunteering on heritage railways and tramways. Nobody wants to see more young men and women developing an interest and, indeed, a career on the railway more than I do. It is not clear that there is an overwhelming amount of evidence that this legislation is creating any barriers and, as we know, many heritage railways run very successfully with young people volunteering in a wide range of activities to support those ventures.
Both the Office of Rail and Road and the Health and Safety Executive remain very willing to work with the Heritage Railway Association to develop additional guidance and, possibly, examples of good practice to ensure that young volunteers can continue to work safely in heritage railway settings. While this is a sensible and proportionate way forward to address this issue, I have heard the strength of opinion on this matter from across the Committee. I am more than happy and willing to facilitate a meeting with my noble friend Lord Faulkner of Worcester—other noble Lords may be interested—with the HRA, DfT, ORR and HSE to further pursue this issue. Without making any further commitments, I therefore ask my noble friend to withdraw this amendment for now.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)
My Lords, when the Minister has his meeting with the Members of this House who are interested in this issue, I think he will need to hold it in quite a large room. I am very gratified by the strength and quantity of support that there has been for this amendment and issue from across the Chamber.
I intend to take up the Minister’s kind offer and I hope we can do that before we reach Report. If, by then, it is possible for there to be an understanding of how the law can be interpreted or possibly changed, it may not be necessary to come back on Report. However, I think the House as a whole would like the opportunity to express its view on Report, particularly in view of the very strong support in the Chamber this afternoon, if we do not have a solution by then.
Meanwhile, I thank everybody who has taken part. I thank my noble friend the Minister; my co-signatory, the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay; and all the other noble Lords who took part. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Hendy
“Sectoral collective bargaining(1) The Secretary of State may make regulations for the establishment of Statutory Joint Industrial Councils.(2) The regulations shall provide that—(a) a Statutory Joint Industrial Council shall be composed of equal numbers of—(i) nominees of employers’ associations (or nominees of employers) which appear to ACAS to represent employers in the sector, and(ii) nominees of independent trade unions which appear to ACAS to represent workers in the sector,(b) a Statutory Joint Industrial Council shall have the function of conducting collective bargaining to—(i) establish levels and rates of remuneration (including pensions), terms, conditions and other benefits for those who work in the particular sector of the economy;(ii) determine any other matter within the scope of section 178(2) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (collective agreements and collective bargaining);(iii) formulate its constitution and procedural arrangements including a dispute resolution procedure; (iv) resolve any other matter which the Statutory Joint Industrial Council desires to consider,(c) any agreements reached by a Statutory Joint Industrial Council shall apply to the workers and employers in the relevant sector save to the extent that a previous or a subsequent contract or collective agreement makes more favourable provision,(d) it is for the Secretary of State (in the light of advice from ACAS) to determine what constitutes a sector of the economy for the purposes of establishing a Statutory Joint Industrial Council, and(e) a Statutory Joint Industrial Council may only be made following consultation with—(i) nominees of employers’ associations (and/or nominees of employers) which appear to ACAS to represent employers in the sector, and(ii) nominees of independent trade unions which appear to ACAS to represent workers in the sector.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is intended to enable regulations to be laid for sectoral collective bargaining in particular sectors of the economy. The concept of the Statutory Joint Industrial Council is taken from s.90 and Schedule 8, Employment Protection Act 1975, reproduced in Part II of the Wages Councils Act 1979.
Lord Hendy (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, for supporting my Amendment 203. It is designed to give the Secretary of State power to establish, after consultation, a national statutory joint industrial council in any sector of the economy which appears to him appropriate. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, asked me to give her apologies to the Committee for having had to leave.
Amendment 203 is not intended to be mandatory; it is purely discretionary, leaving it up to the Secretary of State as to whether or not he or she wishes to institute a statutory joint council. The negotiating bodies that we have already discussed this afternoon are, without doubt, an improvement on the current situation, especially in light of my noble friend Lord Prentis’s earlier speech on adult social care.
In these circumstances, I regret that I take the role of Oliver Twist and ask for more. But the fact is that many sectors are crying out for sectoral minimum terms set by negotiation—social care and not just for adults, agriculture in England, hospitality, office cleaning, food delivery, parcel delivery, warehousing, garment manufacture, seafaring, bus services, and so on. There are other groups, such as teachers, where there is established collective bargaining across the sector but not on pay. The omission from the Bill of a power to establish sectoral collective bargaining in any sector seems inexplicable.
Lord Barber of Ainsdale (Lab)
My Lords, I have Amendment 322 in this group, which requires the Secretary of State, after the establishment of the new arrangements to deliver fair pay in the social care sector, to set out a timetable and process for an assessment of whether this approach could deliver similar benefits in tackling labour market problems in other sectors of the economy. The assessment should also take account of the process of establishing the school support staff negotiating body, in effect restoring arrangements abolished in 2010 by the coalition Government.
Setting up this new machinery in social care will be a major step forward in addressing the crisis in this sector. Low pay and poor working conditions are endemic across the sector, contributing to record levels of staff turnover and unfilled vacancies. This badly affects those who need care services and those who provide them. But this will be no simple matter establishing an entirely new bargaining structure for the first time in this part of the economy. All the parties—the Government, the employers and the trade unions—will need to navigate a number of significant complexities to establish this new body.
How should the membership of both the employer and the trade union sides be constituted? What should be the practical working arrangements to bring the parties together to work constructively to address the huge challenges faced? Will there be resistance in the sector to the changes coming out of this initial process? If so, how can they be overcome to establish the new body with the credibility and authority it will need if it is to become an enduring positive part of the social care landscape? This will be a learning process for all involved, and this amendment is intended to ensure that the learning is effectively captured from the process to inform the consideration of whether similar fair pay agreements could deliver benefits and tackle labour market problems in other sectors.
Agreements covering the terms and conditions across a sector exist in our major public services. In the private sector, as recorded in my register of interests, I also serve on the board of the JIB, the Joint Industrial Board, in the electrotechnical part of the construction industry, which brings together the employers’ body, the Electrical Contractors’ Association, with Unite the Union.
Working together, they maintain the core collective agreement setting out the terms and conditions in that part of the economy. They also work together in delivering a hugely valuable card scheme, recognising the key skills of the individuals working in the sector. This was referred to in the earlier debate by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey. In addition, they provide an effective dispute resolution process for member firms and workers in the industry with a very high success rate.
Lessons can be learned in considering the possibility for other sectors from all these different arrangements. This is not to suggest that establishing new sectoral bargaining arrangements more widely in the economy is some kind of magic bullet, but in sectors with low pay, high turnover, recruitment and retention difficulties, and demonstrably inadequate investment in skills, they have the potential to play a part in transforming sectors that currently appear to have a labour market characterised by a race to the bottom to ones that build success based on decent pay and high labour standards. So, once the new social care body has been successfully established, let us develop a considered process, consulting all the relevant parties—employers, unions, ACAS—to learn the lessons and assess whether there are other sectors that could achieve similar benefits from such an approach. I hope that the Minister will be able to respond positively to this proposal. I beg to move.
Baroness O’Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 322 in my name and those of my noble friends Lord Barber and Lord Monks, who regrets he cannot be in his place. It addresses the same principle as the amendments of my noble friend Lord Hendy: extending collective bargaining is a common good.
I strongly welcome Labour’s commitment enshrined in the Bill to introduce a fair pay agreement in social care. As we have heard, social care staff put their health on the line during the pandemic to care for our loved ones, and it is only right that they should be front of the queue for a fair pay agreement. But that cannot be the sum total of our ambition. This amendment seeks to ensure that the Government make a timely assessment of other sectors that could benefit too.
There are around 4 million low-paid and insecure workers in Britain today. During the pandemic, many of these workers were classified as key workers—the people who kept Britain running in the toughest of times. They remain essential to our collective security, but their terms and conditions do not always reflect this. Very often, dominant companies in the sectors where they are employed could and should pay more but instead look to squeeze and undercut smaller companies that want to do the right thing.
There is little incentive to invest in new tech or equipment, which is essential to boosting productivity when labour is so cheap. As we know, young people are on the sharp end with over one-third of UK graduates employed in jobs well below their qualification level, representing an enormous waste of talent. Organisations from the Resolution Foundation to the Low Pay Commission have already documented which jobs and industries are both holding down workers’ aspirations and holding back productivity gains. The Government can use their convening power to bring employers and unions together to bargain for a better deal, not just on pay but with progression, training and skills too.
Collective bargaining is based on the simple premise that workers can achieve more together than we can ever achieve alone. In the UK, we have a national minimum wage. There is also an independent and voluntary real living wage, calculated on the real cost of living. In my book, though, the definition of a fair wage is different: a wage is only fair when workers have a collective say over it and agree it.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, this group of amendments relates to the role of collective bargaining and particular proposals concerning a social care negotiating body. At this late hour, I do not intend to repeat the detailed points already made in the earlier group, but I take this opportunity—and I hope the Minister listens to this—to recognise the Government’s ongoing work to address the significant challenges facing the social care sector. These are complex issues, and the sector continues to face real pressures on workforce stability, recruitment and pay.
Amendment 322, which touches on fair pay agreement arrangements in social care and the possibility of their broader application, reflects one approach to addressing those concerns. While views will differ on the precise mechanisms and scope of reform, it is important that the Government continue to explore options to improve outcomes for both workers and those who rely on care services.
Having listened to the previous speakers, I wondered, “Gosh, am I the only one who is not in a trade union?” It seems that collective bargaining is about the views not just of the trade union but of people the gathered together who are not necessarily trade unionists. I feel uncomfortable that the views of the trade unions will affect the Government’s view of this. Collective bargaining is good; I am all for it. The general reduction in trade union membership has affected the ability of collective bargaining, but very often collective bargaining produces some benefit for those who have been part of it. Those working in any sector in the country know that one person’s benefit is very often less of a benefit for another person, and there is possibly less employment because wages have gone up. The current collective bargaining in the medical world will have a knock-on effect, and we have to think about that. I am all for collective bargaining and people getting better conditions and pay for the job, but thought has to be given to the knock-on effect.
We on these Benches note the intention behind these amendments and the reference to international frameworks and obligations. At this stage, we remain neutral on their detail, but we support continued dialogue on how to strengthen the resilience and sustainability of the social care workforce. I look forward to hearing, when the Minister replies and on Report, how the Government intend to do that. Collective bargaining will probably be part of it, but it is a much wider issue than purely that.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, I support the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady. I am not a trade unionist, but I am very aware that there are sectors of the economy that are not unionised. Can the Minister inform the House whether there are sectors that are disadvantaged in terms of wage levels, and whether there are plans to unionise them?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to this debate, which has been very interesting. The noble Lord, Lord Hendy, talked at some length about delivering a new deal for working people. He ranged fairly freely, so I might, too.
Did noble Lords opposite notice that a report published yesterday showed that there are now 150,000 fewer jobs since the Government took power? It is all very well delivering a new deal for working people, but there will be fewer of them, and this Bill will contribute to that. Noble Lords may not have seen it because it has only just come out, but a British Retail Consortium survey has just been published which shows—I am sure we will return to this theme next week—that half of retail directors now think they will reduce hiring, and 70% say the ERB will have a negative impact on their business.
Frankly, I am slightly staggered at the noble Lord’s Amendment 260, which seeks to return us to various EU standards, given that EU unemployment is, of course, generally significantly higher than it is in this country. Is that what the noble Lord aspires to? I am sure he does not, but that is how it looks.
The proposal to create statutory joint industrial councils raises significant concerns, not least the proliferation of new public bodies at a time when government and regulators are already stretched. Each of these councils would require administrative infrastructure, governance mechanisms, sector-specific expertise and ongoing support from both ACAS and the Secretary of State. This approach risks duplicating existing frameworks. We already have voluntary collective bargaining structures, recognised trade unions and sectoral engagement mechanisms in many industries. Superimposing a statutory model could complicate rather than enhance industrial relations, particularly in sectors where informal or local agreements are working effectively.
There is also the issue of flexibility. The statutory model risks creating rigid sectoral definitions that may not reflect the realities of modern hybrid or cross-sector employment. The labour market today does not always fit neatly into traditional categories, and it is unclear how the Secretary of State, even with ACAS guidance, would determine sectors without inadvertently excluding or misclassifying employers and workers. We must not overlook the potential for conflict or delay. Setting up these councils, negotiating procedures and achieving consensus across large and diverse sectors could slow down progress on pay and conditions, rather than speeding it up.
That is not an argument against collective bargaining. It is an argument for targeted, effective solutions that reflect the complexity of today’s economy, not a revival of structures drawn from legislation that is nearly half a century old. The world has changed. Where stronger bargaining is needed, let us work through existing mechanisms and invest in enforcement, rather than defaulting to the creation of statutory councils that may struggle to function as intended. I look forward to hearing from the Minister.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
I thank my noble friends Lord Hendy and Lord Barber of Ainsdale for Amendments 203, 257, 260 and 322. I hope, despite my noble friend Lord Hendy’s concerns, that he recognises that this Bill is a major step forward in delivering a new deal for working people, exactly in the way our manifesto and the King’s Speech set out. I would also say that this is only the first step in our proposals, as we have made clear all along that the “make work pay” programme will, over time, roll out to a whole set of other issues we have flagged up as we have gone through this debate.
Turning to Amendment 203 in the name of my noble friend Lord Hendy, I am pleased to be having the debate on sectoral collective bargaining and to set out the Government’s commitment to supporting it through the introduction of fair pay agreements in social care and the school support staff negotiating body, which we have just debated in detail. We want to ensure that the labour market works for everyone. A key aspect of this is allowing workers to participate in collective bargaining to improve pay and conditions. However, where labour markets are operating effectively or where existing collective agreements are working well, the Government recognise that sectoral collective bargaining may not be the best solution—I think this was the point the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, was making.
The amendment would enable the Secretary of State to establish statutory joint industrial councils in unspecified areas without parliamentary scrutiny or appropriate safeguards. We are committed to starting with fair pay agreements in the social care sector to address the stark and specific issues in the vital sector, which we have already debated. As part of our ongoing policy work, we are exploring how future sectors could benefit from sectoral collective bargaining. However, we first want to learn from this process to improve our policy approach and ensure that future sectoral collective bargaining arrangements most effectively respond to the complexities of the modern workforce. In the meantime, I assure my noble friend that we are committed to supporting sectoral collective bargaining and recognise the positive contribution it can make to the British economy.
Amendment 257 in the name of my noble friend Lord Hendy would add duties of promoting collective bargaining to ACAS’s remit. An existing ACAS code of practice provides guidance on the disclosure of information to trade unions for collective bargaining purposes. I have listened carefully to what my noble friend said, and I am afraid we will have to disagree on this. We do not support the amendment; we think it is important that ACAS maintains its independence and impartiality between employers and unions. We are concerned that the current status could be compromised by this amendment.
On Amendment 260 in the name of my noble friend Lord Hendy, we have debated the school support staff negotiating body and the social care negotiating bodies. A benefit of these sectoral bodies will be broad sectoral agreements. We expect that many workers in these sectors will be able to benefit from collective agreements for the first time. We intend to learn from the first fair pay agreement process in social care and the SSSNB, before considering rolling out agreements in other areas, as I have said.
Additionally, this amendment requires the Secretary of State to consult on and bring forward this action plan within six months. It is important that such policy matters have enough time for consideration, and we are keen that employer organisations and trade unions prioritise the consultations committed to in Make Work Pay, which will follow Royal Assent to the Bill.
Lord Hendy (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate, in particular my noble friends Lord Barber, Lady O’Grady and Lord Monks for their Amendment 322, which I support. I support any machinery for extending the hearing of the worker’s voice. My preference would be for collective bargaining rather the negotiating body model in the Bill, but if we cannot have the first, let us have the second.
I had the pleasure of spending time with the JIB, which was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Barber. It is a good example of successful sectoral collective bargaining. Earlier this afternoon, I tried to outline the benefits of collective bargaining. No one in the House has so far denied those benefits; indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, described the disbenefits of not having collective bargaining, which are, I think, acknowledged by my noble friend the Minister. Instead, the defence is that collective bargaining is unworkable or too burdensome. However, the JIB and other extant joint national councils of a voluntary nature, as well as the Whitley councils in the public sector, show that they are not unworkable or burdensome and that sectoral collective bargaining works.
I make two points to the noble Lord, Lord Palmer. First, collective bargaining, even at the enterprise level, benefits non-unionists as well as unionists. Collective bargaining may be reached between a trade union representing only a proportion of the workers in a bargaining unit, but the output covers all workers in the bargaining unit. Secondly—this is a point that I need to make in relation to the contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe—collective bargaining has been proven not to create unemployment; academic studies and, indeed, studies by the OECD have demonstrated that. In response to the noble Lord, I make the point, in terms of the EU comparison, that unemployment differs from one European country to another. However, one thing is absolutely clear: unemployment in European countries is not caused or related to the extent of collective bargaining coverage.
The noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, asked about the non-membership of trade unions. Tangentially to that, I will make one point: one of the reasons for falling membership of trade unions in this country—and, indeed, in other countries—is the decline in collective bargaining. People will not join trade unions when they know that the trade union will not have a voice in setting their terms and conditions. They would be paying a contribution as just a gesture, without any hope of getting anything back.
I will not deal with all the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, but there was one point about the definition of sectors. That has always been problematic, but it has always been resolved. For decades, there have been arguments about the definition of sectors for the purposes of wage councils and joint national councils, but, ultimately, they were all resolved.
In response to my noble friend the Minister, I want to pick up one small point in relation to the proposal that ACAS should have restored to it the duty to promote collective bargaining. ACAS had that duty for decades, and it did not mean that ACAS was partisan in any way. ACAS has always been respected as impartial and independent; having that duty again, in my respectful opinion, would not open it to that sort of criticism.
I recognise, as my noble friend the Minister asked me to, that what is proposed in this Bill is a major step forward. There can be no doubt about that. I acknowledge her commitment to go further; she knows that I would of course prefer to go further now, but I respect her commitment to support sectoral collective bargaining. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Earl of Clancarty
“Review: impact of employment law relating to casting directories and digital casting platformsWithin six months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must commission a review of the impact of employment law relating to casting directories and digital casting platforms on performers in the creative industries.”
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, I am grateful for the support of my noble friend Lord Freyberg, and the noble Lords, Lord Hendy and Lord Cashman, who unfortunately cannot be here today, and for the discussions I have had with them and other colleagues in the House, including the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Hudnall, who I see her in her place, and with relevant industry representatives. I am also grateful for the meeting that my noble friend Lord Freyberg and I had with the Minister and her team on not just this but other areas of the creative industries in relation to the Bill.
This debate has been prompted by the ongoing dispute between Equity and the casting directory resource Spotlight around the levels of charging that Spotlight makes for the inclusion of performers in its now online directory. I declare an interest as my daughter is at drama school and signed up with Spotlight. Equity believes that Spotlight charges too much for this service and is bound by both the Employment Agencies Act 1973 and the Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses Regulations 2003. Equity believes that, at the very least, Spotlight should not be charging more than it costs to maintain the directory. This dispute has resulted in a class action brought last year by Equity against Spotlight, and a High Court hearing is scheduled for next month.
I will not say anything about how the court case should or will pan out, and I am sure that the Minister will be equally as careful in her response in that respect. What I can say is that things very much came to a head in 2023, when Spotlight tried to launch its so-called “premiere service” at a time when we had only just emerged from Covid. This was widely criticised within the industry as invoking a two-tier membership which would only benefit the more privileged. To its credit, Spotlight paused this service, but there is no doubt that some damage had been done in terms of trust.
Equity says that the charges that Spotlight makes are their members’ number one concern and that, further, Spotlight is exploiting its monopoly position. However, there is a strong argument for a single, recognisable go-to platform for professional actors and other performers. This is a really important point, otherwise it could cost actors a lot more if it becomes necessary to sign up to more than one platform. This is a role that Spotlight has fulfilled for almost 100 years and continues to fulfil. I should say that, as far as I can ascertain, there is no substantial criticism of the service that Spotlight or indeed other platforms provide; this is a dispute about costs.
One potential outcome of the court case is that performers will not have to pay anything at all for inclusion in such directories. However, this raises very problematic concerns about how those moneys are made up for if that should be the case, as well as there being potentially wider implications beyond the entertainment industry.
I ask two things of the Minister. The first is very simple and modest: that the Government keep a watching brief on this. We may well return to this after the court case, and I will leave it to my noble friend Lord Freyberg to provide particular arguments about why we should have the review that the amendment itself asks for.
Secondly, and the reason for raising this issue at the present time, is that as I have tried to show, this dispute has not come out of the blue. I therefore ask the Government whether they believe that a legally enabled mechanism might have been useful in this instance and potential future instances in order to resolve such disputes and avoid court proceedings, which is always a nuclear option. In that respect, I listened with great interest to the previous debate on the group led by the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, and wonder whether the Minister has a response to that. I beg to move.
Lord Freyberg (CB)
My Lords, I will speak in support of Amendment 204C. I thank my noble friend Lord Clancarty for tabling the amendment and I am grateful for the constructive discussion that he, the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Hudnall, and I had with colleagues, industry representatives and the Minister and her team. Like my noble friend, I do not intend to comment on the ongoing legal proceedings between Equity and Spotlight; that is rightly a matter for the courts. However, I believe that the situation that has prompted this amendment highlights an underlying tension that is worthy of review: whether the existing employment law and regulatory framework remain fit for purpose in today’s digital casting environment.
Lord Hendy (Lab)
My Lords, I added my name to this amendment, and the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, and the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, have said everything that I wanted to say. I just want to add that it has been a pleasure working with them and with my noble friend Lady McIntosh to endeavour to understand the nature of this dispute. It occurs to me, in the light of what we have been discussing this afternoon, that a good dose of collective bargaining and negotiation might come to the assistance of the parties.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)
My Lords, I had not expected to speak at any point during this Bill, and I will do so now only very briefly to express my thanks to the noble Earl and his colleagues for praying my name in aid in relation to this amendment. I really just want to say that I may be the only person in the House—and I am certainly, I think, the only person in this Chamber—for whom a casting directory was the bible of my life for many decades. Therefore, I know exactly how important it is to performers that there should be a trusted published work of some kind to which they can refer their information which can then be the source of potential employment through the work of casting directors and other industry professionals.
I just say to the Minister, when she comes to consider this amendment—which, by the way, I do support, and I have nothing to add or anything I wish to contradict in what has been said so far—that it is important to recognise that this is an extremely delicate ecosystem in which there are many, many people who need to avail themselves, and have done over decades, as we have been told, of the kind of service that a casting director and a casting directory provide. Frankly, for most of all of our lives, it has been Spotlight, but it could be others. The people who need to avail themselves of that service are many in number, and the people who need to use it in order to find out about those people are much fewer in number—mostly casting directors. It is very important that they have a trusted source, that performers can rely on their information being carefully curated, looked after and protected in the way that the noble Earl and the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, have already outlined, but that we do not disturb the particular delicate relationship between those two aspects of the way that the business works. While I am not in favour of exceptionalism on the whole, I think we do have to understand that this industry operates not always perfectly but certainly in an unusual kind of way, and it is necessary that it continue to do so with the right protections in place.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, we are very grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, the noble Lords, Lord Freyberg and Lord Hendy, and the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Hudnall, for bringing this very important subject to the attention of this Committee. All sectors of the economy, including the creative industries, deserve fair and proportionate attention in the development and review of employment law, particularly when, as the noble Earl pointed out, the workplace is changing so fast and at such speed.
As the noble Earl reminded us, we need a framework which strikes the right balance. We are all grateful to him for not commenting in any detail about an ongoing dispute, which we will all carefully avoid mentioning any more, although we all agree we must keep a watching brief on what is happening as regards that particular instance.
However, as we consider wider reforms to employment rights and protections, we must ensure that we are not unintentionally leaving out those in less conventional work arrangements. Performers and others working in the creative industries often operate outside the normal employer and employee model. They frequently rely, as we have heard, on casting directories and digital platforms to access work—platforms that are increasingly central as to how creative labour is bought and sold, and have been for a number of years. Yet this part of the labour market is rarely the focus of legislative scrutiny. That must change.
I hope we are all agreed that we cannot claim to be modernising employment law if we ignore how it interacts with one of the fastest growing and culturally significant sectors of our economy. This amendment does not, of course, call for regulation but for understanding. A review will help us grasp better whether existing protections are functioning as they should, and whether any further action is needed to ensure fairness and transparency in the systems on which performers so clearly depend. I look forward to hearing from the Minister as to how he would like to respond to what is a fast-changing situation.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Leong) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this very short but very interesting debate, and declare an interest that many and perhaps all my actor friends are registered with Spotlight. I take this opportunity to thank the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, and the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, for tabling Amendment 204C.
Providers of work-finding services, which can include digital services, are regulated through the Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses Regulations 2003, which are enforced by the Employment Agency Standards Inspectorate, and in due course they will be enforced by the fair work agency. I hope that answers the question of the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, on who enforces regulations in this area.
The conduct regulations also allow for employment agencies to charge work-seekers in specific occupations, such as actors, musicians and singers, fees for their inclusion in a publication for the purpose of work finding. These costs can be no more than a reasonable estimate of the cost of production and circulation of that publication.
I am sure that all noble Lords will appreciate that I cannot say anything more about the ongoing litigation between the actors’ union and that particular organisation. However, I will share with all noble Lords how the Government are supporting the creative sector.
The UK is home to world-class creative industries. Every single day, our arts and culture bring joy to millions of people, not just in our four nations but all over the world. Every second, someone somewhere will be listening, reading or hearing one of our creative artists. They are part of our soft power, part of our economic power and part of the joy that we so generously give the world. They enrich our lives, bring our communities together and drive our economy. The creative industries have been identified as a growth-driving sector in our strategy, Invest 2035.
People and skills are an important part of this strategy. The Government have been working closely with the sector, including through the creative industry sector plan task force, to develop a plan for the sector. The Creative Industries Taskforce includes Creative UK, the British Fashion Council and the Royal Shakespeare Company, and I hope that it will address some of the issues that were asked about earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg. I appreciate the noble Lord’s efforts to improve the working conditions of those in the creative industries, and I will discuss this further when we debate a later amendment on the performing arts and entertainment sectors tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response. He did not answer my question about a legally enabled mechanism, although I think it was probably answered at the end of the previous debate.
I thank all noble Lords who have taken part. I think the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Hudnall, about the delicate ecosystem is hugely important, and we upset that ecosystem at our peril. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, for what he said about collective bargaining. That is something that we perhaps ought to be looking at, nevertheless. The claim that the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, repeated—that 30% of radio adverts are now AI-generated—is quite shocking. This is yet another stress on our artists, without remuneration. That leads me to my final comment, which is that it is probably not a coincidence that this dispute is happening at a time when, after 14 years when the subsidised arts sector, so important at the grass-roots level—the entry level for young performers for theatre, television and film—has been torn to shreds, when there are far fewer jobs in this sector and fewer new theatre productions across the country. Although that is not a justification for any particular stance taken, it is, nevertheless, a significant part of the wider story.
I hope that, with the spending review, this damage will start to be repaired, because what price employment rights for employees if there are no jobs to go to? I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that the statement of trade union rights applies only to larger employers.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted to have the opportunity to move this amendment on behalf of my noble friend Lady Noakes, who is unable to be in her place today. I have to say that these parts of the Bill, Parts 4 and 5, will be the most contentious, but I think this is the meat and drink of what the Bill is intended to do, which is essentially to repeal most of the labour relations legislation put in place by successive Conservative Governments since 1992.
I am tempted by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady of Upper Holloway, and her hagiography of labour relations and trade union activity before 1979, as if it was a land of milk and honey, the closed shop did not exist and the trade unions had not brought the country to its knees, to the extent that a third of trade unionists in the 1979 general election voted Conservative. In fact, Conservative trade unionists were one of the most powerful and influential groups in the Conservative Party at the time.
That was the reality of the situation then: the closed shop bringing the motor industry and various other industries to their knees. Many working-class people were sick to death of the trade unions, which is why they voted Conservative. The idea that it was a dark, draconian period of the evil capitalist bosses forcing the horny-handed sons of toil into penury was nonsense. I am more than happy for the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, to disabuse me of my prejudices, but I do not think that she will. Historically, we won general elections as a party because trade unionists supported us as they knew that reform was vital. We will no doubt debate that at length as we go on.
While I am being slightly contentious, I note the Cross Benches are empty, bar the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley of Knighton, whom it is always a pleasure to see. In many of the Bills over the last two years, the Cross Benches deprecated the use of excessive reliance on delegated powers. They would pop up during every piece of primary legislation, every Bill, to complain about the ministerial misuse of delegated powers, which is happening in this Bill in spades. Yet where are they? They are not present to remonstrate with the Government, take issue with the Government or hold the Government to account on that. Anyway, we must proceed.
In moving Amendment 205, I will speak also to Amendments 206 to 208, and the Clause 55 stand part notice tabled by my noble friends Lord Hunt of Wirral and Lord Sharpe of Epsom. The practical and economic consequences of Clause 55 without amendment are likely to be damaging to the very workers whom the Bill claims to protect. This is against an economic background where we have growth becalmed, flat growth of GDP and a very tough labour market out there. Yet the Bill will load further incumbencies on small businesses in particular.
Amendment 207 seeks to exempt micro-employers—those with fewer than 10 employees—from the obligation in respect of access. These amendments reflect a recognition that a one-size-fits-all mandate across employers of vastly different scale is neither fair nor sustainable. Micro-businesses and SMEs are already struggling under the weight of administrative obligations. Writing in an open letter, signed by FTSE 250 firm Mitie, industry leader OCS and other employers from the £60 billion facilities sector warned that the Bill’s radical package would “discourage growth”, damaging their businesses and harming their clients and, crucially, their staff. Tina McKenzie, policy chair at the Federation of Small Businesses, put it succinctly:
“The Government also needs to think again and rework the parts of the Employment Rights Bill that will wreak havoc on hiring”.
This is a Government ostensibly focused on growth who have created—although we have never seen it written down in a comprehensive way—the so-called growth test that the Chancellor has referenced. Tina McKenzie’s concerns are far from abstract. We are facing a sustained fall in payroll employment. Small businesses, the engine of British job creation, are being hit hardest. The rise in national insurance contributions and a growing web of compliance burdens are already pushing small firms to the edge. This clause in its current form risks tipping many over.
Amendment 205 seeks to ensure that the obligation to issue this statement applies only to employers with more than 50 workers. This is a reasonable and proportionate step. Larger firms are more likely to have a human resources infrastructure to absorb such obligations. For smaller enterprises, every new administrative requirement pulls resources from service delivery and job creation. It has an impact on the bottom line, which inevitably will feed through to decisions to not employ people or to make people redundant, which we would all deprecate.
Let us not be naive: the cumulative effect of obligations like this can and will lead to reduced hiring, increased redundancies and the potential acceleration of automation. Faced with mounting costs, employers may choose software over staff. The Government must be mindful that even well-intended regulation carries a cost. In the words of the very employees this Government say they want to support:
“We are deeply concerned that some of the Bill’s provisions will have serious unintended consequences that could harm both good employers and the very employees that the Bill seeks to protect”.
My noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom referenced the British Retail Consortium survey published on 29 April. It bears repetition, because it is a pretty damning indictment of the very significant concerns that employers at the sharp end—this is a survey of HR directors—have about the Bill as it stands. Some 70% believe that the Bill
“would have a very negative or negative impact on their business”,
52% said it would result in fewer staff members in their businesses and 61% said it
“would reduce flexibility in job offerings”.
They have urged the Government to engage, and today I echo that call.
Finally, Amendment 208 seeks to probe why the requirement to issue this statement must extend beyond the point of employment commencement. Is there any compelling justification for placing employers on a continual alert to reissue the statement at “prescribed times”? What does that even mean? Why is it necessary for the Secretary of State to intervene in the minutiae of a business—in the very weeds of how a business runs to make money, make profit, provide jobs, pay taxes and deliver public services for people? Why is it important for Ministers to involve themselves in the prescribed times a statement can be given? Surely, if the goal is awareness, combining this with the statement of employment particulars under Section 1 of the 1996 Act would suffice. We should not mandate bureaucracy for its own sake.
Let us step back and consider the broader context. If the Minister did not want to listen to the British Retail Consortium, she will no doubt be aware of other surveys published recently, such as that by the Federation of Small Businesses earlier in the year, which revealed that
“92 per cent of small employers are worried about the Employment Rights Bill, with 67 per cent saying they plan to recruit fewer staff, and 32 per cent set to reduce headcount”.
The Minister will know that her ministerial colleague, the MP for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough, has been challenged in the other place on a number of occasions to name just one small business that supported the Bill, and has hitherto been unable to come up with a name. The Government have come forward with Richer Sounds—which is not a small business by any stretch of the imagination—and Centrica, which is a massive business. I know that, under the Bill, big businesses will probably soon end up as small businesses, but that is a different matter. They also mentioned the Co-op. There is a surprise: the Co-op supporting the Labour Party; “The Pope likes balconies” will be the next one. Yes, the Co-op supports the Bill.
It is important to step back and think about the Bill. In an already fragile market where businesses are battling inflation, rising taxes and regulatory fatigue, we must not view administrative obligations as cost-free, because they are not. They weigh heavily, particularly on the smallest firms. I speak from experience. A number of years ago, I was an Investors in People manager, when I used to help small and medium-sized businesses with their quality standards. They often did not want to engage, because they did not have the time and the energy as they were focused on chasing invoices, chasing new businesses and giving presentations to potential new clients. These are the burdens that small businesses face every day. They become big businesses, and they pay taxes, so I ask the Minister to give some consideration to that.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
My Lords, I support these amendments and, in particular, my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough’s remarks. I agree with every word.
I vividly recall the change in this country, in 1979, when union power was such that people were frightened of starting businesses or to go to work. Murdoch took a brave stance to take the unions head on and, after 1979, the country emerged with much greater strength, economic certainty and prosperity. As a result, people like me chose to start a business in this country. That was because of the economic prosperity created by Thatcher’s Cabinet and team. Any attempt to go backwards rather than forwards is very depressing and disappointing.
My noble friend Lord Jackson is of course right that Clause 55 is the kernel of the Bill. It is an important clause that reveals why the Bill is so inappropriate and badly drafted, and it needs amendment or, if not, not to stand part.
I refer to the British Chambers of Commerce, an independent organisation which, as we know from Second Reading, criticised the Bill because of its lack of consultation, because of its greater restriction and penalties for firms that want to make workforce changes but, most importantly, because of the greater responsibilities, costs and complexity for employers. The Bill includes some of the most significant and widest range of changes to employment laws for decades.
The Government’s own assessment suggests that the legislation will cost businesses almost £5 billion a year, and that the SME sector will be impacted most. This is at a time when, just in the last couple of months, businesses have come to terms with the dreadful, unnecessary and wholly growth-destroying national insurance increase. It is literally putting businesses out of business. Your Lordships do not have to believe me; just look at the last insolvency statistics, which show record figures of insolvency, particularly for CVLs—creditors’ voluntary liquidations. People are throwing in the towel; they are not prepared to carry on business when they are faced with these increased costs for employing people and for properties and business rates, which the Bill imposes on all businesses.
My particular concern is with the SME sector. We debated this at Second Reading, and I complimented the noble Lord, Lord Leong, on starting a small business. He therefore knows and understands this, but many people on the Front Bench of the Labour Party do not have that experience and expertise and are not aware of the damage this will do. These amendments are vital, particularly to try to exempt small businesses—and, if not small businesses, micro-businesses—from these onerous requirements.
To take it to the point of absurdity, and to declare an interest, I personally employ one person—do I have to give that one person a piece of paper when they join? It looks like I do. Will I then be told by the Government that I have to give that person a statement “at other prescribed times”? What does that mean? It means that when the unions are short of members, as they invariably are, and they need to raise more money —we know where that money largely ends up—they will say to employers, “Right, you’d better give all your staff a statement to tell them that they have the right to join a union”, and encourage them so to do. It is on the point of absurdity.
The BCC goes on to say:
“the scale and scope of the changes is huge, with many feeling they are being rushed through at breakneck speed … Firms are particularly concerned about the lack of detailed consultation on the Trade Union changes, especially when the Government’s own assessment was so vague about the impact”.
It rightly points out that:
“Overall, there is a lot in the Employment Rights Bill that reinforces much of what good businesses already do. But the fear remains that certain elements could create huge costs for firms and damage the UK’s ambitions for growth”.
I repeat the request made to the Government Front Bench by the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, to cite businesses—SME businesses in particular, but actually any businesses—that are in support. Richer Sounds is not a good example. Julian Richer sold Richer Sounds to an EOT—it is a co-operative. One of the firms mentioned last time was Nationwide. That is not an SME, and the Co-op is certainly not. So where is the support for this? Please can we exclude this extremely vague “at other prescribed times”, which is without any limitation or cap? If it said “annually”, that might be a start. Can we also exclude both SMEs and micro-companies from these onerous requirements?
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
My Lords, I support the amendments in this group that seek to mitigate the impact of Clause 55, which amends the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 by inserting a new section with a
“Statement of trade union rights”.
I support, in particular, Amendment 205 by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, which would apply the statement only to larger companies. We have heard very good arguments as to why this should happen. I support the amendment by the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, which would leave open to employers the option to decide whether to apply the statement under the new Section 136A. I support the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, which would mean it does not apply to smaller employers and those with fewer than 10 employees, as well as her amendment that probes why such a statement should be given at times other than the start of the job. The noble Lord, Lord Leigh, put forward some good potential reasons.
This a very bad clause. I oppose it for two reasons. I support the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, on the Front Bench, who has stated that it should not be part of a Bill, certainly not in 2025. Such obligations interfere with the professional balance of duties and responsibilities in a business between employer and employee. The employer must promote the best interests of the business and, with the directors of the company, employers are bound to do so.
Employers are also bound under employment law. The 1992 Act, which this clause amends, already strikes a balance between the role of trade unions in the workplace and the employer. It sets out that the employer or business recognise trade unions that meet certain criteria, engage in collective bargaining, provide information to the unions and respect those engaged in lawful industrial action. We already have recognition of the responsibilities of employers to trade unions in the workplace; a balance has been struck, and it has worked, by and large, very well.
The interests of the business will also involve treating all workers not only legally but fairly and professionally. It should not involve employers being obliged, as the new Section 136A stipulates, to give a written statement that the employee has the right to join a trade union at the start of the job and at other prescribed times. It should also not be left to politicians, as the new section states—the Secretary of State at the time—to prescribe what information is included, what form the statement takes, in what manner it should be given, and whether regulations prescribing anything for the purpose of this section may make different provision for different purposes.
Are we making the law or are we leaving it to some executive authority to make something up on the back of an envelope and prescribe it through his or her officials in government? This is not lawmaking, and this Parliament should challenge this sort of power being given to a Secretary of State to do what he or she may like. This not only adds a layer of bureaucracy but brings uncertainty to businesses and adds costs, from which smaller businesses at least should be spared.
The individual choices that employees make should not be anticipated by presuming that union membership is an assumption that both employer and employee make. That undermines the freedom of both parties to have a non-politicised atmosphere and implies that a business will be run in an atmosphere of expected confrontation instead. It suggests that freedom is being undermined. Yes, it does not require an employee to join the union, but if an employer presents a new employee with this statement, what on earth is the employee to think except that this is what should be done in order to get on in this business?
The second ground for objection, however, is more general. Obliging businesses to make such a statement politicises the internal arrangements of business. Trade union membership may or may not be something individuals choose, but we must recognise that trade unions are affiliated to the Labour Party; they founded the Labour Party. The Parliamentary Labour Party appears to be dominated by former union members—or perhaps continuing union members. At certain times of Britain’s history, trade unions have dominated many workplaces and paralysed public services. Indeed, we see that continuing this year in Birmingham, with the paralysis in relation to bins and the failure of the council to deal with the Unite union. They have stopped the productive activities of the British people in industry and in business, undermining the economic success of the whole country and the ability of people to earn a decent wage or salary.
I am afraid they have undermined freedoms and have undermined the democratic decision by the people of this country to live without fear—fear that their child’s school will be closed by strikes, fear that their university lectures may be cancelled because the union has called a strike, and the fear of many working people that they cannot get to work and earn their money because the railways are strike-bound. This clause should not be in the Bill. It undermines the freedoms that were fought hard for by Conservative Governments since 1979 to restore freedom in the workplace, with a fair balance between trade unions and working people.
When I first came to this country in 1979 as a student, one of the members of staff of my college told me, “I am the sole earner in my family now. My husband had to join a union because of the closed shop. He couldn’t get a job without joining a union. Now that he has joined the union, he has been told he can’t work. This is why I, for the first time in my life, am voting for the Conservative Party and Mrs Thatcher”. Conservative Governments have successfully and successively restored order to the economy, allowed this country to prosper, allowed people to get jobs, helped entrepreneurship and growth, and helped Britain to no longer be the sick man of Europe. People voted for that. We should not turn the clock back to a day when we are chipping away bit by bit at those rights, so that people will not have the freedom to earn and this country will not be able to pay its way.
Lord Moynihan of Chelsea (Con)
My Lords, what a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lady Lawlor. I support the amendments introduced by my noble friend Lord Jackson. I am assured by my noble friend Lord Leigh that he believes that Hansard will record that he referred throughout his speech to “the noble Lord, Lord Jackson”.
Employment is a precious coin. It is the many coins of employment that keep this economy going. When there are more coins, the economy grows, and this whole House is united in wanting that to happen. We are all on the same side on that. We want the economy to grow, certainly not to shrink. And, like any coin, it has two sides: the side of the employee and the side of the employer.
Sitting through the many days of this Committee, any poor, benighted individual who has been watching on Parliament TV might think that this Chamber contains two parallel universes, with two entirely incompatible ideas of what employment is about. On the one side they are hearing about greedy employers, grasping capital, and the need for trade unions to protect the poor employee. But what is this coin of employment? It is a place where an individual says, “I want work. I want to go to work and earn money for me, my family, and my future”, and where an employer says, “I want to provide work. I want to risk my endeavours and my capital, even my solvency since I might go bankrupt, in order to give you that employment”. And it is a fair bargain.
Most employers, particularly small employers, who start up a business and employ people are not thinking, “I’m going to exploit these poor workers”. The vast majority of workers are not the victims that we have heard described as the reason why this clause is necessary. The vast number of employees work harmoniously with their employer, and the vast number of employers work harmoniously with their employees. I imagine this poor person watching Parliament TV and possibly, if the camera cuts to the faces opposite, seeing the looks of doubt, irritation and disbelief when I say this. But I have been an employer on literally scores of businesses, large and small, and I know how it works. What the employer wants is to provide a good or a service and sell it at a slightly higher price than the cost of providing that good or service, so as to make a little profit and employ lots of people at the same time. That is what they want to do.
What they dread is law upon law that they have to spend all their time on and which bad actors can use to exploit them. We all know that in the human population it is said that 3% are what they call “dark triad” personalities—narcissistic, Machiavellian and sociopathic—who are very good at concealing their behaviour and coming across as caring individuals, by the way. They are found in the most caring societies, and on all sides of the Chamber. The employer dreads that individual joining their company and having a mechanism by which they can exploit the company and make money out of it, taking it to the employment tribunal or threatening it with that and getting paid off, not working hard or doing whatever.
We are saying here that some poor person who is going to hire, say, three, five or 10 employees is going to have to spend all their time understanding these laws, doing the things that the laws lay down and responding to employment tribunals when a bad actor comes into their company—as they do, from time to time, in every company—rather than doing what they are there to do, which is to provide great goods or services to their customers. That is what nearly all of them, employer and employee alike, want to do.
Barbara Castle, the great Labour politician, recognised the problems with trades unions and produced a paper called In Place of Strife. I suggest that the Bill—you can imagine the poor employer with three employees having to go through its 300 pages to figure out what they are going to have to do with it, even as it is passed —is creating strife in many places, and that even Barbara Castle might be turning in her grave when she sees how far this Government are prepared to go. I have sat here sometimes wondering whether the Government really believe the things they are saying.
Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)
My Lords, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, to address the amendment. These sound like Second Reading speeches being redelivered and redelivered. When is the noble Lord going to address the actual amendment? This is just a tour de force around the 1970s and 1980s, with anecdotes from the Back Benches again. We are trying to do business.
Lord Moynihan of Chelsea (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for his intervention, but I hope I am forgiven for thinking he has not been listening to what I have been saying. As I understand it, this clause is about reducing the number of people down to more or less nothing who are necessary in a company in order for a bunch of trades union mechanisms to be created. The amendment would remove that and tries to push up the number of employees below which this clause would not take effect. That is all that I have been talking about and I am startled to believe that a noble Lord of such eminence apparently has not been listening. I could finish fairly soon, if not interrupted much more.
My concern is that we are all people of good will. I am sure the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, is rightly proud of the many good things that trades unions have done, but surely she cannot be unaware of how the people of Birmingham might feel about the striking dustmen or about how the people of this great capital feel about striking Underground workers and the commuter trains that so often muck up their daily life. She must be aware that, on another coin of trade unionism, there is the good and the bad. We have employment tribunals with two years of delay to even get to a tribunal, but clause after clause, including this one, threatens to increase the number of references to employment tribunals.
This clause is going to increase the awful number that we have just seen today of 150,000 job losses. In the parallel universe that we are in, can it possibly be that the Government Benches believe that that loss of 150,000 jobs has nothing to do with this plan, with their NIC changes, as my noble friend Lord Lilley said, or with so many other changes that are detrimental to employment in this country?
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to the Clause 55 stand part notice and Amendment 208. I have sympathy with my noble friend’s amendments regarding small and micro employers. We need to cut to the chase. I will probably irritate the noble Lord, Lord Goddard of Stockport, but what is the point of this?
The Minister in the other place said that he hoped this clause would be “straightforward”—it is certainly straightforward—and “uncontroversial”. He said:
“Currently, there is no general requirement for employers to let their staff know of their right to join a trade union”.
and that there is a duty in this clause. He said:
“A lack of awareness of the right to join a trade union may be contributing to declining union membership and reduced worker engagement in collective bargaining. The clause will help empower workers to become active in protecting their rights. This is a step forward in strengthening worker representation”,—[Official Report, Commons, Employment Rights Bill Committee, 7/1/25; col. 517.]
and so on.
I go back to the point I made in a previous debate: the key headline in selling this to the public was that it was about day-one rights. As I have already explained to the Committee, this could have been done through a statutory instrument. Part 4 is a classic example of the fact that a lot of the motivation is about increasing trade union membership. Trade union membership is now at about 6 million people, I think; it might be just over that. By the way, as I said at Second Reading, I am not against trade unions, but I do not think it is the job of legislation to try to increase trade union membership as a consequence of our actions here today. I made the point about political funds.
To come back to the numbers, about 22% of employees are now members of a trade union. Of course, people have to pay a fee. I have recommended to people that they join a trade union, but we should be aware that the only sector where trade union membership is going up is the public sector. My general perspective on some of these things is that people tend to join a trade union when they do not trust their employer and they think they might need help, when they are not treated well or when there are other issues worrying them. That is when a lot of the benefits of trade unions come in, such as getting access to legal advice—I know there are plenty of other benefits as well. Family members of mine are trade union members and, as I say, I am not anti-trade union, but I am concerned about the approach we are taking in Part 4.
On Amendment 208, it would be useful to get an understanding from the Minister about what other prescribed times there might be. It is one of the oddest bits of this part of the Bill. When you join, you get to know certain things—it might not all be on day one; I accept that there is a bit later that talks about instalments and that sometimes you get to know certain key things, but you must do it within two weeks or two months, I cannot remember which. You may not get everything on day one, but, nevertheless, what are the other prescribed times? Will it be the same frequency as is being put in the Bill about the reminder to opt out of the trade union political fund, which will have moved to every 10 years? Why not put it in the Bill if we want an annual reminder, or we want it at the same frequency as a say on whether people can be part of the trade union political fund—or indeed on ways that that decision is made?
I am concerned about this element. There is no doubt that employer representatives are concerned about aspects of this Bill. In particular, when they spoke to me earlier this week, they said that quite a lot of the impact assessment is written on the basis that savings will be down to the fact that there will be fewer strikes. We should recognise the history of strikes happening in our employment places in the last couple of years or so: the number of strikes has gone up significantly in the public sector, exactly where trade union membership is going up—not the other way round. I appreciate that there has been a change in government and that Wes Streeting sat around a table, but we know that right now, where trade union membership is going up, the ballot papers—I do not quite know the process—are going out, calling for getting the vote together for a mandate for industrial action. It is happening right now.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
Does my noble friend agree that our very serious concerns about this clause would be assuaged were the Government to have properly followed Cabinet Office protocols and updated expeditiously the impact assessments, which are normally present in Bills of this size and magnitude?
Baroness Coffey (Con)
I agree with my noble friend. I have tried to get deposited in the Library, or sent through some other form of communication to all Peers, a response I have received from the Secretary of State on this matter. By the way, I have still not received a reply from the Cabinet Secretary, who is supposed to uphold Cabinet Office guidelines. In essence, the answer came back: “We’ll do a full impact assessment once the Bill is completed”. We know that industry is looking for that. We have no idea when these regulations will be introduced; I assume that they could already have started the consultation. It is important that the Secretary of State—I am trying to remember; I do not have a photographic memory—basically said, “We haven’t really changed that much”. That is where we are. I will continue to make the point. My noble friend is right and reminds me to chase the Cabinet Secretary.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
Perhaps I can help my noble friend by explaining that Section 38 of the Employment Act 2002 allows an employee to claim compensation of between two and four weeks’ pay. Does she think this will lead to ducks-and-drakes people trying to seek such compensation?
Baroness Coffey (Con)
I expect the bigger employers, if they know about this legislation—although we are hearing from a lot of the employers’ representatives that a lot of their members had not even heard about the day one rights until very recently—will probably put their HR departments and lawyers on it. I am concerned about the smaller ones, which is why I am sympathetic to the amendments in this group on micro employers and small employers. Otherwise, this could start to become a very expensive business. It is yet another reason why the Government generally do not seem to understand the chilling effect that not only their economic policies but legislation such as this will have on the recruitment of people to jobs.
Lord Ashcombe (Con)
My Lords, I had no intention of coming here today to speak until I had dinner last night. Having put in a day’s work, I thought it was time to come here and express an opinion.
I would like to describe that situation last night. It follows on from a lot of what my noble friend Lord Leigh of Hurley said and the powerful words of the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor. This friend of mine, whom I have known for 30 or 40 years, is a small businessman in Bath, down in the West Country. He said to me, “Mark, we have a major problem coming. I have friends in similar places who run small businesses”—he runs a business of some six or seven people. “We are all talking together, because that is how we transfer knowledge, and the number of us beginning to think about throwing in the towel is significant. I want you to know about it”.
If this change were to happen, it would affect the poor employees of these businesses. There is nothing inherently wrong with these businesses but there is, as we have heard, more and more legislation coming upon them. It is the employees who are going. The domino effect through local economies is too much for these businesses. These small guys have to employ lawyers, HR experts and so on. I work for a company where we have those in house. They are just getting to the end of their tether. They do not want to stop, but I hope that Amendments 205 and 207 will help prevent that sort of thing happening and another nail in the coffin for these small businesses, which are really struggling as they think about the hassle of going on.
Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)
My Lords, this group of amendments concerns the provision of employment rights. The essence of the group is about requiring employers to provide workers with a written statement of their trade union rights. Even after seven hours, I enjoyed listening to the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, describe a romp through the 1970s and the bad old days of the Labour Party bringing the country to its knees and almost losing the car industry. He failed to skip into the 1980s, when the Government did destroy an industry—the coal industry—and did immeasurable damage to the trade union movement, which it has taken decades to recover from and is at the heart of the Bill. It is a direct result of actions taken by a certain Government in a previous life. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan of Chelsea, I have been here since the start of the debate and listening. As the Companion says, it is courtesy to be here at the start of the debate to listen to the opening speeches and then the winding up speeches. There seems to be real departure from that by Members, who just wander in, make contributions and wander out.
Lord Moynihan of Chelsea (Con)
I hope the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, is not saying I was not here for the start of this debate. Of course, the Labour Government closed down more coal mines than Margaret Thatcher.
Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)
I did not imply that the noble Lord was not here—he was. He is assiduous in his attendance to this House and I enjoy 90% of what he says, much of which is quite amusing, but not much knowledge from it goes into my head.
I have one final point for the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, for whom I have the highest regard. I thought she was an excellent Minister and makes excellent contributions. However, I have to gently remind her that I think she also made her contribution tonight a couple of nights ago, in response to my intervention about the reason behind the Bill. However, I enjoy the heart and soul that she puts into this. She is interrogating and pushing the Government, but I try to keep it to what we are trying to do here.
These provisions are intended to ensure that individuals are made aware of their right to join a trade union. I do not think there is anything wrong with that. It is a fundamental element of workplace democracy. The amendments in this group raise important and valid questions about how that requirement should operate in practice, especially for smaller employers—and, yes, it may put a burden on them. For example, Amendments 205 and 207 examine whether it is appropriate for those duties to apply universally, or whether the threshold should be considered to avoid placing disproportionate burdens on small businesses.
I am somewhat concerned about the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, to remove the provisions from the Bill entirely. It risks sending the wrong signal about the importance of transparency around trade union rights. Although it is, of course, necessary to ensure that new obligations are proportionate and clearly drafted, deleting the entire clause at this stage could be seen as an overly blunt response. It would be preferable for the Government to engage with all the points raised tonight in these amendments and explore whether a more targeted approach could be achieved, with a fairer workable outcome that upholds workers’ rights without creating undue complexities for employers.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, this has been a most interesting debate. It is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, even if he does not agree with my amendment in this group. Not that my noble friend Lady Coffey needs any defending, but I think she developed her theme admirably, which is surely the point of our being here. I thank my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough for introducing our noble friend Lady Noakes’s amendments, and for his excellent historical perspective. I thank my noble friends—perhaps I should call them my noble comrades —Lord Leigh, Lady Lawlor, Lord Moynihan and Lady Coffey for their contributions.
This clause may seem straightforward, and even beneficial at first glance, but its practical and legal implications reveal it to be unnecessary, burdensome, ideologically charged and fraught with uncertainty. For these reasons, it should be removed from the Bill. First, it is important—others have made this point—to acknowledge that workers’ rights to join trade unions are already comprehensively protected by our existing legal framework. These protections are well established in legislation such as the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, referred to by my noble friend Lady Lawlor, and the Employment Rights Act 1996.
These rights are well understood by workers, employers and unions alike, and information on these rights is widely available through multiple channels, including unions themselves, ACAS and legal advisers. Mandating a new written statement does not create or clarify any new rights; it simply duplicates what is already clear, adding unnecessary complexity without addressing any real problem.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, and the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, for tabling Amendments 205, 206, 207 and 208. I acknowledge that the noble Lord introduced the amendments on behalf of the noble Baroness. I will also address the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe of Epsom and Lord Hunt of Wirral, on their opposition to Clause 55 standing part of the Bill.
I am sorry that the tone of the debate has somewhat deteriorated this afternoon. I thought that we were having a reasonable, grown-up conversation until now. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, because he admitted that what he was saying were his prejudices—and that is certainly what it sounded like. He was talking about a period 50 years ago, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, said, the world of work has changed significantly since then. As we absolutely acknowledge, we now have outdated employment processes and huge levels of exploitation, including a climate where it is not easy or encouraged to be a member of a union. That is one of the issues that we are seeking to address here.
I have to say to the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, who tried to give us a talk about democracy, that this Government were elected with a huge win on a manifesto to introduce the legislation that we have before us today.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
I thank the Minister for giving way, but I do not know that a mandate of 33% of the electorate is indeed a very strong mandate for overturning the reforms that have brought stability to the workplace.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
We can have a long discussion about that, but if we are talking about mandates, it may well be argued that probably Baroness Thatcher did not have that kind of mandate either. The fact is that we won that election with a huge majority, and I am very sorry that the party opposite lost so badly. They might want to reflect a little bit more on why that was, because some of the issues that noble Lords have been talking about in relation to the state of our economy are exactly what we inherited from the previous Government. Those issues are absolutely the result of that Government’s economic policies and not ours. We have been taking great steps to improve the situation. While I am on that issue, I should say that, as a result of this Government’s actions, we had the fastest-growing economy in the G7 at the start of this year; we have done three trade deals in three weeks, with India, the US and the EU; interest rates have been cut four times—
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
The Minister is aware, of course, that interest rates are independently managed by the Bank of England.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
I make my case. The only reason those interest rates were cut was that our economy has been improving. Some £63 billion of private investment was announced at the investment summit last year. Introducing this Bill within 100 days will boost protections and quality of work for the lowest-paid, raising living standards across the country and creating opportunities for all.
I turn to the actual amendments. Amendments 205 and 207, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, would introduce exemptions to this measure based on the size of the business. The new duty on employers to inform all employees of the right to join a union is a key part of the Government’s wider commitment to strengthen workers’ voices in the workplace, enhancing their representation and ultimately improving working conditions through increased trade union membership and participation. Making exemptions of this kind risks creating a two-tier system in which some workers benefit from this important information while others do not, based purely on the size of their employer. We are committed to striking a fair and proportionate balance, ensuring that workers are aware of their rights without placing undue burdens on employers.
The statement will be provided at the start of employment, alongside the written statement of particulars, which employers are already required to give under Section 1 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and on a prescribed basis. Therefore, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, that we do not believe that this is a particularly significant extra burden to justify exempting certain employers because of their size, because they already have to give that information anyway.
The noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, and others asked about the frequency. We will consult on the specific details, such as the frequency, manner, form and content of the statement before it is outlined in secondary legislation, and I can let noble Lords know that that will be via the negative procedure. We will particularly encourage input from both businesses and unions of all sizes to share their views.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
The Minister just referred to the negative procedure. Is that a final decision? Given that the Bill takes so much power to make a series of important decisions by statutory instrument, I think the general expectation would be that such an important decision would be made by affirmative resolution. Would she perhaps contemplate whether that might be the better solution?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for that introduction, because I was going to go on to say that the Government think that the powers taken in Clause 55 are necessary and proportionate. Indeed, the Delegated Powers Committee said that
“it is heartening that in a Bill with so many delegated powers”
it had
“only found four on which to raise concerns”.
Clause 55 was not one of those four, and we will of course respond to the committee’s recommendations in due course.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
While we are considering what the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee concluded, I recall that the last time I raised the use of the Henry VIII powers, the Minister said that this Committee would see her draft implementation plan, to which my noble friend referred just a short time ago. We have not yet seen that plan, and a lot of businesses are very concerned about the uncertainty that is being created by not knowing, certainly by now, when these various powers are going to be brought into effect. Will she give some timescale by which we will see the implementation plan, if only in draft?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
I know we have discussed the implementation plan several times now, and I can assure noble Lords that we are working at pace to finalise that. I do not think it would be helpful to see it in draft or imperfect form. We want people to have a categorical road map which shows the way forward. We absolutely understand that businesses need to see that; we are working on it. I am very confident that when businesses see it, they will be reassured that none of the things that we are proposing in this legislation will be rushed through. They will have time to prepare for it—I think we had a debate about this earlier. We know that businesses need time to prepare, we are absolutely aware of that, and we are going to make sure that they have it.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
I just wanted to clarify something the Minister said. I think I heard her say that it would be done by negative resolution. Does that apply to all of Part 4 or specifically for every element of Clause 55?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My answer was specifically about Clause 55.
Amendment 206, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, would remove the compulsory element of the proposals, making it optional for employers to inform workers of their rights to join a union. To be clear, this is not about necessitating union membership but about ensuring that workers are aware of their rights and can make an informed decision about whether to engage. We want to empower workers to take a more active role in protecting their rights, and, where they choose, to participate in collective bargaining to improve their working conditions. Access to clear and accurate information is fundamental to that. This amendment would seriously weaken this measure by allowing employers to simply ignore the duty, defeating its policy intent entirely. It is vital that the right to union membership is made accessible to all workers as intended, that it is communicated regularly, and that employers are under a firm obligation to do so.
Amendment 208, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, would remove the requirement for employers to issue a statement of trade union rights on a prescribed basis. We are legislating for ongoing reminders of the right to join a trade union to reflect the reality of the workplace. New employers may miss information at the start of employment or change roles over time within the same organisation. Limiting the duty to the start of employment would also exclude existing staff, who equally deserve access to that information.
This statement of the right to trade union membership is important in fostering worker engagement and meaningful dialogue between unions and employers. Ongoing reminders are a key part of this measure. The Secretary of State will be able to set the frequency of this notification. This will be, as I have said, outlined in secondary legislation, subject to public consultation, and we invite interested parties to provide us with their views on this matter when we launch the consultation.
On the wider issue, the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, urged us to consult more. I can assure him that these proposals have been subject to extensive consultation, and we are continuing to consult on them. I can also tell the noble Lord that we had a very constructive meeting with the Federation of Small Businesses.
Finally, I turn to the clause itself. Clause 55 introduces a new legal duty on employers to inform workers of their right to join a union. Employers will be required to issue this statement at the start of employment, alongside the written statement of particulars, which I commented on earlier. There is currently no requirement in law for employers to notify their workers of the right to trade union membership. This lack of awareness may be contributing to the falling union membership and reduced worker participation in collective bargaining that we have been discussing. This duty intends to address this gap, ensuring that workers are better informed of this right and helping to strengthen the collective voice in the workplace and enhance their representation. This delivers on the Government’s commitment to improve working conditions through increased trade union membership and participation. Specific details of this measure, including the frequency, form, content and manner of the notification, will be set out in secondary legislation, as I have said. Therefore, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment and I urge that Clause 55 stand part of the Bill.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
Just to press the point on the implementation plan, I am sure the Minister saw yesterday that the OECD downgraded growth forecasts for this country. Obviously, it blamed the global trade picture for a lot of that downgrade, but it also talked about business certainty in this country—or the lack of it. She herself has just acknowledged that businesses need certainty. The OECD is saying this, this is not just us alleging it. Will she please commit to picking up the pace when it comes to delivering this implementation plan and delivering it as soon as possible?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I am fully aware that it would help to see the implementation plan and, as I said, we are working at pace to get it to your Lordships as soon as we can.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who participated in this very interesting debate. I think you always know when your arguments are hitting home when you are admonished by the Front Bench about tone. It usually means that you are hitting the target. I particularly thank my noble friends for the typically erudite and forensic analysis of Clause 55 by my noble friend Lady Coffey, the excellent real-world experience articulated by my noble friends Lord Ashcombe and Lord Leigh, and, of course the passion, from real-world experience, of my noble friends Lady Lawlor and Lord Moynihan of Chelsea.
I do not want to get into a historical discussion, because the hour is late, but Margaret Thatcher was mentioned. Margaret Thatcher never won an election with the puny mandate that this Government had, because what we are seeing is a counterrevolution in favour of the trade unions based on 20% of the electorate, a turnout of 66% and a 34% poll. That is no kind of mandate. In fact, it is a post-dated cheque to the trade unions paid for by the British taxpayer and working people of this country.
There is news from Birmingham, incidentally, as Birmingham was mentioned earlier. Four hundred Unite members have just voted today to carry on striking all the way to Christmas. This is an interesting quote from Sharon Graham, the Unite general secretary, known to our collective trade union alumni. I do not know what the collective term is: union barons, perhaps. She said:
“It beggars belief that a Labour government and Labour council is treating these workers so disgracefully … Unite calls on the decision makers to let common sense prevail in upcoming negotiations”.
The reason I quote that is that I have to say very gently to the Government Benches: be careful what you wish for. The 1974 Labour Government was destroyed by the trade unions’ actions in the winter of discontent of 1978-79. If the Government proceed with this Bill unamended, they run the risk that that unintended consequence might also be the end of their Government. I would not wish that to be the case, of course, because I think that they sincerely believe they are doing the right thing. Nevertheless, it is a risk.
Let us step back from the historical discussions that we have had in what has been an interesting debate. We are being asked to vote for a clause in primary legislation with huge delegated powers in the hands of Ministers. That brings me to a very interesting quote, that
“excessive reliance on delegated powers, Henry VIII clauses, or skeleton legislation, upsets the proper balance between Parliament and the Executive. This not only strikes at the rule of law values I have already outlined but also at the cardinal principles of accessibility and legal certainty”.
That was beautifully put, by the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General in his Bingham lecture, proving that he is not always wrong about everything.
We have tabled these amendments because this clause does not give us the detail, it will have unintended consequences, and it will have a real-world impact on small businesses in particular. It is not about bashing the trade unions. I would concede, as someone who was a trade union member, that the trade unions have done a brilliant job in terms of member welfare, insurance schemes, et cetera, over the years. They are a force for good generally, but the measures in the Bill far too easily tip the balance against businesses trying to earn a living, in favour of unions, by repealing all the legislation from 1979 and 1992.
The Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Leong, are doing a difficult job and defending a sticky wicket, but I do not think that the Minister really engaged with the arguments. I hope that on Report there is an opportunity to alter this clause, to make it a little less onerous and burdensome to businesses while keeping the spirit of the legislation for workers. On that basis, I am happy to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, before my noble friend stands up—I hope he will not have to stand up—it is nearly 7.45 pm and it is Thursday. It is not just the convention but the firm convention of this House that the House should rise at about 7 pm on a Thursday. Therefore, will the Government Chief Whip move to resume the House?
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness very much for that. I was the Opposition Chief Whip for three years in this House and always played fairly and reasonably with the then Government, even though many times I opposed them fiercely. I try to be reasonable and fair in all the things that I do as Government Chief Whip. This House has an important role to play in challenging and scrutinising legislation. The Opposition have the right to oppose, and the Government have the right to get their business through. I know the point that the noble Baroness makes about conventions. However, equally, we have many times stood here in opposite roles at all hours, well beyond 7 pm on a Thursday, well beyond 10 pm during the week. I want us to continue. We will do one more group before I move that the House adjourns. I think that is fair.
I always recall the words of the noble Lord, Lord True, whom I like very much. He would often say to me at the end of the night, “Well, of course, Roy, for me it is True’s law that matters. What goes around comes around”. I always thought that I treated the Government very fairly and reasonably. I remember sitting here until four o’clock one morning on a Home Office Bill with the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe. I did my job reasonably and fairly. We will do one more group before we adjourn the House.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
The Chief Whip is absolutely right that the Government will get their business through; I have never demurred from that fact, as he did not when his party were in opposition. However, this is a 298-page Bill. We have made really good progress today—as the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, said—but it is 7.45 pm and we are sitting tomorrow.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
It is because the Bill is so important and noble Lords have so much to say on it that I have given the Opposition three more days in Committee after this to make sure we have proper scrutiny. We will do one more group before the House adjourns.
Lord Hunt of Wirral
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment to section 70ZA(2)(a) removes the reference to union officials being able to “communicate with workers” as part of an access agreement.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendments 208A, 209A, 210, 210A, 213A and 213B, standing in my name. Those first amendments remove the reference to communication with workers as an element of access agreements between unions and employers. They further remove provisions that attempt to cement that right to communicate by any and all means, and which prohibit a party from relying on the availability of physical or non-physical communication as a reason to limit the other. Taken together, these provisions amount to a significant and unjustified broadening of what has traditionally been a clearly understood and workable arrangement: namely, the right of union officials physically to enter a workplace for legitimate access purposes.
This access, by its nature, has always been specific, scheduled and carried out in a manner agreed upon by both parties. It is bounded in both scope and form. The Bill as drafted risks blurring those lines in ways that introduce legal ambiguity, managerial uncertainty and operational disruption. The reference to communication
“by any means, whether directly or indirectly”
is particularly concerning. This is an extremely wide formulation that is open-ended in both language and intent. It creates uncertainty not just in principle, but in practice. What exactly does indirect communication mean in the context of an access agreement? Does it encompass digital platforms, printed material, third-party intermediaries, or perhaps the passive dissemination of content in workplace systems? Without clear boundaries, employers will be left navigating uncharted waters, unsure of what they are obliged to permit and what may lawfully be resisted.
We must also think about how such broad phrasing sits alongside an employer’s duty to maintain a safe, orderly and productive working environment. Workplaces are complex ecosystems. They are governed by routines, procedures and, crucially, the employer’s ability to direct the operation of their business. If union officials are granted sweeping rights to communicate “by any means”, without the tether of physical presence and supervision, there is a genuine risk that communications will occur in ways that distract, disrupt or even divide—not necessarily through bad faith, but a lack of structure.
Equally problematic are the provisions that state that physical entry to a workplace should not be refused simply because non-physical means of communication exist, and vice versa. These clauses, while perhaps intended to protect flexibility, in fact remove the very discretion that employers must retain in managing their own premises. They suggest that the availability of one channel of communication can never justify the refusal of another, regardless of context. Surely that is both inflexible and unrealistic.
There may be very good practical reasons for an employer to prefer one form of engagement over another; a highly secure site may welcome scheduled, in-person access, but find unsolicited, off-site communications disruptive or invasive. A remote or hybrid workforce may prefer written updates to physical visits. By attempting to lock in symmetrical rights to both physical and non-physical communication, the Bill as drafted risks creating conflict where co-operation is needed and rigidity where discretion would be more effective.
Moreover, we should not lose sight of the fact that union engagement can and does occur outside the framework of statutory access agreements. The purpose of this legislation is not to create an open-ended entitlement for unions to interact with workers in any manner they choose; it is to provide a draft legal mechanism for arranging workplace access for legitimate purposes—access that must be reasonable, structured and proportionate. That mechanism surely must not become a Trojan horse for a much broader intervention in the management of communications within private enterprises.
The cumulative effect of these provisions, if left unamended, would be to tilt the balance too far, away from the well-established equilibrium between union representation and employer control. They would introduce legal uncertainty, operational disruption and potential privacy concerns, all under the banner of modernising union access.
It is vital that we place Amendment 210 in the proper context. The idea that unions could gain access to employers’ digital platforms, including internal communication systems, company email servers and private digital infrastructure, was not part of the original Bill but was added by the Government in the other House only on Report, with minimal explanation and no real opportunity for detailed parliamentary scrutiny. That is simply not acceptable.
This House is now the first truly to consider the full implications of what would, without question, be a major expansion of union access rights into employers’ private and operational space—not their physical space, but their digital infrastructure which is, in many ways, just as sensitive, just as regulated and potentially far more vulnerable. I believe that we must take our scrutiny role very seriously and that this House must now do what the other House was denied the opportunity to do: we have to probe this new power fully and openly.
We are now confronted with a proposal that, for the first time ever, would allow trade unions to reach employees via internal platforms such as company intranets, corporate email systems, Zoom, Microsoft Teams and other work-based communication tools, many of which are governed by strict internal policies, compliance frameworks and even sectoral security requirements.
This is not a theoretical concern. The Bill now provides a broad enabling power, with the detail to be filled in later through secondary legislation. We do not yet know which platforms will be in scope, how frequently unions will be permitted to post or engage, or what rights employers will have to review, edit or even be informed of the content beforehand. We are being asked to legislate on the basis of a skeleton—a blank cheque—with the flesh to be added later by statutory instrument, and that is precisely when parliamentary control is at its weakest. It is in secondary legislation where the balance of scrutiny too often shifts from robust parliamentary debate to rubber-stamping.
So what are we really dealing with here? Employers will, under the current drafting, be expected to engage constructively with union requests for digital access and will be given as little as five working days to respond. This is not merely hypothetical; this is a system designed to operate particularly in workplaces where physical access may be difficult or impossible—for example, remote teams, field-based staff and distributed or digital-first organisations. This may sound practical in theory, but it raises serious unresolved operational questions in practice. Who controls the messaging? Who controls the content? Who approves it? Can unions directly upload material on to a company’s internal platforms, or is it the employer’s responsibility to upload union-drafted content? In that case, does the employer have the right to make edits or raise objections? Can the material be branded? Must it be neutral? Will it sit alongside or appear to compete with official communications from HR or leadership teams?
So will the Government publish guidance? If so, when? At the moment, we just do not know the answers to any of these questions. These are not small matters; they are foundational issues of governance, internal messaging and even risk. For some employers, particularly in finance, defence and data-sensitive sectors, internal systems are subject to strict regulation and security controls. Can they allow access to these platforms without compromising legal obligations? In some cases, they may not be able to grant access, even if they wish to, and in others they may face exposure to reputational or compliance risks if improper messaging is circulated without oversight.
We must also consider the precedent being set. Allowing third-party organisations, however well-intentioned, to access digital systems designed for internal business-related purposes represents a significant departure from current practice. The potential for confusion, conflicting messaging and unintended consequences is high. This should not be rushed through under cover of secondary legislation.
For all those reasons, the amendment before us is entirely justified. It places a necessary brake on an overreach that has not been debated or examined and certainly not consented to by both Houses. If the Government believe that digital access is necessary and can be sensibly and safely managed, then let them bring forward a fully detailed proposal in the proper way. Let us have the opportunity to debate that openly, with all the facts in front of us—not as an afterthought or implication and certainly not as a quietly drafted regulation.
I therefore strongly urge your Lordships to support this amendment. Let us draw a clear line around what “access” means in this legislation and what it does not. If Parliament is to grant new powers, it must scrutinise them fully, which is what this Chamber is supposed to do.
I turn to Amendment 213B, which goes directly to the operational realities of the modern workplace—the way in which access is exercised, whether it involves scheduled meetings, ad hoc visits, group briefings or one-on-one discussions. That all can have a substantial effect on day-to-day operations. The frequency and timing of those visits matter enormously. Daily interruptions at peak hours are not the same as occasional meetings during quieter periods. Repeated unfocused access can, however unintentionally, become disruptive, particularly in sectors where workflow depends on concentration, safety procedures or continuous operations.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, I will speak very briefly to my Amendments 212 and 213. Naturally, I wholeheartedly agree with the excellent points made from our Front Bench by my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral, particularly on Amendments 210 and 213B.
My two amendments are probing amendments, essentially, and I think they are very sensible and reasonable. The perhaps slightly more contentious one would restrict these powers to businesses with over 250 employees. I cannot and will not rehearse the arguments my noble friend made about disruption, interference and taking resources and time away from the main job of work in the business. Interestingly, it could be “one or more” trade union officials, so it could be one but it could be 25 going into a small business. We do not know because the clause is drawn very widely and is very permissive. That is Amendment 213.
Amendment 212 is basic good manners and common sense. If you want to facilitate a good relationship between the trade union representatives—properly elected and appointed by the workforce—and the employers, you want an agenda and an objective place that you wish to reach. That might be to avoid industrial action, to look again at a pay offer, to discuss a suspension of a worker or something like that. But what is wrong with giving 24 hours’ notice? It takes the heat out of the potentially disputatious nature of the relationship that you might have between the employer and the trade union representative. I think it is just basic good manners and would make things work better. It does not diminish the role of the trade unionists and it does not undermine their integrity or their bona fides; it just says, “Let’s give 24 hours’ notice to enable a more fruitful and productive relationship to be expedited between the two sides”. For those reasons, I would like the Minister to at least consider the amendments, perhaps with a view to looking at them again on Report.
Lord Hendy (Lab)
My Lords, my Amendment 214 is designed to provide an effective remedy against an employer which defies an order of the CAC to provide trade union access. This is a situation where the trade union has applied to the employer for an agreement for access and been refused. The trade union has then gone to the CAC and succeeded in obtaining an order for access, which the employer has defied. The employer has had the opportunity to appeal to the EAT and has either declined to appeal or has had its appeal refused. In that situation, the Bill merely provides that a union can apply for a fine to be paid, not to it but to the CAC. That is no real deterrent and no incentive either for the union to enforce the CAC award, knowing that it will not result in compulsion for the employer to obey the order of the CAC. My amendment provides enforcement by way of a High Court injunction. That is an established procedure often used against trade unions for breach of their obligations in relation to industrial action. Some equivalence is surely justified here.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
I support Amendments 212 and 213 in this group tabled by my noble friend Lord Jackson. I agree that a 24-hour notice period is necessary, particularly for small businesses, because access to the workplace by third parties can be disruptive. Visitors calling unannounced can disrupt a carefully organised schedule between an employer and his or her employees. The 24-hour notice period would allow employers to prepare for a visit and to reschedule certain tasks. I support exempting smaller businesses from some of these arrangements, because it is very hard to organise smaller businesses with third-party interruptions.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
My Lords, I support the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, and others. This clause strikes horror in my heart. The idea that someone could come into my business, access my premises with no notice—good luck with that, because I sit in a room on my own—or even worse, access my systems and my server, which are all heavily password-protected because I am regulated, strikes horror not just in my heart. I can assure the Minister, who says that she has consulted business groups, that she will see surveys coming out in the very near future that show the fear, horror and dislike that small businesses have of this Bill, and in particular the clauses we have been debating tonight. I hope she will have the opportunity to meet again with business representatives and listen to what they are saying.
The draftsman on this Bill is working in another era. What does physical access to a business mean? I like the clauses restricting this for smaller businesses, because most small businesses do not have a physical presence. In many businesses, literally tens of thousands of them, the employees work from home. They might have a WeWork office where they meet every now and then, but it is meaningless to give right of access to most small businesses. If we then go to right of access to digital communications, that implies, from the wording I have read, that a trade union official would have to be given the passwords to enter the systems.
What protection is there? What indemnities are there to ensure that this is not abused? We know that abuse happens, particularly in these days of cyber fraud, where someone who has accessed the system could take advantage. Obviously, I am not suggesting that that is going to be prevalent or happen in the majority of cases by any means, but I do not see any protection for small businesses should that happen.
It seems to me that the whole concept of access is misconceived. I would quite understand it if the legislation were drafted to require an employer of any size to pass messages to an employee—I would understand that; it would be reasonable—but can the Minister explain to us why she is demanding access to both physical and digital assets of small businesses?
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak in particular to the amendments regarding communication with workers. I think it was Amendment 207 but, whichever one it is, I think noble Lords will know. The reason I bring this up is that my noble friend has just referred to aspects of cybersecurity. By the way, I am not suggesting that any trade union would be seeking to cause this havoc, but we know this is a particular challenge. I am struggling to understand how, under wider confidentiality, how anybody would have access to this or be expected to. It may be that the employer is required to pass on an email, I do not know.
I am also struggling to find the justification for this. In introducing the Bill, the Government did not make any reference to digital communication or this other communication; they referred only to physical access. I cannot find any justification put forward by the Minister for this. I cannot find the amendment in Committee, and I am struggling to find the amendment on Report, in the Bill documents on the parliamentary website. I am sure they are there; I am just struggling to find them. I certainly cannot find any reference by the Minister in the other place to why this is deemed necessary. I appreciate that it is not necessarily the job of the Government to do my research for me, but that would be very useful to hear, because it certainly was not in the Bill introduced to the Commons.
I would be grateful if the Minister could give this House a justification, because one of the things that is causing concern among employers’ representatives is this sort of process. It is fairly well established that trade unions are often invited in; that is all part of good industrial relations. The legislation talks about being able to organise. I think the Minister in the other place talked about using it as an opportunity to recruit new trade union members, to organise, to have meetings and so forth. I want to clarify something. The Bill states, in line 15 on page 75, that
“the access purposes do not include organising industrial action”,
so I would be grateful to understand this better. How is the Minister in the other place saying that you can organise different from organising industrial action?
I am genuinely concerned that anyone can just be told, “Please email all your employees with this material”. Fortunately, at the moment, it does not seem that we have prescription that the Secretary of State will write the words that need to be said—I expect they would not be writing on behalf of the trade union—but, again, I am trying to understand why employers would need to allow that to happen. On that, I will draw my comments to a conclusion.
Baroness O’Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)
My Lords, I too shall be very brief. I strongly welcome this new right for workers to have reasonable access to their union representatives at their place of work—that is very important. It is also worth stating the good news that there are many voluntary access agreements already in place. I have had the pleasure many a time of visiting companies, big and small, walking the floor with the managing director and the union representative and having really good discussions, with an opportunity to meet workers and talk about the success of the business.
However, as a union official, I have also been in the position where I have had to meet workers in cafés, pubs, church halls, homes or anywhere, because they were too scared to be seen speaking to a union official outside their workplace with CCTV cameras trained on them. That is the reality that we are also dealing with, but there is plenty of good, practical practice to build on.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
Before the noble Baroness sits down, she has had a go at Amazon twice tonight. I wonder whether it might be of interest to her to know that it employs 75,000 people in the UK. No one who works there is on a zero-hours contract. The minimum annual starting salary is between £28,000 and £30,000. It provides flexible working opportunities from day one, including term-time contracts, which it is currently advertising on the radio. That, obviously, allows parents, grandparents and carers guaranteed leave during school holidays. Since 2010, Amazon has invested more than £64 billion in this country and £12 billion in the last 12 months. It also supports a network of about 100,000 UK-based small and medium-sized businesses. It may not be perfect on unions in the noble Baroness’s terms, but it deserves a bit more respect.
Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)
I am sure the noble Lord opposite would agree that those workers who joined a union and wanted to have a union voice at work to improve their pay and conditions deserve respect, too, and that union-busting techniques and approaches to avoid even meeting unions to come to an agreement is, frankly, unacceptable in a modern, civilised society.
Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)
My Lords, I will be brief. This group of probing amendments relates to new provisions in the Bill concerning trade union access to the workplace. Amendments 208A, 209A, 210 and 210A would narrow the definition of access by removing or limiting references to communication with workers, including through digital channels. These changes would raise questions about how access is intended to operate in practice, particularly in light of evolving workplace models. It would be most helpful to hear from the Minister how these changes are expected to support the overall objectives of the Bill and whether they risk narrowing the scope of access in ways that may affect its effectiveness.
Amendments 209, 211 and 213 in this group would also address the application of provisions to small and medium-sized enterprises. Others, including Amendments 213AA and 213B, introduce specific considerations for sectors including healthcare—all very laudable and quite reasonable—or for the timing and method of access for those applications. These amendments appear to probe the balance between ensuring orderly access and managing operational pressures. Could the Minister clarify how the framework, as currently drafted, is expected to work in different types of workplaces as I have alluded to, and how it ensures that both the employers’ and employees’ work interests are taken into account?
Lord Katz (Lab)
I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate on this group, and in particular I thank the noble Lords, Lord Jackson of Peterborough and Lord Sharpe of Epsom, the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, and my noble friend Lord Hendy for tabling Amendments 208A, 209, 209A, 210, 210A, 211, 212, 213, 213A, 213B and 214.
Before we get into the detail, I will frame my remarks by pointing out that we have heard previously in this debate in quite heated tones a discussion of the role of trade unions in our society. From our perspective as a Government, and from my perspective—for what it is worth, I have been a member of a trade union all my working life—progressive legislation and reform, which we on this side have always tried to pursue through working with the trade union movement, have done much to improve not just the world of work and the rights of workers but the economy as a whole. We are proud of this progress and history. This Bill represents a further stride towards a successful, mature framework for employment relations in this country.
It is important when we talk about striking the balance between employers, unions and workers—in particular, between employers and workers—that we do not equate the two as having equality in terms of power dynamics. That is often missed from this debate. Many employees, whether they work in Amazon’s warehouses, an SME or a microbusiness, do not necessarily feel that they have the same equality of relationship with their employer as their employer has with them. That may be natural, but one of the roles of a trade union or employee representative is to level that playing field. It is always important when discussing trade union rights to bear that in mind.
In Amendments 209, 211 and 213, the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, are seeking to exempt smaller businesses from Clause 56. The right of access is a key part of our wider commitment to strengthening workers’ voices in the workplace, enhancing their representation and ultimately improving working conditions through increased trade union membership, participation and dialogue. My noble friend Lady O’Grady of Upper Holloway ably illustrated why, in some cases, trade unions do not need any improvements to access because they have a perfectly good and amicable working relationship. It is worth noting that in roughly 30% of the cases referred to the CAC the applications have been withdrawn because there has been a voluntary agreement, and that is a very good thing to see. However, there are cases where there is not that level of co-operation and access, which is why the Government are legislating to provide it.
We have heard in debates on previous groups that noble Lords on the Benches opposite think that trade unions are a good thing and have a role in the workplace. I absolutely take them at face value on that. To have that role in the workplace, they need to have access to workers. We cannot be starry-eyed about this; not all employers behave as responsibly and open-mindedly as we all believe they should in creating access for employees to their representatives. That is why we are discussing these bits of the Bill tonight.
The policy we have developed has been designed to be fair, consistent and workable for all employers. We will consult on specific details of the framework before they are set out in secondary legislation, including with the CAC, and we encourage businesses and unions to share their views. I understand the points around legal ambiguity raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, but, in the previous group, we discussed the levels of granularity and specificity in a particular statement that it is proposed that employers should give to employees about their rights to join a trade union. I posit that, if we had had the level of detail that the noble Lord suggested, we would have had a similar level of discontent from Members opposite. That is of course their right, but I make the point gently that you cannot have it both ways.
I turn now to Amendments 212 and 213B. Amendment 212 would require that trade unions provide a request for access to a workplace in writing, and with more than 24 hours’ notice from the requested date and time that access would happen. Amendment 213B would introduce two additional factors for the CAC to consider when making a determination on whether access should occur: first, the method, frequency and timing of the access requested, and, secondly, whether the purpose of access could be reasonably met without physical entry into the workplace. The Secretary of State will, by regulations, be able to set the time period in which an employer is required to respond to a request for access from a trade union, as well as the form that the trade union’s request must take and the manner in which it is provided to the employer.
I will respond to the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, around the difference between this sort of trade union activity and organising for industrial action. As far as I am concerned, it is pretty obvious that this is about organising for recognition, where the legal conditions can be met, and indeed organising for recruitment and awareness for other very reasonable trade union activities, such as promoting health and safety at work, which we all agree is important and worthwhile.
The Secretary of State will also be able to set, through regulations, the circumstances the CAC must take into account when making decisions on access. These areas of detail will be subject to public consultation before the regulations are made, and we will invite all interested parties to provide us with their views on these matters when we launch our consultation. To pick up on the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, he may find that 24 hours after the consultation is deemed to be just right, or indeed too short a period. That is the reason for this consultation, rather than just prescribing everything at this point in time. If we had prescribed it in the Bill, and it was less than 24 hours, I suspect that the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, would not be at all happy.
Amendment 214 was tabled by my noble friend Lord Hendy. The proposals in this amendment would make declarations by the CAC under new Section 70ZI(5) enforceable, as if made by the High Court, opening a greater possibility of an employer being found to be in contempt of court. I am happy to reassure my noble friend that new Sections 70ZH and 70ZK, which were introduced by the Government on Report in the other place, already provide for a strong remedy against employers who do not respect these new rights of access, mainly in the form of CAC orders but ultimately backed by serious financial penalties when necessary. As my noble friend Lady O’Grady of Upper Holloway said, these need to be serious financial penalties and they need to have heft. The new sections that were tabled on Report in the other place say that penalties can be linked to various metrics, such as annual turnover or, indeed, the number of workers employed in the liable entity. In the case of large companies, that would make a very serious penalty indeed. We do not want them to be fined; we want them to grant the access to trade unions and trade union representatives that their employees deserve. In our view, the available remedies are already powerful and proportionate. The Government do not consider it necessary to go beyond these.
Lastly, I turn to Amendments 210, 208A, 209A, 210A and 213A. The noble Lords, Lord Sharpe and Lord Hunt, are seeking in Amendments 210 and Amendments 208A to 213A to exempt digital forms of communication from the right of access policy. In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, that can be found in new Sections 70ZA(4)(a) and (b) in the Bill as it left the other place. This clause was designed for the modern workplace and with various working practices in mind. It is important that this clause provides for a digital right of access to ensure that unions can reach workers who may not work in a physical workplace, such as home workers or those who work in a hybrid manner. In my opinion, if I may be so bold, the noble Lord, Leigh of Hurley, answered his own point. As he acknowledged, in some businesses, it is not as simple—
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
I am a bit puzzled about how access to digital can work side by side with the protections we have for data security.
Lord Katz (Lab)
I was going to mention it later, but I reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, that existing data protection legislation will continue to apply. I do not want to say that shrouds were waved, but there were a lot of quite fanciful hypotheses as to what digital access might involve. To be frank, as the noble Lord, Lord Leigh of Hurley, suggested—sorry to pick him out—it could simply mean that employers are, through their own email system, obliged to cascade a message from trade unions to their employees without the trade unions having direct access to the systems at all.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
Before the noble Lord moves on from that point, I am fully aware of where the reference to digital is in the Bill now. The point that I was trying to make to the Minister was to justify why, when the Bill was originally presented to the House of Commons—perhaps I should have been more specific—it was not mentioned at all. I believe it was not inserted in Committee, so it must have come somewhere on Report, but I cannot find any justification made by the Government for why they have added this digital communication when they had not put it in at either the introduction of the Bill or in Committee in the other place, when it has the most scrutiny at that end. I had hoped the civil servants might have sent him a note.
Lord Katz (Lab)
I assume my civil servants understand that I probably know the answer to that question—they might be right, or they may be wrong. To cast my mind to the inner workings of Committee in the other place, the reference in the Bill, as I understand it, is to communication with workers rather than explicitly to digital communication. I sometimes feel that I cannot speak for the way we examine Bills in Committee in this place, let alone in the other place.
We now have the opportunity to discuss, as we are doing, the fact that in the modern day, in 2025, the idea that access to a workforce would not include digital channels is, frankly, fanciful. Were we seriously to say, not to trade unions but to employees—to workers—that the only way that they could receive a message from a trade union or from an employee representative or, to turn it on its head, from an employer was on a piece of paper or in a one-to-one verbal communication, then I think we would all regard that as fanciful. There is a little bit of sophistry—
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
Just to expand on this a little further, we are not arguing that unions should not have the right to communicate digitally with workers. That is not the issue; the issue is the right of access. The Government are asking the House of Lords tonight to pass legislation that will allow a third person the right to access an employee’s computer—let us imagine that it is an SME business, possibly run on only one computer, which may contain highly sensitive information; in my case, that would be market-sensitive information— without any controls, references or parameters. I invite the Minister to commit that, before Report, further consideration is made of what such right of access means and the limitations on that right of access. We are not trying to exclude communication to workers; we are just trying to find out the channels and protect SMEs from intrusive activities.
Lord Katz (Lab)
I am happy to write to the noble Lord with more detail, but this is one of things that will be set out in regulation following extensive consultation. I go back to the original point of principle that I made about levels of granularity in setting out specific channels: if we specify channels A, B and C, as soon as the Bill is published we risk finding that employers are actually using channels E, F and G, because that is the pace of technology as it develops, so we have to retain flexibility.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
Will the Minister write to me with a better, candidly, a more comprehensive answer than he has given so far in response to my questions? I would be very grateful.
Lord Katz (Lab)
I am very happy to write. I resist the idea that I am not being candid here. The noble Baroness may not like what I am saying, but the point stands. I am of course very happy to write to her and to the noble Lord, Lord Leigh of Hurley, with more detail.
In conclusion, we expect that, in many cases, employers and trade unions will be able to agree the terms on which access takes place, including for digital access. In the event that there is no agreement, the CAC can impose terms, including terms dealing with digital access. I repeat: the precise details of how this will work in practice will be set out in secondary legislation following further consultation. I therefore ask that Amendment 208A be withdrawn and that noble Lords do not press their other amendments.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, first, I say to the House authorities that we greatly appreciate the way they have tolerated the fact that we have gone way beyond the normal rising time on a Thursday, particularly as we are sitting tomorrow at 10 am. In mitigation, I note that we have tried to truncate what is a hugely important group of amendments. There are many things that we would want to probe further, so we will have to return to this on Report.
I thank my noble friends Lord Jackson of Peterborough, Lady Lawlor, Lord Leigh of Hurley and Lady Coffey for their contributions. I was interested, as always, to hear the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, and the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, although I hope that she will mitigate the damage she may have done with her remarks about one of the biggest investors in the UK, Amazon.
Baroness Bousted (Lab)
This is the second time the noble Lord has taken on my noble friend Lady O’Grady, who made perfectly reasonable comments. I do not think it is a good idea to be patronising in the House.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
I am sorry about that discordant note, introduced into what has been a really useful day in Committee on this important Bill.
I hope that people outside will realise that we have been debating a group of amendments that were made at the last moment in the House of Commons. They have not had any scrutiny at all in Committee in the Commons. That is why this House has so much responsibility to ensure that, in a fast-moving digital world, we do not transgress in a way that places employers and employees in an impossible position.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Goddard of Stockport. He asked some direct questions, but we have not yet had the answers to them. It may well be that the Minister will write generally to us all to respond to the points he did not have time to answer today. I appreciate that he has limited time too, but he might like to respond in writing to us all, covering the points that he has not yet been able to deal with.
Lord Katz (Lab)
I am very happy to write, particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Goddard.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
On that positive note, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Katz (Lab)
From our Benches, I thank the staff, the clerks and the Deputy Chairman for staying later than they usually would be required to do on a Thursday. I look forward to seeing noble Lords tomorrow.
Employment Rights Bill
Tuesday 10th June 2025
(9 months, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Employment Rights Act 2025 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 81-VIII Eighth Marshalled list for Committee - (6 Jun 2025)
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
“(2A) Where an access agreement relates to a hospital (within the meaning of section 275 of the National Health Service Act 2006), physical entry may be refused where—(a) patient safety, infection control, or clinical operations would be adversely affected,(b) the access purpose can reasonably be achieved by alternative means of communication, or(c) access would unreasonably disrupt urgent or time- sensitive medical activity.(2B) In determining whether access is reasonable in the context of a hospital, the Central Arbitration Committee must give significant weight to the factors set out in subsection (2A).”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment makes special provision for hospital workplaces, allowing physical access to be refused where it would impact patient safety, infection control, or clinical operations, or where access purposes can be met by alternative means. It requires the Central Arbitration Committee to give significant weight to these factors when considering access in hospital settings.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, this amendment would introduce necessary and proportionate safeguards to ensure that patient safety, clinical operations and infection control were not compromised by well-intentioned but potentially disruptive physical access to hospital environments by trade union representatives. Hospitals are not ordinary workplaces. They are places where critical decisions are made every minute, where vulnerable patients receive life-saving care and where medical professionals must operate in conditions that are tightly controlled in terms of both hygiene and procedure. Permitting physical access to union representatives who are not part of the clinical team and not governed by the same professional or ethical codes introduces risks that simply cannot be ignored.
These are not theoretical concerns. Infection control protocols exist precisely because hospitals deal daily with immunocompromised patients, open surgical wounds and the spread of dangerous pathogens. Entry by any individual not trained in and accountable to those protocols could result in the transmission of infections, the contamination of sterile areas or the unintended exposure of patients to harm. Moreover, hospital environments are highly sensitive to disruption. In intensive care units, emergency departments, operating theatres and maternity wards, even small delays or distractions can have life-or-death consequences. The presence of non-essential personnel in those spaces risks delaying clinical teams, congesting movement corridors, or interfering with time-critical procedures.
Physical access is not just a logistical matter; it can be a direct threat to a hospital’s ability to function safely and effectively. The amendment does not seek to deny trade unions the ability to communicate with members or fulfil their lawful functions. On the contrary, it would explicitly allow access to be withheld only where the access purpose could reasonably be achieved by alternative means; and in the 21st century, such alternatives, as we heard last week, are abundant. Virtual meetings, secure digital communications, designated liaison officers or scheduled engagement in non-clinical areas would all be viable channels for meaningful trade union engagement.
Hospitals are already under enormous pressure, so it is neither safe nor fair to expect them to open their most sensitive environments when those same objectives can be achieved by safer, more appropriate methods. Hospitals also bear legal and regulatory duties that cannot be suspended. Clinical professionals are legally obliged to safeguard patients and maintain secure environments. To require hospitals to grant physical access to non-clinical actors where such access could conflict with those duties would place hospital management in a difficult, nay impossible, position, risking litigation, regulatory sanction and, above all, the trust of the public.
The amendment further recognises the importance of proportionality. It does not seek to impose an outright prohibition; it would simply require the Central Arbitration Committee, when deciding on access disputes, to give significant weight to those clinical and operational factors. That is the right balance, respecting the legitimate role of trade unions while upholding the sanctity of hospital care. To oppose this amendment would be to ignore the distinct and high-stakes nature of hospital environments. No one disputes the value of union representation, but the right to organise must never override the duty to protect.
Hospitals are not platforms for industrial theatre; they are sanctuaries of healing staffed by professionals who need order, safety and focus to save lives. We have a duty to shield them from any policy that risks disrupting that mission. I urge the Committee to support the amendment and uphold the principle that access, however important, must never come at the expense of patient welfare. I beg to move.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, for his amendment and I hope, perhaps, that the lack of contributions means that we will make some good progress in Committee today.
Lord Katz (Lab)
On the noise from a sedentary position, I mean in numerical terms, if not in substantive debate.
As the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, just outlined, Amendment 213AA seeks to makes specific provisions for access into hospital workplaces by specifying circumstances in which access may be reasonably refused. It also requires the CAC to consider and give more weight to these factors when deciding on access.
As we discussed last week, the Secretary of State will be able, through regulations, to set the circumstances that the CAC must take into account when making decisions on access, including potentially complex access arrangements in workplaces such as hospitals and other healthcare settings. These areas of detail will be subject to public consultation before the regulations are made and we will invite all interested parties to provide their views on these matters when we launch our consultation.
It is a complex policy area that will involve detailed practical considerations. It is not as though, at the moment, we do not have strong and healthy engagement with a number of different trade unions in all manner of healthcare settings, including hospitals. We have trade union access, involvement and activity in complex workplaces, including hospitals. Special consideration is given to the importance of keeping them sterile and safe, particularly for those who have immunocompromised conditions and, indeed, anybody who is a patient in that setting. This can and has been achieved, and it is perfectly reasonable for the CAC, following consultation, to make regulations that set this. As I said, this is not a policy area that is not already well rehearsed and understood.
The noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, is right that hospitals are particularly special settings but they are also workplaces. The NHS employs large numbers of people and has a very mature industrial relations framework within it. It is certainly not implausible that, in consultation with all interested parties, the CAC could come to a perfectly reasonable compromise on access.
The Government also feel that it is not appropriate to make specific provisions for just this one kind of workplace—hospitals—prior to consultation. We are talking about hospital workplaces as opposed to, say, general practitioner or dental surgeries or other areas where you have regard to clinical safety and the sorts of considerations that the noble Lord talked about. Given that, I ask him to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his answer, but a little disappointed. His words largely give away why the Government should accept this amendment. I believe he just used the phrase “reasonable compromise” with regard to the Central Arbitration Committee, whereas the amendment just says
“must give significant weight to the factors set out in subsection (2A)”.
The practical impact of both those phrases is much the same.
So I am disappointed that the Government have chosen to reject this amendment, which is modest, carefully constructed and aimed at protecting one of our most vital public services. We were not asking for a sweeping exclusion, nor undermining the rights of trade unions or seeking—to use the noble Lord’s phraseology—to restrict involvement. We proposed a targeted safeguard that simply recognises the unique, high-risk nature of hospital environments. I will not press the point now, but we reserve the right to return to this in due course. For now, I beg leave to withdraw.
Lord Hunt of Wirral
“Right to switch off in relation to trade union representatives(1) The Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 is amended in accordance with subsection (2).(2) After section 69 (right to terminate membership of trade union), insert— “69A Right to switch off in relation to trade union representativesIn every contract of membership of a trade union, whether made before or after the coming into force of this section, a term conferring a right on the member to refuse to monitor, read or respond to contact (or attempted contact) by a trade union representative outside their working hours shall be implied.””Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause confers a right to switch off on trade union members in relation to contact from trade union representatives.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, Amendments 215 and 332 are in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom. They insert a right for trade union members to switch off—to ignore contact from union representatives outside their own working hours.
Let me be clear at the outset that we on these Benches do not see this as an unimportant, “nice to have” option. It is a necessary safeguard in the context of a Bill which is probably doing more than any legislation in living memory to grant privileges to trade unions and inflate union power and will encourage aggressive recruitment regardless of whether or not workers want it. This amendment goes to the very heart of a deeper question we have to ask ourselves: whom is the trade union there to serve—the worker or itself? If we are honest, the Bill increasingly seems more interested in empowering the institution than protecting the individual. The Bill certainly tilts the playing field, not towards workers as individuals but towards union structures as institutions, and it does so with no meaningful safeguards, no checks and balances, and no regard for the fact that many workers today want something very different from what the traditional trade union model is capable of offering.
The Bill is not neutral nor balanced, and it is not simply updating outdated frameworks or modernising collective bargaining: I believe it is a deliberate attempt to revive old-school trade unionism in a dramatically changed industrial context by granting unions not legitimate rights but privileges, whether or not the workers want them. Through expanded access rights, new entitlements and a raft of concessions, the Government are artificially breathing life into organisations that are, frankly, no longer representative of most working people. Union membership has been declining for decades, not because of external barriers but, I believe, because of internal obsolescence. The nature of work has changed, and expectations have changed, yet trade unions have not. Instead of accepting that reality, this Government have decided to push unions back into the workplace, not by making them more attractive but by giving them more power. We know what happens when institutions are given power without accountability: they use it and, often, abuse it.
This amendment is therefore a response to that risk. It says clearly and unapologetically that, even if the Government want to empower unions, individual workers should still be able to set boundaries, especially in their own time. The pressure that comes from union representatives is not always welcome, and it is certainly not always proportionate, especially now that, under the new powers granted by the Bill, I am sure we will see a rise in out-of-hours messaging, campaign pushes, late-night emails, WhatsApp group bombardments, friendly reminders to attend meetings or urgent invitations to back a ballot. It will be relentless, not because it has to be but because unions will be under pressure themselves to prove their relevance, grow their numbers and mobilise more quickly and visibly than ever.
The burden of that spurious urgency will fall squarely on the ordinary—often reluctant—member, who will have joined the union for protection, not politics, and who just wants to do their job and get on with their life. That member deserves a basic right: the right to draw a line. This amendment gives them that right. It says that, outside your working hours, you cannot be expected to respond to union communications, not because you are hostile to unions or are trying to undermine solidarity but because your time is your own—and because respect for the individual must come before deference to the organisation.
Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)
My Lords, I will speak briefly to Amendments 215 and 332, both in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe. Amendment 215 proposes a new clause to grant trade union members a statutory “right to switch off”; that is, to disengage from contact initiated by trade union representatives.
It raises the wider question of work/life balance and members’ autonomy. That is not a bad thing to raise and probe in this amendment. However, the caricature by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, of a typical union member is a little fanciful. When I was a shop steward, I certainly would not be ringing up union members at 8 o’clock when England were playing football against somebody. I would have got very short shrift and probably would not have been the shop steward the following week. That is the power of trade unions: they can remove and add shop stewards on a whim.
We just need to be a little bit grown-up about the modern trade unionist. We are living in a different age now. It would be wrong for me to say that communication does not happen, but it is now via text, X and WhatsApp, and that is completely acceptable. Where the line is drawn is around giving people a statutory right to switch off, or not. I think it is down to individual members to decide whether they want to be able to be contacted. It should be for the members themselves to decide that, rather than there having to be some statutory right. It is not for me to pass judgment on the desirability or otherwise of it, but I would be interested to understand the rationale and the evidence underpinning the need for such measures.
Amendment 332 is more technical in nature, providing for the commencement of these provisions a year after the Act receives Royal Assent. This delayed implementation may allow for guidance to be prepared or for institutions to adapt. With that in mind, I would like to hear the Minister’s response to both these things—bearing in mind that, at the end of the day, trade unions exist because of their members; if members do not like a trade union, they can leave a trade union. That point has not been brought up anywhere in this House by anybody. You are free and able to join a trade union. You are also free and able to leave a trade union.
I know that, in 1973 and 1974, people did leave the GMB union over some policies that the union had. It was not an impossible thing to do. They were still treated fairly; they were given full consultation and assistance. It was for us to persuade them to come back into the union, which nine times out of 10 they did. It is not always a one-way street. I would hope that the Conservatives understand that unions are controlled by members.
We have annual congresses. One of the greatest things we used to do as the Lancashire region was to overturn the executive once a year in conferences; to us, that was the object of conference. It did not go down well with John Edmonds and the senior management team. I would stand there berating them for the poor pay of gas workers and objecting to a 2% pay rise, and I would get full support. Then I would have to go and see Mr Edmonds. The words he once said to me were, “You control the union for one week and we control it for the other 51 weeks, so I will let you have this week, David. Now leave”. I have deleted and added words there to avoid using any language that would be unfit for this House.
Again, it is a balancing act. I do hope that the Minister will address it in that manner and not just ignore amendments that come in from the Benches opposite. There is something behind the amendments. They are probing amendments and we are just trying to get the flavour of where the Government sit on membership and the unions, with regard to consultation. We spent a few hours—a lot of hours—the other night talking about union rights and members’ rights. I think this issue just touches on the end of that. I can see why it was not raised in that group, but it is still something that needs explaining a bit more clearly.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Leong) (Lab)
My Lords, I first thank the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, for his very entertaining contribution, and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, for speaking to Amendments 215 and 332 in his name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe.
The proposed new clauses would create a right in primary legislation for trade union members to switch off from contact from trade union representatives. As far as I am aware, there is not any demand to introduce such a requirement on trade unions. I have not heard this from my colleagues, or from trade union members, or from any worker, or indeed from any employer or employer organisation that I have spoken to lately.
It is difficult to see what benefit or purpose such an obligation inserted into membership contracts might serve. Currently, there is no obligation for a trade union member to reply to communications from their trade union, as was ably set out by the noble Lord, Lord Goddard. There is nothing stopping a member ignoring them or telling them to **** off.
This Government are committed to the well-being and positive work-life balance of all workers. The Employment Rights Bill is proof of this commitment, with relevant measures including making flexible working the default except where not reasonably feasible. This will help employees and employers to agree solutions which work for both parties.
I say politely to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, that I reject his allegation of trade union influence and power interfering with people’s lives. As it stands, every member can ignore the messages and communications —whoever has approached them—outside work. There is no evidence that this is currently happening. I ask the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, to reflect on that and to be careful with some of the pretty harsh words he has said. I invite him to withdraw his Amendment 215.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord has to face the reality of the situation when looking at today’s world, where trade unions represent only 12% of private sector workers. He tells the Committee that this provision is not necessary now, but we are entering a new era. It is one that I recall vividly, when I first came into the House of Commons, just under 50 years ago, at a time when the trade unions dominated lives to a huge extent. Talking to some of my friends in the trade union movement, I sense that they look forward to the day when the trade unions will re-emerge in the private sector and become again dominant in public life.
I too was very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Goddard of Stockport, for talking about work-life balance. I am rather sad that the noble Lord in responding did not really get into that. That is what this amendment is all about. In sharing with us his experiences in the GMB, the noble Lord, Lord Goddard of Stockport, put it in context. I have, in the past, done a lot of cases for the GMB; it is a wonderful, friendly society that looks after people in a huge way. This amendment is not ideological, it is not radical and it would not weaken unions. It would not restrict collective bargaining or impose new administrative burdens on trade unions. All it and the subsequent amendment seek to do is to offer trade union members the right—the dignity—to say, “Not now. Not after hours. Not in my living room. Not when I am at home, off duty and seeking the same privacy and peace of mind that every working person deserves”. We are looking forward to that day, or are we?
If these new provisions give additional power to unions in the Bill, why do the Government not stop for a moment to ask how this will affect ordinary members? Not union leaders, not officials, not full-time organisers, but the actual members who just want to get on with their lives, in peace. That is what this amendment is about—not disruption, not dilution, but balance. I fully accept that many of these members will not complain about out-of-hours contact from a union, but not because they agree with it but because almost certainly they will be tired and will not want confrontation, as they worry that pushing back could lead to exclusion, being labelled or being isolated within the very structure that they joined for protection.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
“Section 56: consultation requirement(1) Before section 56 comes into force, the Secretary of State must consult such persons as they consider appropriate, including—(a) representatives of trade unions, and(b) representatives of employers,on the use of digital communication methods as part of access agreements under section 56.(2) The Secretary of State must publish the outcome of that consultation.(3) Section 56 may not come into force until the outcome of the consultation under subsection (2) has been published.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to consult on the role of digital communication in trade union access agreements and to publish the outcome before the relevant provisions come into force.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 215ZA is in my name and seeks to insert a new clause following Clause 56. This amendment would require the Secretary of State to consult relevant stakeholders, including representatives of both employers and trade unions, on the use of digital communication methods as part of trade union access agreements under Clause 56. Furthermore, it would require that the outcome of that consultation be published and that the provisions of Clause 56 may not come into force until that has happened.
Let me say at the outset that this is a moderate, practical and entirely necessary amendment. It does not challenge the principle of union access. It does not frustrate the core intent of the legislation. What it does is inject a degree of transparency, rigour and, crucially, consent into a provision that, as it stands, risks doing significant unintended harm to employers and employees alike.
I refer to the remarks made last week by the noble Lord, Lord Katz, during Committee. I thought they were illuminating and, frankly, somewhat concerning. The noble Lord assured us that the Government intend to consult further on the digital provisions. But here is the critical point: the legislation as currently drafted allows Clause 56 to come into force before that consultation has occurred and before any regulations are laid. In effect, this Committee is being asked to pass a framework of legal obligations that have real-word consequences for access to workplaces and digital systems without knowing the rules that will underpin them. This is legislation in reverse, because it enables powers first and critical definitions and safeguards later.
Let us take the words of the noble Lord, Lord Katz, directly. He said that
“the precise details of how this will work in practice will be set out in secondary legislation following further consultation”.
But secondary legislation, as we have discussed many times over the course of this Bill and others that this Government are putting through, is not subject to the same scrutiny as primary legislation. It is not amendable. It can be laid quietly and approved via negative procedures. That is why we must build the consultation obligation directly into the primary legislation. Without it, we risk leaving employers, particularly small and medium-sized employers, exposed to obligations they neither understand nor have had the opportunity to influence.
The noble Lord acknowledged that digital access was not included in the original drafting of the Bill and so was not debated during the Commons Committee stage. It was inserted at a late stage in the legislative process. When pressed on this by my noble friend Lady Coffey last week, the noble Lord could offer no justification for the timing or the rationale behind that late change. Instead, we were told that
“in 2025, the idea that access to a workforce would not include digital channels is, frankly, fanciful”.—[Official Report, 5/6/25; cols. 984 and 985.]
Again, those were the noble Lord’s words.
That may well be the case, but policy made on assumptions and generalities is not good policy. What exactly will “digital access” mean in practice? Will unions be allowed to email employees directly? Will they be granted access to internal mailing lists? What about secure internal platforms or workplace intranets? Will employers be compelled to share employee contact details or act as intermediaries in the distribution of union materials? What safeguards will exist to protect commercially sensitive information, particularly in small firms that operate on a single device or a shared system?
My noble friend Lord Leigh of Hurley also raised a very pertinent point last week. He said:
“The Government are asking the House of Lords tonight to pass legislation that will allow a third person the right to access an employee’s computer … without any controls, references or parameters”.—[Official Report, 5/6/25; cols. 984-85.]
That is not mere rhetoric but a credible reading of the Bill in its current form. If that is not the Government’s intent, we need clarity in law, not just reassurance from the Dispatch Box.
The noble Lord, Lord Katz, tried to deflect concerns by pointing to data protection legislation, but as many in this Committee know only too well, data protection laws regulate the use of personal data; they do not in themselves govern the parameters of access rights under trade union law. Nor do they address the central concern here: that employees and unions need agreed, defined rules of engagement for digital contact in the context of access rights. Indeed, the Government’s apparent position is that all this can be worked out later. That is simply not acceptable. When legislation interferes with the operation of businesses, the integrity of secure systems and the balance of power between employers and unions, it is not enough to say, “Trust us to sort it out in regulations”.
Let me also address the claim that consultation will happen eventually. Of course we welcome that promise, but good process means consulting before rules take effect, not after. It means asking those affected what is reasonable before forcing them to comply, and that is all this amendment does. It would require the Secretary of State to consult relevant stakeholders, including trade unions and employers; that the outcome of that consultation be published in the interests of transparency and trust; and that the relevant part of the legislation, Clause 56, cannot come into force until that is done. That would give everyone fair notice. It would ensure meaningful engagement and prevent the scenario we are currently hurtling towards: a system through which access rights could be imposed by the Central Arbitration Committee, including digital access, without any shared understanding of what that entails.
Access must be delivered in a way that is workable, proportionate and appropriate in each workplace context. In many modern workplaces, digital contact is indeed the most effective route, but in some environments, especially among some SMEs, it also represents a point of vulnerability both for the operations and for data security. I beg to move.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Information and Technology (Baroness Jones of Whitchurch) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, for Amendment 215ZA, which seeks to commit the Government to consult with trade unions and representatives of employers on the detail of Clause 56, which covers trade union right of access. In particular, it would require the Government to consult on the use of digital communication as part of access agreements.
I can confirm that the Government have already committed to consulting with both trade unions and employers’ representatives on the framework and conditions of access, including on the details of that digital access. I can confirm that we will not bring forward secondary legislation on this before we have consulted. While I am grateful to the noble Lord for tabling this amendment, and I look forward to the upcoming debates on Schedule 6 and Clause 57, I must ask him to withdraw his amendment.
Baroness Verma (Con)
When the consultations are going on, how much consultation is being done with businesses from the black and ethnic minority communities? As I keep repeating in this House, I have been speaking to lots of businesses and I have yet to come across one that feels that it is being consulted.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
I can assure the noble Baroness that all the main business organisations are consulted as a matter of course, and many of our consultations are available more widely. I take on board her question about the black community and I will ensure that, where it has representative organisations, they are included.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for her answer. Just to be clear, as I understand it, that means that this aspect of the Bill will not be commenced until consultation has taken place. As my noble friend has just suggested, this begs the question of exactly who will be consulted and how. I look forward to hearing more from the Minister on that. I do not expect her to be able to answer that now, but it would be very welcome if she could outline the details of this consultation in a letter in due course. However, I am grateful that she has committed to having the consultation before the commencement of this provision. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to the opposition to Clause 57 standing part of the Bill and to Schedule 6 being agreed, tabled by my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough. I also support Amendment 215AZA to Schedule 6, which proposes inserting
“other than in the usual course of the employer’s business”
after “units”. This is all part of a much wider debate that we are moving towards on trade union access and recognition. The amendment may appear narrow in scope, but it addresses a serious flaw in the current drafting which could lead to unintended consequences that undermine the objectives of the Bill and the practical realities of the modern workplace.
The purpose of the provision as drafted is to prevent employers undermining trade union recognition by artificially inflating the size of a bargaining unit with new employees after the application day. That objective is entirely sound. Employers should not be able to frustrate or delay the process of recognition by manipulating the workforce in bad faith. While the provision seeks to target such behaviour, however, the current wording does so in a way that ignores the economic and operational realities facing most employers.
In the vast majority of businesses, employees join and leave as a matter of course. Recruitment is not a manipulative tactic—it is a normal, often essential part of running an organisation. Particularly in sectors with high turnover, employers must routinely recruit to maintain service levels, respond to demand or support business growth. But under the schedule as currently worded, any new employee who joins the bargaining unit after the application date may automatically be excluded from consideration, regardless of whether that recruitment was completely ordinary and unconnected to the union process.
This risks creating a perverse incentive for employers to delay or freeze hiring during the recognition process—something that may last nine months or more in practice. Employers would be put in an impossible position: either pause recruitment at significant operational and economic cost, or continue recruiting and face the uncertainty of whether those employees count in the CAC’s consideration. It also risks unjustly penalising new employees, who, through no fault of their own, would be deprived of representation in the collective bargaining process simply because of the timing of their hire.
This kind of rigidity does not reflect how businesses operate or how workforces evolve. The schedule, without amendment, assumes a static picture of the workplace—one frozen at the moment of application. That may make theoretical sense in a static model, but in reality it is artificial and unworkable. In doing so, it creates uncertainty for all parties and opens the door to protracted disputes about who should or should not be included in a bargaining unit.
Furthermore, the Central Arbitration Committee is already well equipped to monitor changes in workforce composition. It regularly requires updates to information throughout the recognition process. Employers and unions alike are accustomed to this and operate within it. The idea that including new, routinely hired employees in a bargaining unit would overwhelm or undermine the CAC process is not supported by the CAC’s own established practice. The amendment, therefore, does not introduce an undue burden; it aligns the legislation with how recognition procedures already work in practice.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for his keen interest in and amendments to Clause 57 and Schedule 6. The noble Lord, Lord Jackson, has set out his opposition to both the clause and schedule.
Clause 57 and Schedule 6 speak to our commitment to strengthening collective bargaining and trade union recognition. We believe that strong trade unions are essential for tackling insecurity, inequality, discrimination, enforcement and low pay. Our view is that the existing legal framework needs to be simplified, so that workers have security in the workplace by having a more meaningful right to organise through their trade unions. As we have heard, to achieve this, the clause and schedule remove the current requirement for a union to have at least 40% of the workforce in the proposed bargaining unit supporting union recognition. In future, unions will need only a simple majority in a recognition ballot to win.
The current requirement for a union to demonstrate at the application stage that it is likely there will be a majority for union recognition poses a significant hurdle in modern workplaces, which are increasingly fragmented. That is why the clause deletes the requirement for a union to demonstrate, on application to the CAC, that it is likely to win a recognition ballot. In future, unions will need to show only that they have 10% membership of the proposed bargaining unit for their application for recognition to be accepted by the CAC.
We also wish to consider whether the current 10% membership requirement on application should be lowered in future. The clause therefore provides a power to enable the Secretary of State to make affirmative regulations, which we will consult on, to amend the 10% membership requirement in future, within the parameters of 2% to 10%, as we have set out in Schedule 6.
Clause 57 and Schedule 6 also address unfair practices and access arrangements in the process of recognition and derecognition of trade unions. I hope this satisfies noble Lords who oppose this clause and schedule that these measures strengthen collective bargaining rights.
Before I turn to the amendments to Schedule 6 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, it is worth noting that the Government have also tabled amendments to it. We will debate them shortly, and noble Lords may wish to consider them for the context of today’s debates.
Amendments 215AZA, 216AA and 216BB would carve out recruitment in the usual course of the employer’s business from the freeze on the bargaining unit provided for in the Bill. This is well intentioned. Indeed, we consulted on options for a more targeted approach to preventing mass recruitment into the bargaining unit with the aim to thwart a recognition application. However, after considering responses to the consultation, we concluded that a more targeted approach is not workable, as it would be difficult to establish a sufficient level of proof to determine the purpose for which workers had been recruited. In addition, a new obligation on employers to demonstrate their recruitment intent would be a disproportionate and unfair burden, and it could result in employers having to divulge commercially sensitive information.
Amendment 215AA, at least in some cases, seeks to reinstate the 10% membership test on application. It also—again, at least in some cases—would remove the references in Schedule 6 that exclude workers recruited following receipt by the CAC of a trade union recognition application from counting for the purposes of the recognition process.
I will set out my reasoning in relation to the 10% membership threshold on application and why we are including a power in the Bill to allow Ministers to vary the membership threshold from 10% to 2% in the next debate. New Schedule A1 should be consistent on this principle. I refer noble Lords to what I have said previously on this issue. I will also set out why we believe employers should no longer be able to recruit workers into the bargaining unit for the purpose of thwarting a trade union recognition application. I am steadfast that this reform is necessary to ensure that the process is fair and must not be undermined by what could be underhand tactics.
I turn to Amendments 215DA to 215DC, 215EA, 215FA to 215FF, 215FI, 215GA, 215HA and 216BA. Did I get that wrong?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
These amendments seek to delay when unions would be able to request access during the recognition process until after the bargaining unit had been agreed or determined. While I understand what the noble Lord is attempting to achieve with these amendments, employers have access to the workforce throughout the recognition process. The Government’s view is that unions should have access to the workplace as well from the point where the CAC accepts the application for recognition. This enables the unions to also have access to the workplace for a time closer to the start of the recognition process.
Amendments 215FG, 215FH, 216GA and 216MA seek to remove specific unfair practices from Schedule 6. They seem to seek to allow employers or unions to make an outcome-specific offer or use undue influence with a view to influencing the recognition application. These unfair practices are of long standing and are already set out in the legislation currently in force. The use of undue influence could, for example, include the threat or the use of violence. We therefore see no argument for removing these prohibitions on these unfair practices.
Amendment 216 seeks to reverse changes in the Bill by reinstating the requirement that unions meet the 40% support threshold in addition to a majority in a statutory union recognition ballot. I remind noble Lords that this was a manifesto commitment set out clearly in our plan to make work pay. We are committed to strengthening collective bargaining rights and trade union recognition. We believe that strong trade unions are essential for tackling insecurity, inequality, discrimination, enforcement and low pay. Our view is that the existing legal framework needs to be simplified so that workers have a more meaningful right to organise through their trade unions.
To achieve this, we are removing the current requirement for a union to have at least 40% of the workforce in the proposed bargaining unit supporting union recognition. In future, unions will need only a simple majority in a recognition ballot to win. We believe that the 40% support threshold represents too high a hurdle in modern workplaces, which are increasingly fragmented.
Amendment 216KA seeks to ensure that an employer is not prohibited from taking action against the worker for meeting or indicating that they would like to meet unions during the statutory recognition process if the worker has breached any term of their contract of employment. The prohibition that this amendment seeks to amend is carried forward from the existing legislation, where the proposed proviso about the worker not having breached their contract does not appear. While well intentioned, this amendment is not necessary. The prohibition applies only where the employer takes action against the worker solely or mainly on the grounds that they met with the union. It does not apply where the sole or main purpose is another reason, which may, in some circumstances, be a breach of their contract of employment. I hope this provides the necessary reassurance to the noble Lord.
I therefore thank the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe and Lord Hunt, for the debate and for tabling these amendments, but I must ask the noble Lord not to move the amendments.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, we are very grateful to the Minister for revealing to the Committee that we are discussing a fundamental reshaping of workplace democracy, with potentially profound consequences. She is right to explain that that is what the Government are about. The Employment Rights Bill does not just tinker with existing procedures; it carefully dismantles the framework established by previous Labour Governments. Under these reforms, as the Minister just revealed, unions would need to demonstrate just 10% membership support to trigger recognition processes, and that is a threshold that regulations could reduce, after consultation, to an extraordinary 2%.
Let me explain to the Committee what that means in practice. In a bargaining unit of 250 employees, recognition could be initiated by as few as 25 members under the 10% threshold, or potentially just five members if it is reduced to 2%. More troubling still, with the removal of the 40% support requirement, union recognition, granting negotiating rights over all 250 employees, could theoretically be achieved with a single yes vote, provided no one votes against. This is not hyperbole but mathematical reality under the proposed framework.
Perhaps most concerning of all is that, as the Minister, Justin Madders, acknowledged in the other place, there has been no consultation on these fundamental changes. We are being asked to revolutionise industrial relations based on ideology rather than evidence, without hearing from employers, workers or even the Central Arbitration Committee, which must implement these provisions. This lack of consultation betrays a troubling disregard for the complexity of workplace relations and the legitimate interests of all parties: employers, workers who support unionisation, and those who do not.
The amendments I spoke to are not anti-union but pro-democracy. They recognise that legitimate collective bargaining must rest on genuine demonstrable support from the workforce it claims to represent. The current proposals risk creating what I can only describe as recognition by stealth, where small, motivated groups can impose collective bargaining arrangements on entire workforces without meaningful mandate. That is not industrial democracy; it is the antithesis of it.
Consider the worker who joins a company the day after a union application is filed. Under these proposals, they may be excluded from the very process that will determine their workplace representation. Consider the 245 employees in my hypothetical bargaining unit who never joined the union and never voted, yet find themselves bound by collective agreements negotiated on their behalf by representatives they did not choose.
Beyond democratic concerns lie practical ones: the amendments I have tried to persuade the House to accept recognise that businesses must continue to operate during recognition processes that could stretch over nine months. Routine recruitment, staff transfers and ordinary business activities cannot be frozen pending union ballots without severe economic consequences. Yet the Bill as drafted forces exactly this choice: suspend normal operations or face the uncertainty of having legitimate business decisions treated as manipulation.
These reforms occur within a pattern of changes that consistently favour union interests over balanced workplace relations. The lowering of thresholds, the removal of safeguards and the expansion of access rights: each individual change may seem modest, but collectively they represent a fundamental shift in the balance of industrial relations. This is particularly concerning given the Government’s stated commitment to economic growth. How can we simultaneously demand that businesses expand, hire and invest while making their operations subject to collective bargaining arrangements that will lack genuine workforce support? The Government must bear in mind that these Benches will not sit back and allow this to happen. We will return to it at Report, but in the meantime, I will not oppose the clause standing part.
“3A After paragraph 13 insert—13A “(1) This paragraph applies if—(a) the CAC has received an application under paragraph 11 or 12, and(b) it has given notice to the employer under paragraph 13 of receipt of the application.(2) The employer must comply with the following duties (so far as it is reasonable to expect the employer to do so).(3) The duties are—(a) to give to the CAC, within the relevant period, the specified information in relation to each of the relevant workers; (b) if the relevant workers change as a result of an appropriate bargaining unit being agreed by the parties or decided by the CAC, to give to the CAC, within the relevant period, the specified information in relation to each of those who are now the relevant workers;(c) to take reasonable steps to ensure that the information given to the CAC under paragraph (a) or (b) does not include any information relating to an individual who is not a relevant worker;(d) to inform the CAC, as soon as reasonably practicable, of any worker in relation to whom information has been given to the CAC under paragraph (a) or (b) and who ceases to be a relevant worker (otherwise than by reason of a change mentioned in paragraph (b)).(4) The relevant period is—(a) in the case of the duty in sub-paragraph (3)(a)—(i) the period of 5 working days starting with the day after that on which notice was given to the employer of receipt of the application, or(ii) such longer period (so starting) as the CAC may specify to the parties by notice containing reasons for the extension;(b) in the case of the duty in sub-paragraph (3)(b)—(i) the period of 5 working days starting with the day after that on which the bargaining unit is agreed or the CAC’s decision is notified to the employer, or(ii) such longer period (so starting) as the CAC may specify to the parties by notice containing reasons for the extension.(5) The specified information, in relation to a relevant worker, is—(a) the worker’s name;(b) the worker’s date of birth;(c) the category of worker to which the relevant worker belongs.(6) In the case of an application under paragraph 11(2) or 12(2), the relevant workers are—(a) in relation to any time before an appropriate bargaining unit is agreed by the parties or decided by the CAC, those falling within the proposed bargaining unit, and(b) in relation to any time after an appropriate bargaining unit is so agreed or decided, those falling within the bargaining unit agreed or decided upon,but excluding any worker who joined the bargaining unit after the application day.(7) In the case of an application under paragraph 12(4), the relevant workers are those falling within the bargaining unit agreed by the parties, excluding any worker who joined the bargaining unit after the application day.13B (1) Sub-paragraph (2) applies if—(a) the CAC is satisfied that the employer has failed to fulfil a duty mentioned in paragraph 13A(3), and(b) the application under paragraph 11 or 12 is in progress.(2) The CAC may order the employer—(a) to take such steps to remedy the failure as the CAC considers reasonable and specifies in the order, and(b) to do so within such period as the CAC considers reasonable and specifies in the order;and in this paragraph a “remedial order” means an order under this sub-paragraph.(3) If— (a) the CAC is satisfied that the employer has failed to comply with a remedial order, and(b) the application under paragraph 11 or 12 is in progress,the CAC must, as soon as reasonably practicable, notify the employer and the union (or unions) that it is satisfied that the employer has failed to comply.(4) A remedial order and a notice under sub-paragraph (3) must draw the recipient’s attention to the effect of sub-paragraphs (5) and (6).(5) Sub-paragraph (6) applies if—(a) the CAC is satisfied that the employer has failed to comply with a remedial order,(b) the application under paragraph 11 or 12 is in progress,(c) the parties have agreed an appropriate bargaining unit or the CAC has decided an appropriate bargaining unit, and(d) in the case of an application under paragraph 11(2) or 12(2), the CAC, if required to do so, has decided under paragraph 20 that the application is not invalid.(6) The CAC may issue a declaration that the union is (or unions are) recognised as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of the workers constituting the bargaining unit.(7) For the purposes of this paragraph, an application under paragraph 11 or 12 is in progress if none of the following has occurred—(a) the withdrawal of the application;(b) the CAC giving notice of a decision under paragraph 14(7) which precludes it from accepting the application;(c) the CAC giving notice under paragraph 15(4)(a) in relation to the application;(d) the CAC giving notice to the union (or unions) of a decision under paragraph 20 that the application is invalid;(e) the CAC giving notice to the union (or unions) of a declaration issued under paragraph 13B(6), 19F(5), 19K(4) or (5), 19P(4) or (5), 22(2) or 27(2) in relation to the application;(f) the holding of any ballot arising from the application.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires an employer to provide certain information about the workers in a bargaining unit within 5 working days after the employer is notified of an application for recognition of a trade union. The duty does not include workers who joined the unit after the application was received by the CAC, as they cannot vote in any potential ballot arising from the application.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, as I explained at the all-Peers briefing on 8 May, my amendments to Schedule 6 have been made following welcome scrutiny of the Bill. They do not bring forward new policy but instead aim to ensure that the legislation operates more effectively to implement policies already reflected in the Bill. I will speak to all the amendments in this group, which amend Schedule 6 or the government amendments that I tabled.
On government Amendments 216L, 216M, 216U, 216W, 216J, 216N, 216P, 216Q and 216V, there is currently no provision for a sanction on an employer where the employer fails to comply with access arrangements in relation to a worker application for trade union derecognition. Where legislation imposes a duty, there must be a corresponding enforcement mechanism to give effect to that duty. This is why these amendments have been tabled and why they are necessary.
Amendments 216LA, 216LB, 216MZA, 216MZB and 216MZC in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, all relate to sanctions on the employer or the union where one of the parties fails to comply with access arrangements generally in relation to a worker application for trade union derecognition. Amendment 216LA, again tabled by the noble Lord Sharpe, would introduce a proportionality test, where the CAC considers applying a sanction on the employer to prevent it campaigning should it be in breach of an access agreement. This amendment is unnecessary. It would make it harder for the CAC to issue an order, as determining how a breach by the employer affected the recognition process would be difficult to establish. It should be sufficient for the CAC to establish that a breach has occurred.
Amendment 216LB would add an additional sanction where a union has breached an access agreement by allowing the CAC to impose a sanction to prevent the union campaigning. This amendment is unnecessary because, in relation to applications by workers seeking derecognition of the union, the CAC has the ultimate sanction of declaring that the union is derecognised, should the union fail to comply with the CAC order.
Amendment 216MZA seeks to clarify that either the union or the worker can enforce a CAC order but not both, the aim being to avoid overlapping enforcement actions. I thank the noble Lord for this amendment, but it is not necessary. The legislation is framed so that the union, the workers or both can enforce a CAC order because we cannot assume, where there is an application by workers for derecognition of a union, that workers and the union would be of the same view. To insist that only one party or the other can enforce the order would deprive the other party of its rights. This shows that the Bill is about striking the right balance between unions, employers and workers. Should both the union and the workers be of the same view, the court could simply join their applications together when considering whether an employer had breached the CAC order. In that event, there would therefore not be overlapping enforcement actions against the employer.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
“(5A) Where the CAC is satisfied that changes to the workforce materially affect the composition of the bargaining unit, it may direct the employer to provide updated specified information before the close of any ballot.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment enables the CAC to request updated workforce information from the employer where there have been material changes, ensuring that the ballot reflects the current composition of the bargaining unit.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her explanation of the amendments, particularly the government amendments. However, she argued that this should have been something of the nature of a general debate. The reason why the amendments were degrouped in the other cases is because they all relate to the government amendments, which the Government are trying to pass off as technical when they are anything but. This deserved a discrete debate and that is what it is going to get. I will have to speak at some length, because there is a great deal to cover, for which I apologise in advance.
I will start with Amendment 215AZZA, which is essential to ensure that the union recognition ballot remains fair and truly representative of the bargaining unit at the time of the ballot. The Government’s current position, which locks in workforce data as of the application date and refuses to permit updates, rests on a false premise, and that is that the workplace is static and unchanging; this is simply not the case.
Many industries, from hospitality and retail to logistics and manufacturing, experience significant changes in their workplace composition over time. Employees leave, new workers are hired and entire teams can be restructured in response to market demand or seasonal shifts. By refusing to allow the CAC to request updated workforce information, the Government’s approach risks ballots that are fundamentally out of date—an electoral exercise held not on the actual workforce but on a ghost workforce that no longer exists.
Our amendment would give the CAC the power to direct employers to provide updated workforce information where material changes occur, allowing the ballot to reflect the current reality. This is not a matter of administrative tidiness. It protects workers from having union recognition based on outdated data imposed on them or from being excluded from the democratic process entirely because they joined the company after the arbitrary cut-off.
Furthermore, the CAC has a proven track record of acting promptly and impartially to ensure that ballots are fair and accurate, so the amendment would strengthen rather than weaken its role in protecting workers’ democratic rights. Without this power, the Government’s framework risks disfranchising many workers and undermining the confidence in the entire union recognition process. I have to say that noble Lords opposite frequently cite democratic concerns about current employment law, and if they are serious and not just paying mere lip service to that notion, they should back the amendment and the others to which I am speaking.
Amendment 215AZZB seeks to correct a fundamental injustice that is embedded in the Government’s Amendment 215A. The Government are excluding any worker who joins the bargaining unit after the application day from participating in the recognition ballot. This exclusion is indefensible. It denies newly hired employees any say in a process that will directly impact their working conditions, their representation and potentially their relationship with their employer. The principle at stake is simple: democratic fairness requires that those affected by a decision have the opportunity to participate in making that decision. To exclude workers based solely on an arbitrary application date denies them this right. It is not, as the Minister asserted just now, fair; it risks imposing union recognition —or, conversely, denying it—on employees who are not allowed to express their views.
In sectors where employee turnover is high or where the workforce expands rapidly due to seasonal demand, the Government’s approach risks disfranchising a significant portion of the workforce. These workers are often the most vulnerable and most in need of representation. Our amendment would ensure that all workers employed within the bargaining unit up to the close of the ballot would be eligible to vote. This aligns with the recognition process, with democratic principles and with the reality of modern employment patterns. To deny these workers a voice is to undermine the legitimacy of the entire process.
Amendment 215AZZC seeks to reinforce the need for fairness by ensuring that newly hired workers are not automatically excluded from the recognition ballot, provided they are employed before the ballot concludes. Again, we believe it is untenable for the Government to argue that workers hired after the application date should have no say in a process that determines their representative status and the terms and conditions that govern their work. In industries that are characterised by rapid hiring, seasonal peaks or unpredictable labour needs, the workforce on the application date may bear little resemblance to the workforce at the time of the ballot. By allowing all workers employed up to the ballot’s close to vote, we uphold principles of inclusivity and fairness, ensuring that this ballot truly reflects the views of those it affects.
Amendment 215AZZCA recognises the realities of sectors characterised by high seasonal or cyclical employment volatility, such as retail, hospitality and logistics. These industries often see dramatic fluctuations in employee numbers, with staff numbers sometimes doubling or halving within a matter of weeks or months. The Government’s proposals fail to take this volatility into account. They impose rigid cut-offs that disfranchise workers who join after the application day, even when their numbers materially affect the bargaining unit’s composition. This is not a marginal issue. In such sectors, the workforce on the application day may represent only a fraction of the employees who will work there over the coming months.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful for the Minister’s introduction to my amendments. I accept that the Government want to go for 2% as the lower limit, but I found the Government’s explanation of my other two amendments, which require a minimum of three people, very strange. The Minister said, “It’s not the way it’s been done before, so we shouldn’t change it now”. If she were to apply that principle to the Bill, we could strike the whole thing out and be done with it.
The reason for proposing the change is that it is sensible. It is just not sensible to put a company, particularly a small company, in a position where one employee can trigger this process. A minimum of three is not a big figure; it is just saying that there needs to be more than one, and three seems to be the right place to start. I know it is not the way that it has been done; that is why I put in an amendment.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
My Lords, I will say a few words in support of Amendments 215AZZB to 215AZZD, tabled by my noble friend Lord Sharpe. These are to Schedule 6 and I am responding to the Government’s amendments to this schedule, which qualify who may take part in a ballot, to ensure that those workers in the union before the close of the ballot may vote. These amendments address those who join after the application date but before the close of the ballot and newly hired workers within the bargaining unit. Amendment 215AZZD aims to ensure that the CAC is satisfied that the exclusion of new employees would not materially affect the outcome of a ballot or undermine democratic fairness. Amendment 215AZA would ensure that new workers who join the bargaining unit after the application date are not automatically disregarded for the purposes of recognition.
Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)
My Lords, I rise to speak to the amendments standing in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones. These proposals, while numerous and largely technical in nature, form an important part of the broader framework for trade union recognition and access. Although they are technical in nature, if you read the amendments—and there are quite a number of them—you will see that the Government are beginning to put a bit of meat on quite a small bone. This is the first time in the Bill that we have seen that kind of thing begin to be teased out. Notably, government Amendments 215A and 215F set out clear procedural timelines and information-sharing requirements between employers and the Central Arbitration Committee to help improve transparency and predictability for all parties involved. By establishing firmer timelines, such as a five-day window to provide workforce data and the 20-day period to agree access arrangements, these provisions aim to support a more orderly and informed recognition process, which I welcome.
I turn to the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe. I acknowledge the intention to reflect the workforce changes more accurately, but in our view, some of his proposals risk creating a little uncertainty. Amendments 215AZZB and 215AZZC, for instance, introduce provisions to include new and hired workers in the ballot, potentially undermining the principle that eligibility should be based on the state of the bargaining unit at the time of the application. It is like buying a lottery ticket after the lottery has finished, and then complaining if your numbers come up and you are not allowed to win—you literally have to be in it before it starts.
Similarly, the carve-outs from the three-year stability periods found in Amendments 216FA and 216FB could weaken the clarity and consistency that employers and trade unions require. We must be cautious about layering too many exceptions that could reopen settling matters and prolong disputes unnecessarily.
Finally, while the Government’s overall aim of modernising these areas of law is welcome, it remains vital that clarity and simplicity are not lost in that process. We need to ensure that the frameworks, particularly around recognition, access and enforcement, remain workable and intelligible for employers and workers alike. This is important in sectors characterised by high turnover and volatility. I therefore urge Ministers to consider refining these proposals with that principle in mind: that the system must support effective and fair collective bargaining without inviting further ambiguity.
These amendments are well laid and extremely well made. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe and Lord Hunt, for their clarity tonight in dealing with the issues. To everybody who has been sitting here for seven or eight long nights, I must say that business is not moving any more slowly, but clarity is much improved. I thank the Front Bench and the Conservative group for being more concise in speaking to the issues; I have appreciated that, and I know my group have too. I think the Minister might agree—through slightly gritted teeth—that this is the way forward.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I am conscious that we have had a slightly disjointed debate; as I said, some of these issues were debated in the previous group and were covered in my opening remarks. I will pick up a few points. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, for saying that we are attempting to create a more orderly recognition process, because that is exactly what our amendments are trying to do: to provide the clarity that we felt was missing. I should say that, in addition to the comments I made earlier, we notified all Peers of the Government’s amendments, twice and in writing, and we invited all Peers to a briefing on these on 8 May. All the details have been spelled out in an all-peers letter and supporting annexes. We have therefore been at pains to explain the thinking behind our amendments.
Obviously, most recognition processes go through extremely smoothly, but we believe that this reform is necessary to prevent recruitment for the purposes of thwarting trade union recognition. The process must be fair and not undermined by underhand tactics. Although not all recruitment is underhand, of course, we decided after consultation that the freezing proposed in the Bill is the best way to achieve that fairness. We are attempting to come up with a fair system. Attempting to distinguish between the various intentions of different employers and their recruitment practices is impractical and would be likely to lead to disputes. We felt that this would not be in the interests of employers, the unions or the workers. Of course, there will be changes to the people in the bargaining unit, and where a union is recognised, new workers will be able to take part in subsequent ballots—for example, should a derecognition ballot be held—and other forms of consultation. These restrictions will apply only to that particular element of trade union recognition.
The noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, said that he wants to introduce a proportionality test. That would make it harder for the CAC to issue an order determining how a breach by the employer affected the recognition process; that would be difficult for it to establish. It should be sufficient for the CAC to establish that a breach has occurred, rather than having to make the more difficult judgment about proportionality. Also, the CAC is very experienced in such things and is well equipped to do so.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, that we do not object to his amendment only because this has not been done before, but because we wanted to consult before we made a final decision about changing the acceptance threshold from the 10% proposed limit.
I think I have covered most of the other points, either in the letters that we have sent out or in my earlier speeches. I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Lucas (Con)
I would be very grateful if the Minister could address the substance of my amendment; 10% or 2% is all very fine, but if it results in the answer of one employee being sufficient, that seems to be not an ideal situation. I would have thought that in seeking to look after small businesses it would be sensible to require a minimum number. I cannot see anything in the structure of the Bill at the moment that allows a minimum number to be applied to this percentage. A percentage can generate one if the company is small, whether it is 10% or 2%. Would it not be a good idea to have something in the Bill, subject to consultation, which allowed in small companies with a small workforce for it not to be just one employee who is triggering this procedure?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
That that would come out in the consultation. I think the noble Lord’s proposal of three is a somewhat arbitrary number. If we are going to do that, there are all sorts of minimum numbers that could be applied. I urge noble Lords to recognise that these are the issues that we will consider in the consultation, but I do not think that the rather arbitrary figure that the noble Lord proposed is appropriate at this time.
Lord Lucas (Con)
I understand that, but it still requires something in the Bill to allow a minimum number. We can return to that matter on Report.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment of Schedule 6 at page 218, line 17.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment of Schedule 6 at page 218, line 17.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment of Schedule 6 at page 218, line 17.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment of Schedule 6 at page 218, line 17.
(a) the period of 20 working days starting with the day after the day on which the CAC gives the union (or unions) notice under paragraph 15(5) that the application is accepted, or(b) such longer period (so starting) as the CAC may specify to the parties by notice containing reasons for the extension.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would provide that, where an application under Part 1 of Schedule A1 to the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (recognition of trade union as entitled to conduct collective bargaining) has been made, the period for agreeing terms on which the trade union seeking recognition is to have access to the relevant workers in connection with the application is 20 working days following notification that the union’s application is accepted. The amendment would also enable the Central Arbitration Committee to specify a longer period.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment of Schedule 6 at page 218, line 17.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment of Schedule 6 at page 218, line 17.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment of Schedule 6 at page 218, line 17.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment of Schedule 6 at page 218, line 17.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment of Schedule 6 at page 218, line 17.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment of Schedule 6 at page 218, line 17.
“21A In paragraph 39 (admissibility of applications: same bargaining unit), in sub-paragraph (5), after “40” insert “, 40A”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment makes a consequential amendment of Schedule A1 to the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 as a result of the amendment made by paragraph 23 of Schedule 6 to the Bill.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment of Schedule 6 at page 218, line 17.
“27A In paragraph 47 (validity of applications: same bargaining unit), in sub-paragraph (3), after “48” insert “, 48A”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment makes a consequential amendment of Schedule A1 to the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 as a result of the amendment made by paragraph 29 of Schedule 6 to the Bill.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment of Schedule 6 at page 218, line 17.
“Changes relevant to appropriateness of bargaining unit
32A (1) Paragraph 67 (admissibility of applications: employer or union believes bargaining unit no longer appropriate) is amended as follows.(2) In sub-paragraph (2)(c), at the end insert “(but see sub-paragraph (3)).”(3) After sub-paragraph (2) insert—“(3) In a case where the application was received by the CAC before the end of the period of three years starting with the day on which the declaration referred to in paragraph 64(1)(a) was issued, the CAC must disregard the matter specified in sub-paragraph (2)(c).”32B (1) Paragraph 70 (determination of bargaining unit by CAC) is amended as follows.(2) In sub-paragraph (3)(c), at the end insert “(but see sub-paragraph (3A)).”(3) After sub-paragraph (3) insert—“(3A) In a case where the application was received by the CAC before the end of the period of three years starting with the day on which the declaration referred to in paragraph 64(1)(a) was issued, the CAC may not take into account the matter specified in sub-paragraph (3)(c).”32C In paragraph 75 (questions for CAC to decide where employer believes bargaining unit has ceased to exist), in sub-paragraph (3)(c), at the end insert “(but see paragraph 77(4A)).”32D In paragraph 77 (CAC’s decision as to appropriateness of bargaining unit, etc), after sub-paragraph (4) insert—“(4A) In a case where the copy of the notice given to the CAC by the employer under paragraph 74(1) was received by the CAC before the end of the period of three years starting with the day on which the declaration referred to in paragraph 64(1)(a) was issued, in deciding whether the original unit is no longer appropriate the CAC must disregard the matter specified in paragraph 75(3)(c).””Member's explanatory statement
This amendment provides that, where the Central Arbitration Committee has issued a declaration that a trade union is recognised as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of a bargaining unit, and a decision of the CAC as to the continued appropriateness of the bargaining unit is sought under Part 3 of Schedule A1 to the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 before the end of the period of three years beginning with the date of the declaration, the CAC is not to take into account substantial changes in the number of workers employed in the original unit.
(a) the period of 20 working days starting with the day after the day on which the CAC gives the union (or unions) notice under paragraph 68(5) or 76(5) that the application is accepted, or (b) such longer period (so starting) as the CAC may specify to the parties by notice containing reasons for the extension.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would provide that, where an application under Part 3 of Schedule A1 to the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (changes affecting bargaining unit) has been made, the period for agreeing terms on which the trade union concerned is to have access to the relevant workers in connection with the application is 20 working days following notification that the application is accepted. The amendment would also enable the Central Arbitration Committee to specify a longer period.
“(iii) if the CAC informs the union (or unions) under paragraph 25(9) (where it applies by virtue of paragraph 89(4)) of any ballot arising from the application, the CAC acting under paragraph 29 (where it applies by virtue of paragraph 89(5)) in relation to the ballot.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that, where the Central Arbitration Committee decides that a complaint about unfair practices in connection with an application under Part 3 of Schedule A1 to the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 is well-founded, the CAC may make an order under paragraph 81I(3) of that Schedule, or give notice of a ballot under paragraph 81I(5), whether or not a ballot arising from the application has been held.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that, where the Central Arbitration Committee decides that a complaint about unfair practices in connection with an application under Part 3 of Schedule A1 to the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 is well-founded, the CAC may issue a declaration under paragraph 81J(4) or (5) of that Schedule whether or not a ballot arising from the application has been held.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment of Schedule 6 at page 249, line 32.
(a) the period of 20 working days starting with the day after the day on which the CAC gives the union (or unions) notice under paragraph 111(5) or 115(5) that the application is accepted, or(b) such longer period (so starting) as the CAC may specify to the parties by notice containing reasons for the extension.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would provide that, where an application under Part 4 of Schedule A1 to the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (derecognition) has been made, the period for agreeing terms on which the trade union concerned is to have access to the relevant workers in connection with the application is 20 working days following notification that the application is accepted. The amendment would also enable the Central Arbitration Committee to specify a longer period.
(a) refuse the employer’s application under paragraph 106 or 107;(b) order the employer to refrain from any campaigning in relation to an application under paragraph 112.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides for a sanction where an employer fails to comply with an access agreement under Part 4 of Schedule A1 to the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 and the application for derecognition of a trade union as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of a bargaining unit has been made by one or more workers in the unit under paragraph 112 of that Schedule. The Central Arbitration Committee may order the employer not to campaign in relation to the application.
116EA “(1) This paragraph applies if the CAC has made an order under paragraph 116E(4)(b) in relation to an application under paragraph 112.(2) The worker making the application (or each of the workers making the application) and the union (or each of the unions) are entitled to enforce obedience to the order.(3) The order may be enforced—(a) in England and Wales, in the same way as an order of the county court;(b) in Scotland, in the same way as an order of the sheriff.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment of Schedule 6 at page 249, line 32. It enables the worker making the application in question, or the trade union concerned, to enforce an order made against an employer requiring the employer not to campaign in relation to the application.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment of Schedule 6 at page 249, line 32.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment of Schedule 6 at page 249, line 32.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment of Schedule 6 at page 249, line 32.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment of Schedule 6 at page 218, line 17.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment of Schedule 6 at page 218, line 17.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment of Schedule 6 at page 247, line 2.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment of Schedule 6 at page 249, line 32.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment of Schedule 6 at page 249, line 38.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendments of Schedule 6 at page 249, lines 32 and 38.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment of Schedule 6 at page 247, line 2.
Baroness Coffey
and insert “, in subsection (1)—
(a) omit “of those voting on a ballot”;(b) after “union”, insert “by a ballot”.” Member’s explanatory statement
The intention of this amendment is to remove the existing paragraphs (a) and (b) of the Clause, and ensure that the majority of all union members who could possibly vote are needed to pass a political resolution, not just the majority of those that vote.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 216YC, I will also speak to Amendment 216YD and address Amendment 217, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Burns, to which I have added my name—as indeed has my noble friend Lady Finn, whose birthday it is today; she knows how to have a good time. I will also address Amendment 218A and various other amendments, and Clause 77.
In essence, we are debating Clauses 58, 59 and 77. Clause 58 is about political funds. The situation has been that a political resolution is needed, and a fair, open, democratic process occurs every 10 years at most where members of the union are invited to keep the resolution going, or a new resolution may be put forward. One thing that concerns me is that this clause could simply wipe out that need.
I do not know in detail how every political resolution can be put forward, but my understanding of trade unions is that, by and large, individuals cannot put them forward. They can be put forward only through resolutions and motions, often by a person who is a delegate of a branch or similar. As a consequence, in effect, we have a situation where a political resolution can go on ad infinitum. I am not sure that that is the right approach.
I recognise that a lot of the rest of the Bill is about changing ways that people can vote to try to make it a lot more digital and a lot easier. I understand why the Labour Government, in partnership with the trade unions, believe that that is the right approach. I am also conscious, though, of why changes have been made in the past.
I am looking just to probe with my proposal. At the moment, there is a threshold for a strike where at least half of those eligible to vote have to vote. Here, there is none of that at all. It shows me somewhat that, even with trade unions, there is a lot of disengagement from this part of the process. I get that a lot of people are not necessarily opting out. To give an example, with the Musicians’ Union resolution, only 18% of members actually voted or participated in the ballot. With UNISON’s last resolution, fewer than 15% of its members were involved in determining whether to keep the resolution. As I said, this does not seem very open to anybody who might want to table a different resolution. I am not expecting UNISON to start contributing funds to the Conservative Party any time soon—I guess the name of its political fund, Labour Link, gives the game away on where UNISON would like its funds to go—and that is democracy, but I am thinking of ways that we could potentially extend this.
On Amendment 216YD, we seem to have had a lot of general elections recently, but I hope we are now in a situation where we hold elections every five years. If your Lordships were so inclined, it would make sense, recognising the direct link between political funds and political parties, to start to think about these political resolutions happening every five years instead of every 10 years. We are in a political world that is significantly changing. Almost every parliamentary constituency has at least five candidates, with at least six or seven outside of England, in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland. It is worth considering whether we should update this.
I generally agree with the proposal that we should get rid of Clause 59 in its entirety. I think back in particular to Second Reading. I will not go into detail, but the noble Lord, Lord Burns, spoke eloquently about what happened with his review. I do not plan to dwell on his amendment, as there are others who will contribute to it more. For me, it goes back to the need for a sensible approach instead of having to go through a long procedure, which to some extent is probably contrary to Article 11 and the implicit right not to join either a trade union or a political fund. This clause scraps that. Ministers have commented that that is okay. The basis is that you can opt out, and it will take effect the following January. You might have contributed a lot of money by then, but they think that is all right.
This is why I tabled my Amendment 218A; I am delighted that my noble friend Lady Cash supports it. If we go ahead with the opt-out approach then someone who opts out may not have all the necessary paperwork on the day they decide to opt out—apart from when they join the union in the first place. Therefore, if we gave them four weeks from their becoming a member of a trade union, during which they could decide that they did not want to contribute, their decision could be backdated to the day of joining. This is an approach for a modern world, where people may not want to spend all their time looking at the small print when they sign up to something to understand quite what they can or cannot do, which can affect their rights. Contrary to the Bill’s title—the Employment Rights Bill—the text as it stands in effect removes an employee’s rights. If the Government were to scrap that element about “the day” I would be more than delighted, although I would prefer to stick to the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Burns.
As regards some of the other approaches put forward in various amendments in this group, I would not in any way want to accuse any trade union of trying to allow intimidation or the like in their dealing with their members. We have heard the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady of Upper Holloway, eloquently cite, I am sure with good evidence and good experience, cases of employers intimidating. However, I think it is fair to say that some of the trade union reforms that happened over the past decades—very few of which were changed by the Blair and Brown Governments, I should point out—were made on the basis of concerns about intimidation. I hope the Minister will at least recognise some of the concerns that noble Lords may have in this group. A variety of amendments have been tabled, which all seek to get us to us to a similar place.
Finally, I will speak to Clause 77, which starts, in effect, to remove transparency. Transparency is a good thing when we talk about democracy and the contributions that organisations make to a variety of political parties. I am surprised that the Government are going down this route. I cannot believe that it is that arduous for trade unions to compile this information. There are other aspects of what is happening with the certification officer, which we will get on to in another group, but given the importance that has rightly been given to considering the issues concerning the Electoral Commission, it is right that we should also consider this issue carefully at this stage. I do not believe that removing transparency is the right direction for the Committee to take.
Although I intend to keep this debate lively and pacy, it is important that we make sure that we get to the bottom of why this provision has been felt to be necessary. I hope that the Minister will be able to explain, fundamentally, why the Government have taken a complete and utter about-turn if it has not been designed —I do not want to upset the noble Lord, Lord Goddard of Stockport—to increase the amount of political funds. I am sure those funds will be use in very good ways—well, considering my political party, perhaps not always in good ways—but when the transparency is removed we will not be able to have that scrutiny. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Barker) (LD)
I advise noble Lords that if Amendment 216YC is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment 216YD because of pre-emption.
Lord Burns (CB)
My Lords, my Amendment 217 relates to Clause 59 and the requirement to contribute to a political fund, and I am grateful for the support of the noble Baronesses, Lady Finn, Lady Coffey and Lady Cash. As we know, by law, a trade union wishing to spend money on party-political activities must set up a separate political fund for financing any such expenditure.
The amendment addresses a single issue: whether new trade union members should be explicitly asked whether they wish to opt in to contributing to the union’s political fund or should automatically become contributors to the political fund unless they take action to opt out. The present position is that new trade union members become contributors to the political fund only if they give notice of their willingness to do so by submitting an opt-in notice. Additionally, every year unions must notify members of their right to submit a withdrawal notice.
Clause 59 proposes to change both conditions so that new members will automatically become contributors to the union’s political fund unless they give notice of their wish to opt out, and will be notified of their right to submit a withdrawal notice only every 10 years, rather than every year as at present.
This is a controversial issue today and one that has been debated for more than 100 years. The position on opt-in or opt-out has changed several times since trade union political funds were legalised in 1913. I am very sorry for my cough.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)
Will the noble Lord give way? He might find an opportunity to take advantage of the water that was provided. I just wanted to say that the noble Lord, Lord Burns, is making a very powerful contribution to this debate and I am going to support him in his argument. I am very grateful to the noble Lord for giving way.
Lord Burns (CB)
I thank the noble Baroness for those kind words. Unfortunately, it is the season of the year when I take various inhalers for hay fever and such like and the dust tends to gather in my throat when I am sitting for long periods, as I have been this afternoon.
I was just mentioning that this is a debate which has gone on for a long time. Between 1946 and 2016, members automatically became contributors to political funds unless they opted out. In 1984 the Conservative Government considered legislating to change to the opt-in model but settled for an agreement that the unions would increase awareness among members of their right to opt out.
In 2015 the Conservative Government introduced a Trade Union Bill that proposed to change the system so that both existing and new members would contribute to the political fund only if they explicitly opted to do so. The Labour Opposition argued that this change would have a negative impact on the size of union political funds, and consequently Labour Party funding. They argued that this should be done only in the context of broader party funding reform. They were successful in establishing a Select Committee to consider the issue and to find a solution in parallel with the Bill’s progress.
I was asked to chair the committee, and several other members of the committee remain Members of the House today. The committee concluded that reintroducing an opt-in process for all members, including existing members, could significantly reduce the number of union members participating in political funds. It also concluded that this would lead to a significant reduction in union payments to the Labour Party while leaving donations to other parties unaffected.
A majority—but not all—of the committee concluded that the proposed requirement to opt in should not apply to existing members unless it was part of a broader reform of party funding. However, the committee unanimously decided that the opt-in mechanism should apply to all new members. After further debate, the Conservative Government accepted compromise amendments that limited the opt-in mechanism to new members, despite some significant unhappiness on their own side.
I acknowledge that there is no conclusive approach to determining whether opting in is better or worse than opting out. In some cases, opting out is deemed appropriate, such as in the case of workplace pensions, where the failure to opt in could result in future costs for government. However, evidence from various settings suggests that when it comes to making additional payments, more people will end up paying if they must opt out rather than opt in. The more cumbersome the administrative hurdles to opting out, the greater the likelihood an individual will not exercise their right to do so. Such administrative hurdles increase the likelihood that the outcome will not be in the best interests of the individual.
On balance, I prefer that we should ensure that people make informed decisions based on clear and transparent options. With most financial products—and decisions about allowing tech companies to use individuals’ data—there is a requirement to explicitly opt in. The concern is that allowing companies to require opt-out preys on people’s inertia. Furthermore, we have spent hours in this House debating the data Bill and the question of opting in or opting out of AI models’ ability to learn from copyrighted material. My own view is that requiring people to explicitly opt in reflects their preferences more accurately.
During a helpful conversation with the Minister, for which I am grateful, she emphasised that this is not simply a return to the position pre 2016. However, my fear is that in substance that is indeed what it is. I would welcome clarification on some aspects of the Government’s proposals. Will it be a requirement that the union’s application form for members joining a union continues to include a statement to the effect that a member may choose to opt out of the political fund and that they will not suffer any detriment if they choose not to contribute? Will new members have the option of choosing to opt out before completing the application? Why do the Government wish to change the requirement that a member be reminded annually of the right to opt out? The new proposal is that they should be reminded only every 10 years. What is the Government’s justification for this change?
Is there any reason why it should not be possible to give an unbiased choice at the time of joining? There could be two questions—two boxes—and a requirement to tick one box. One might say, “I wish to contribute to the union’s political fund”, and the other, “I do not wish to contribute to the union’s political fund”. The application would not be complete without ticking one or the other—a practice that we see very often these days, particularly with online applications. Does the Minister anticipate that the proportion of new members contributing to political funds will be higher under this legislation than has been the experience under the present 2016 Act and, if so, by how much?
Finally, I say this to the Government in the friendliest terms I can muster: why are they running the risk that the next time there is a change of government there will be another reversal which results in something less favourable to Labour than the 2016 compromise? Another reversal might well introduce the opt-in system for all members, both new and existing; in other words, the proposal on the table before the 2016 compromise that caused all the trouble at that point.
I stress that I have no view on whether trade union members’ contributions to political funds are too high or too low. Having tried, with a small amount of success, to find a resolution to the issue in 2016, my only ambition in involving myself in this Bill is to secure a lasting solution to the issue of contributions to political funds that can stand the test of time, as I hoped the 2016 compromise would. The purpose of my amendment is to oppose the move to an opt-out mechanism until we have more justification for such a change and greater clarity about some of the questions I have outlined.
Lord Prentis of Leeds (Lab)
My Lords, I speak in favour of the Employment Rights Bill unamended and declare an interest as I was general secretary of the UK’s largest union, UNISON, for over 20 years. It has over 1.3 million members; over 1 million of them women, mainly low paid. I have seen at first hand over those 20 years the good which our political funds can do. In my own union the political funds support our campaigns—campaigns to reform the social care sector, which we have talked about often in this place; campaigns for fairer pensions for women, for better rights for disabled workers and human rights in Northern Ireland—and, something I am particularly proud of, our anti-racism work.
Our political funds support projects to bring children from Asian and white communities together. They fund our work tackling racism as part of HOPE not hate, and our work with footballers on Show Racism the Red Card in schools and at football matches over the past 20 years. The fund is used to send films to every school on the horrors of the Holocaust. It is used for ground-breaking initiatives to build fairer and safer communities. What many do not realise is that, without using the resources of our political funds, it would be unlawful for trade unions to campaign politically on behalf of members in any pre-election period—not just Westminster elections but all elections. The slow drain of money from the political funds caused by the 2016 Act and arrangements is having a serious effect on the right that trade unions have had for more than 100 years: the right to campaign politically.
How political funds are used varies from union to union. Many unions have political funds that are not affiliated to any political party, such as the National Education Union, the NASUWT and PCS, to name just three. Only 13 of the 48 unions in the TUC are affiliated to the Labour Party. My own union is affiliated, but it always makes it transparently clear when a member joins that their political contribution goes either to the Labour Link or to the non-affiliated section of the fund known as the campaign fund. New members can choose to pay into one or the other or both—or, until 2016, they could opt out. There were no subscription traps. New members were not misled. There were no barriers to opting out, and the opting out arrangement, as has been said, operated for more than 60 years through Labour, Tory and coalition Administrations before the 2016 Act.
It is with this in mind that I reflected on the contribution made by the noble Lord, Lord Burns, in reaching a way forward in 2016. I thank him for that, but I do not think that his amendment today should be progressed. It proposes that the 2016 arrangements continue under any new legislation. I ask the noble Lord not to pursue the amendment. Despite his good efforts, the 2016 arrangements have not proved a long-term solution for trade union political funds. They are gradually being drained of resources and, with that, so is the ability to campaign.
More to the point, in any democracy there will always be the threat that any incoming Government could put the clock back. There is always a very real possibility that we could get consistent ping-pong on many policies, not just on the political funds. Unfortunately, even if we leave things as they are, there is no guarantee that any change of government would not lead to another trade union Act more draconian than the 2016 Act. The possibility of consistent ping-pong in itself is not an argument for leaving things as they are; neither is it an argument for not returning to the principle of opting out, which operated for 60 years.
The Trade Union Act 2016 did what it intended to do. It deliberately placed considerable and costly burdens on trade unions, and it sought to reduce funding to the Labour Party. That was its purpose. But in doing that, it also compromised the ability of trade unions to provide a campaigning and political voice for working people in our country. That is why the Employment Rights Bill, unamended, is so important. That is why I ask noble Lords not to pursue the amendments to the political fund clauses of the Bill but to allow it to move forward unopposed.
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, I speak in support of the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Burns. I apologise that I was not able to speak at Second Reading, but I did have the pleasure of working on the Trade Union Act in 2016. I well remember the setting up of the Select Committee on Trade Union Political Funds and Political Party Funding. Its report forced the requirement for new members to opt in to the political fund following its recommendations.
The committee was brilliantly chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Burns. I know that phrases such as “showed the best of this House” can sometimes be overused, but in this instance it was absolutely the case. It reported, I think, in five weeks. The secretariat was absolutely magnificent. The most important thing was that it was a cross-party committee and produced a cross-party consensus on the recommendations in all but one area, which I will return to.
One of the key considerations, and the one that is pertinent to this amendment, was the Conservative Party’s manifesto commitment that, in future, union members would be asked to opt in to contributing to their political fund, rather than just being given the opportunity of opting out. At the time, most members of a union with a political fund paid a political levy into the fund unless they took the active decision to opt out of doing so. I remember that the Select Committee spent a long time debating this. I hear the noble Lord, Lord Prentis, who said that this was the established practice for 60 years, but there was quite a strong debate. My noble friend Lord King felt that the King-Murray agreement had not been met in full with the requirements to report opting out.
The report produced some very helpful conclusions. One of the most relevant to today’s debate was that no one challenged the principle of moving from opt-out to opt-in. There were differences of opinion about how and when to make the move and, critically, whether it should apply to existing members, but the report basically accepted the principle. The Labour Party had some understandable concerns. It was fearful that a move to opt-in would mean that many union members would decide not to contribute to the political fund and that such a move was fundamentally unfair.
However, when Sir Nick Clegg appeared before the Committee, he said:
“I regard political opinion, affiliation and support as a sovereign decision for an individual citizen”.
He was, of course, completely right. Opt-in is supported because people should not be assumed to support any proposition, organisation, product or service, simply because they have failed, often through inertia, to say no. Companies have been rightly pilloried when they have assumed that the customer has signed up to something because they failed to tick a box or to see the small print. If a trade union member decides that he or she does not wish to contribute to a political fund, that is their decision; they should have the opportunity to actively choose to do so.
The behavioural experts consulted by the committee gave some powerful evidence about the impact of inertia on human behaviour. At the time, the power of inertia benefited the unions because only 11% of their members made the effort to opt out of the political fund. Under the then Government’s proposals, inertia would work against the unions. Human nature meant it would be extremely difficult to persuade existing members to make an active choice about whether to opt in. Indeed, Dr David Halpern of the Behavioural Insights Team said that analogous situations led him to expect a fall of 20% to 30% in political fund participation rates.
That brought us on to the second consideration, which was that the move to opt in for existing members would have an impact on the funding of one particular party, the Labour Party. On balance, the committee concluded that there would be a significant reduction in union payments to the Labour Party. The committee agreed that one way of easing this dilemma would be to distinguish between the requirements for new members and those for existing members of trade unions. For new members, it was unanimously agreed that opt-in was the correct way forward. Across many different walks of life, it is increasingly recognised that people should be asked to exercise an active choice and that organisations should not rely on inertia. The recommendation that, after a minimum transition period of 12 months, anyone joining a union with a political fund should pay the political levy only if they have actively chosen to do so was subsequently incorporated into the Trade Union Act 2016. It is that consensus that the Labour Party is seeking to undo today with this Bill.
This was not the case in the treatment of existing members. The fear was not of existing members choosing to opt out rather than opt in, but that they would simply choose to make no choice at all. I recall many heated discussions about whether the opt-in system should be extended to existing members, perhaps on a longer transition period than for new members, or whether existing contributors should not be included in the Act—option two. This was because it was feared that extending the opt-in to existing members would have a significant negative effect on union and Labour Party funding, even with an extended transition period. I well recall those discussions. The noble Lord, Lord Burns, talks about considerable unhappiness on our Benches, and he is not understating the case: when the second option was chosen, there were howls of “Bad faith!” It was at a critical juncture in the Brexit referendum period.
I rather subscribe to the view of Sir Winston Churchill:
“It has become a well-established custom that matters affecting the interests of rival parties should not be settled by the imposition of the will of one side over the other, but by an agreement reached either between the leaders of the main parties or by conferences under the impartial guidance of Mr Speaker”.—[Official Report, Commons, 16/2/1948; cols. 859-60.]
Paragraph 115 of the Select Committee report stated:
“If any government were to use its majority unilaterally to inflict significant damage on the finances of opposition parties, it would risk starting a tit-for-tat conflict which could harm parliamentary democracy”.
So, while it is wrong for a Government to use their power to undermine their opponents, it is also wrong for a Government to act in a way that leaves it open to question whether they are acting in the interests of the country as a whole or the interests of their own party.
The Labour Party’s dependence on trade union funds means that a policy could potentially be seen to be up for sale. Just as I had sympathy at the time with the need not to inflict damage on the finances of an opposition party, I find myself now more than a little bothered that the Labour Benches are seeking to unwind the unanimously agreed principle of opt-in so that their own party’s finances will be improved. I am sure that they would not wish to be accused of the abuse of entrusted power for private gain, but that is the effect of Clause 59. It is for this reason, and because of the compelling and universal arguments in favour of opt-in, that I have added my name in support of this amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Burns.
Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)
I am sorry to do this to the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, on her birthday, but she was in a very key position in government for some time, so it would be helpful if, first, she could confirm, on the issue of ballot turnouts, that the previous Government, over their 14 years, received repeated representations from trade unions to enjoy the same rights that political parties enjoy to safe and secure balloting in a bid to boost democratic turnout in ballots, so that we would be able to encourage and engage more members in ballots. What we got, I think, was a review and a promise of a pilot that was never seen again.
Secondly, comparisons were made between trade union membership and subscriptions to commercial services, whereas, of course, membership of a democratic organisation which exists to defend your rights is not the same as a subscription to a for-profit service.
Finally, because we have heard a lot in this debate about balance, can the noble Baroness confirm whether the previous Government ever considered shareholders having the right to veto political donations by companies? I have never even heard of a shareholder’s right to opt out, never mind a requirement that they should opt in before a political donation is made by a company.
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her intervention. I cannot speak to the balloting, et cetera, which is out of the scope of this amendment. I can say that shareholders in companies are able to vote at their company’s AGM.
I did not pay tribute in my speech—and I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Prentis—to the brilliant political campaigns that were run by UNISON when I was in government. They were remarkable, and my support for opt-in does not diminish my admiration for them.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, very briefly, I support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Burns. I want to emphasise that, in a period of mass disillusion with mainstream parties, opt-in was actually a very important way of putting those parties on their guard that they had to inspire people to want to opt in. Relying on inertia, or not being in a situation where you feel you need to go out and win the support of people to opt in politically, is very dangerous, because it will create the kind of complacency that we have seen mainstream parties of all sides show over recent years.
I note that it would be dangerous—and I am sure that nobody is implying this—for the party of government, the Labour Party, to assume that it is any longer the party that represents the working class. Long gone are the days when that claim could be made, and I think that it would be better for that party to consider how it can inspire ordinary working people to support it, both at the ballot box but also in relation to something such as political funds. I had every sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Prentis of Leeds, talking about the difficulties of campaigning when you do not have enough money. Tell me about it: I have been doing it for years. I have not had a political fund to help, mind.
It all sounded very admirable, but it really did sound as though the noble Lord was discussing not so much UNISON but an activist campaign group, a particular group around particular issues. That is fine. I have no objection to that: I am involved in some of those campaigns, although not all of them. I have to go out and raise the funds in order to be able to carry on campaigning for things I believe in. I do not think it is right that trade unions use their political funds to pursue what are political issues beyond the issues of trade unionism. Trade unionism is a particular thing. It can inspire great political revolutions over the years, I agree, but it is not a hobby-horse for trade union bureaucrats to pursue the particular political issues that they enjoy or agree with.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, I shall primarily speak to the amendments in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Cash in respect of political funds, but I will say in passing that I found the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and the excellent speeches of my noble friends Lady Coffey and Lady Finn not just erudite but very compelling.
There is a challenge to try to understand what has significantly changed that has led the Government to make these epochal amendments to what has been accepted by Governments of all persuasions—including, as has been said, the Blair and Brown Governments—which will radically alter industrial relations.
Baroness Cash (Con)
My Lords, I support the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Burns, those from my noble friend Lady Coffey—which I have signed, as she referred to—and those in the name of my noble friend Lord Jackson, as well as Amendments 222, 223 and 218A. I hope I have covered all of them. I also support this group in more general terms. I draw the Committee’s attention to my interests as declared in the register, in particular that I am a significant shareholder in a listed business, so I am an employer, and that I am a member of the Equality and Human Rights Commission.
I want to address what is a fundamental attack on one of the rights under the Human Rights Act by which we incorporated the European Convention on Human Rights into this jurisdiction. There is a fundamental democratic right not to be forced to support a political party, either unwittingly or by coercion—though I am not by any stretch of the imagination suggesting that this is by coercion. My noble friends have referenced financial services and the noble Lord, Lord Burns, referenced issues with data protection. We know that there are major problems with fundamental infringements of people’s rights when we have opt-out scenarios. People unwittingly continue to subscribe to pay when they should not do so.
Unlike my noble friend Lady Coffey, who politely said that she was surprised by this government proposal, I am shocked, because some noble Lords on the Government Benches have as much knowledge of human rights and the European Convention on Human Rights as I do. They will know that, under Article 11, there is a right to free association. We are guaranteed both the right to associate freely and the right not to be compelled into supporting associations or political causes.
This has been the subject of a number of decisions in the European Court of Human Rights. I know the Prime Minister has talked tentatively about whether we will remain part of the court, but for the time being we are and therefore have to abide by its laws and decisions. It made it very clear in a decision called Young, James and Webster v United Kingdom in 1981 that compelled political donations are incompatible with Article 11, unless free and informed consent is given by the individual.
There may be those on the Government Benches who think that that is fine because it is covered by the period of notice and the person can then opt out, but it does not cover that. There is no mechanism at all in the Government’s proposals to facilitate any refund. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Prentis; I see that he is surprised by that comment, but there is no refund mechanism. The way that the measures are currently drafted means that there is a minimum notice period for an individual to be notified of their rights to opt out of up to eight weeks. After that, one payroll cycle is allowed before the opt-out takes place. That means there is the possibility of three months’ worth of subscription or levy being taken from an individual employee to contribute to the Labour Party. Let us not beat about the bush: this is a compelled donation to a political party.
Lord Barber of Ainsdale (Lab)
Will the noble Baroness permit an intervention? As my noble friend Lord Prentis mentioned, there are 48 unions affiliated to the TUC; 13 of them also affiliate, subscribe and contribute to the funding of the Labour Party, and 35 do not. Most of those 35 have a political fund which they use to support their campaigning, but not to make contributions to the Labour Party.
Baroness Cash (Con)
I am very grateful to the noble Lord for that assistance. I therefore look forward to the amendment put forward by the Government to exempt those 13, given the law that I am explaining and the attack on the freedom of association that should be maintained in this country.
Lord Hendy (Lab)
Will the noble Baroness permit me to intervene? She spoke about Article 11 of the European Convention and freedom of association, and the right to join a trade union and be a member for the protection of one’s interests. This is spelled out in Article 11.1. She mentioned the case of Young, James and Webster v the United Kingdom, which established that there is a negative right not to become a member of a trade union, as well as a positive right to become a member. However, the European Court of Human Rights has never held in any case that a member of an organisation, a political party or a trade union can opt out of a particular payment that that organisation is making.
Baroness Cash (Con)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his intervention, but he is wrong. The European Court has ruled that it is not possible. Article 11 does not permit compelling any citizen of this country, or any member of a trade union, to make a payment by political association. That is simply not correct.
Lord Hendy (Lab)
Let me put it more respectfully: I disagree. That is not what the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights on Article 11 demonstrates. There is no right, if you are a member of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, to opt out of any contribution or expenditure it makes on any particular objective. There is no such right established under Article 11. You can opt out of being a member of the organisation, but you cannot opt out of what it has decided to spend its money on. All you can do is exercise your rights under its constitution to object or decide it should be spent on something else.
Baroness Cash (Con)
The noble Lord is, very respectfully, making interventions which do not follow the law. I will quote a couple of other cases because that may assist the debate: Sigurdsson v Iceland, and Sorensen and Rasmussen v Denmark. The noble Lord can join the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, and whether or not he opts out is not a matter for this debate. We are talking about the freedom to join a trade union, and the asking of those who have signed up to be a member of a trade union to contribute to campaigning funds—political funds. It is that political association—the taking of funding for that political association—which infringes the Article 11 right.
Lord Hendy (Lab)
Forgive me, but those two cases do not demonstrate that. I am familiar with this jurisprudence; I suggest that the noble Baroness read the cases again.
Baroness Cash (Con)
I understand that in this House people sometimes disagree, and perhaps, respectfully, that is happening here. I can give way as many times as the noble Lord likes, but it is plain from the case law and the jurisprudence, and from how Article 11 is taught at law school, where I have taught it as a guest, that this is how freedom of association applies.
After an opt-out has been introduced, there is no refund mechanism available to cover the period during which the funds will be taken by 13 of the trade unions and passed to the Labour Party. At least we are now agreed that 13 of the unions will be giving the funds to the Labour Party. In those circumstances, we are compelling people to support it. It is because the Human Rights Act and the European Court jurisprudence intervened—that was part of the conversations when the opt-in was considered. Looking at the contributions, financial or otherwise, made during that period, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Prentis, for drawing our attention to the decrease in political funding that has ensued because of the change. We know that that is why this change back needs to be made, but that does not make it right.
Lord Monks (Lab)
I was around when the noble Lord, Lord Burns, was chairing his committee and I was involved on the fringes of some of the work that was done. From the unions’ side, we appreciated very much what he did and the work the committee did with his colleagues. Getting that kind of arrangement was a get out of jail card for us—a halfway house, if you like, which is still promoted.
We were aware of the history. In 1927, when the Conservative Government introduced opting in instead of opting out, there was a catastrophic fall in the number of people who contributed to the union political fund; that was the truth of it. Unions did not have the administrative superstructure to go around and re-recruit people into that kind of arrangement. That was repealed by the Labour Government at the end of the Second World War, such was the anger about 1927—it was about the first thing they did. Hartley Shawcross, the Attorney-General, unwisely said, “We are the masters now”, which caused a lot of controversy, so this is not a bloodless issue. This is about party funding and the sinews of keeping a great party going under a lot of pressure from all kinds of people.
We were very pleased, and warmly welcomed the work that the noble Lord, Lord Burns, did. We had made an offer that maybe all party-political funding should be looked at. If there was some uneasiness about aspects of Labour’s arrangements, there is certainly some uneasiness about Conservative Party arrangements, which are not noted for their clarity and openness and all the other things the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, and others have been extolling as virtues, which they are trying to install into the union world. We hear a lot from the Conservative Party about deregulating business all over the place, but—
Baroness Finn (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for giving way. I just make the point that all political donations have to be transparently declared. My noble friend sitting next to me can explain more, as treasurer of the Conservative Party, but they are all declared.
Lord Monks (Lab)
I look forward to that degree of clarity in Conservative Party funding. We could all be enlightened by the explanation that I believe is about to come. We are talking about an amount of—
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
We had an excellent debate 10 years ago. With great respect, the noble Lord, Lord Monks, said that the transparency and clarity of donations to the Conservative Party leave something to be desired. Can he please be specific about this?
Lord Monks (Lab)
I will not be specific about it because I do not want to generally insult people, but over the years, there has been some dodgy funding of the Conservative Party. Maybe something has been done about it; maybe it has not. The noble Lord will tell us in a moment, I am sure.
I will say something about the amount of money we are talking about, which the noble Baroness, Lady Cash, touched on. In 2016, when I was much more au fait with this debate than I probably am today, the contribution that the union member made to the Labour Party was not much more than the price of a pint of beer. It has gone up a little bit if it is 10 quid now, but it was a modest amount. Comparisons with financial services, as the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, has made, are wrong, because the sums of money we are talking about there are much greater, and refunds, and all the rest of it. The kind of administrative fee that would be required for that amount of donation seems ridiculous.
On this side, we very much see this as an attempt to restore some Labour Party funding streams. I do, anyway—I will not speak for the Front Bench. I think it is important that the Labour Party gets the funding that it requires. I believe that going back to 1945, 1946 and so on is the right way to go, so I support the Government and the Bill.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
My Lords, I apologise for not having spoken at Second Reading, although I have been watching this debate with great interest. As chairman of the Conservative Party, I am delighted that today we announced record donations into the Conservative Party. None of those donations was forced; none of them was given to us because we compelled people to give them to us; and they were not given to us because of an administrative system that prevented people taking their money out or opting out. It was because people voluntarily wanted to support the cause that we stand for.
On the same day that we announced record inflows, thanks in many instances to my noble friend Lord Leigh, the Labour Party also saw significant donations, not substantially to the level of the Conservatives’. I think half of the donations came from unions, but some came from a number of individuals, including in this House from the noble Lord, Lord Alli—who I cannot see in his place—who continues to support the Labour Party and is a good lesson for all Peers to support the parties which fostered them.
The point is that in our democracy, we live in an extraordinary country where voluntary contributions make up how parties are funded. At the essence, if you distort that, you have enormous problems with how the public perceive politics and the responsiveness that political parties need to show to the public who support them in the first place.
I am a great proponent of the union movement. I think it is an essential element of capitalism—it ensures that there is balance between labour and capital—but if you distort that, you distort the economy, nearly always to the negligence of the people who are members of those unions.
The reason I have not spoken before is that it had not actually occurred to me the sort of damage that this Government are trying to do to this country. I could not believe that it was going to be the case that people will be compelled, in effect, to join the Labour Party or to contribute to it—I had to sit in these debates and read back transcripts. We just heard from the noble Lord, Lord Monks, who said exactly this: this is absolutely about redressing the balance in terms of party funding and to fund the Labour Party.
By the way, I respect that openness. The unions paid for the Labour victory and now they want to have their message delivered; they want the legislation moulded in their way. That is brutal politics of a kind that, frankly, I am just a bit squeamish about—but I rather admire.
I ask the Minister: is it really true that she is expecting people to be compelled to donate to a political fund, and that there is no mechanism for some form of compensation or redress if they decide to opt out? In a world where we can subscribe instantly to Apple Music, or whatever it is, at the touch of a button, and we are compelled to ensure that people’s subscriptions are reviewed on a constant basis, certainly annually at the absolute minimum, probably quarterly or maybe even monthly—rightly so—is it true that this mechanism will be reviewed every 10 years? It cannot be true that the Government are proposing 10 years beforepeople can see whether they should review their paperwork for a subscription to a political fund. This is remarkable.
I am actually amazed at the audacity, and I slightly admire it, as I said, but if we want a strong democracy and political parties that actually have trust placed in them by the people of this country, this sort of chicanery and gerrymandering is extremely dangerous. The amendments that have been proposed by Cross-Benchers are exceptionally eminent in the sense of making sure that we have a fair system to ensure that unions can indeed represent themselves politically. They can and should build political funds to advance their aims and some of the aims they have advanced over the last century or so are admirable, and I applaud them. But this must not be a mechanism for compelled donation to the Labour Party. It would be a disaster for our democracy, it would not benefit our unions and it would not help our country in any way at all—that is why I support these amendments today.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
My Lords, I support the amendments and congratulate the speakers today—in particular, the noble Lord, Lord Burns. I recall the debate some 10 years ago. I declare—although it has been declared for me—that I am senior treasurer of the Conservative Party and have been so for very many years.
The last time we had this debate, it was, shall we say, feisty. I was intervened on 12 times in one speech, which might be a bit of a record. It was a constructive debate, and I believe a solution was agreed. The noble Lord, Lord Monks, says it is a get out of jail for the unions. We wanted more and for it not just to be new members—we wanted it to be existing members—but a compromise was agreed that everybody felt was fair. I hope that in the spirit of this debate, the noble Lord, Lord Monks, reflects on his remarks and finds an opportunity to withdraw any suggestion that there is anything dodgy or not clear about political donations to our party—I would not make the same allegations about his party—because it is not the case. There is strict legislation on declaring donations and we are very careful to abide by it.
The world is an upside-down sort of world, is it not? In actual fact, the single largest donation to the Labour Party is not from unions—it is from an individual person who came to this country, made a lot of money and chose personally to give a large sum of money to the Labour Party. Good luck to him. To echo the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Johnson, we should commend and thank those people who wish to contribute politically to this country in whatever form they choose to do so, either going up and down streets waving leaflets and delivering them or choosing to give financially. Such people are good citizens to whom we owe a debt of gratitude.
The other upside-down world, of course, is the comment made by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, about shareholders. Public companies have an opt-in system. Every year, not every 10 years, shareholders have to vote for donations to be made to a political party if their company wishes to do it. So there is an opt-in for public companies, not that many public companies make donations to any political party—although I noticed in today’s submissions to the Electoral Commission that companies have chosen to give to the Labour Party, and good luck to them.
The history lesson that we have had is appropriate and relevant, because there is an element of toing and froing. The Burns report highlighted problems that had been in existence before the 2016 Act. It is worth reminding ourselves of those problems, because one would not want to see them again.
The Burns committee was told that the deal that existed between the Thatcher Government and the TUC had not been fulfilled, and that too many unions had failed to ensure that all union members were always aware of the fact that they did not need to contribute to the political fund. The then Government submitted written evidence that added that
“many unions that have a political fund are not transparent with members on their membership subscription forms about the existence of a political fund”,
and that
“their choice to opt-out of contributing to the fund; or the level of the member’s contribution towards the fund”
was not made clear. It stated that, of the 25 unions that had political funds in those days, 12 did not mention, on the subscription form,
“the existence of a political fund. Of the 11 unions that do reference a political fund … 5 do not make it clear that a member has a choice to opt-out”.
That was then, and that is not a situation that anyone, I think, would want to see come back—but there is a danger of that with this legislation.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
My Lords, I support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and the amendments seeking greater transparency for trade union members on where their money goes.
I support the retention of the status quo—so that people have to opt in—and maintaining the changes we saw made in 2016. I do so because these are moderate amendments. They do not attack the existence of the status quo or the political fund, which is, as is often announced on the websites of the unions, a campaigning fund. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Prentis, that it is made clear by UNISON and Unite to new members, when joining, what their fees are for. Certainly, it is clear to the public that some members are affiliated to the Labour Party, and some of the funds of political campaigning will indeed go to the Labour Party. I think the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, said that 13 were affiliated; I had the figure of 11 in my head, but that is only a small difference.
None of that is under attack; that is a subject for another debate. I would like to stress to your Lordships why I support the noble Lord, Lord Burns. This area has been very contentious for a century, and every single attempt to reach a settlement has involved compromise. Although one may think that the opting-in arrangement of the 1927 Act was against the interests of the trade unions, one has to remember that that was in the wake of the General Strike of 1926 and that the Conservative Party, which was the party of government, would not follow the inclination of many of its Back-Benchers—and, I think, one of its Front-Benchers, but I will not say whom —to get rid of the political fund. The Prime Minister of the day said, “We will not fire the first shot”.
That was an attempt to find a compromise, so that the trade unions could keep their political fund, continue to contribute to the Labour Party—which was a founder party and recognised as such by the Conservatives—and continue to campaign on the issues they judged important for their members. I agree that they have done great work, through their membership fees, on pensions and so on. Much of the settlement on the national insurance system not only drew on trade union knowledge and experience in practice but used their funds to nationalise —which I think was a less good idea.
We should have a spirit of compromise and reflect the compromise that was made in 2016. If we go down the route that the Government propose, I hope that the party on my side will again seek to bring in a compromise, because the laws of this Parliament should be made in the interest of transparency for all those affected by them. That goes for trade unionists in the workplace, who should have to opt in to a scheme in the interest of transparency. I support the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Burns.
Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)
My Lords, I will be extremely brief, as the dinner hour is upon us and there are—as we say—strangers in the House.
While I recognise the importance of transparency to inform members’ choice regarding funds, this group of amendments raises serious questions about proportionality. Amendments 216YC and 216YD would introduce notably higher thresholds for political resolutions, requiring support from a majority of all eligible members, rather than just those voting, and mandating new resolutions every five years. These are significant changes from the current practice. Likewise, Amendments 221 and 223—expertly explained by the noble Lord, Lord Burns—seek to reduce opt-out notices from 10 years to one or two.
While the intention behind these proposals is clear, the impact warrants careful consideration. Other issues have been slightly sidetracked. There are fundamental issues that I would like the Minister to address head-on. These issues are at the nub of trade unions and political funds, so we need some clarity on them from the Dispatch Box.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, what an important debate this has been. I think 14 noble Lords have participated, starting with my noble friend Lady Coffey. She dealt with Clause 58 in particular, whereas most of the rest of the debate has been around Clause 59.
I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Burns. His speech dominated the debate, as he set out so clearly the history of what he described as the 2016 compromise—which in fact it was—that Clause 59 now seeks to overturn. I accept the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Prentis of Leeds, about the importance of campaigning and seeing full participation in that area. I am also very grateful to my noble friend Lady Finn for coming specially on her birthday to remind us all of the role she played on the Burns committee. Despite interruptions, she got across a series of key points about that compromise. Those who were interrupting her did not seem to realise that shareholders have to approve any political donations made by companies—but never mind.
I move on quickly to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, and my noble friends Lord Jackson of Peterborough and Lady Cash, who had a fascinating exchange with the noble Lord, Lord Hendy. I have to say to the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, speaking now as a practising lawyer, that my noble friend Lady Cash is right: if money is taken for any period without knowledge or consent, freedom of association has been removed—it does not matter whether it is for a week, a month or a decade. In a way, though, that was a side issue.
The noble Lord, Lord Monks, then took us way back in time. We all always benefit from the noble Lord, Lord Monks. I still have the guilty feeling that I caused a cartoon to be shown in the Guardian showing him getting into bed with me, in which his was the face on a huge cart horse. I was Secretary of State for Employment, and I was being accused by the Guardian of being too nice to the trade union movement by getting into bed with the noble Lord, Lord Monks—but we are not in the same bed tonight.
We heard from my noble friend Lord Johnson of Lainston, who really put the record straight and elevated the sort of smears that were thrown—usually from a sedentary position—from the party opposite in that context. My noble friends Lord Leigh and Lady Lawlor did the same. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Goddard of Stockport, for really trying to encapsulate what has been a very complicated and detailed debate.
Let us be clear on one thing—and it is up to the Minister to respond to all the very valid points that have been raised: Clause 59 says that workers will be presumed to consent to union political contributions unless they actively opt out. This is a fundamental shift. It reverses the presumption of consent in a way that would never be tolerated were it an employer imposing such terms on a worker. Where, then, is the Government’s concern for free choice, transparency and the dignity of the individual to act without coercion? Surely, if we are to be consistent in protecting worker autonomy, we must apply the same standards to trade unions as we do to employers. Anything less is not principle; it is partisanship.
The Bill includes provisions that would require employers to provide workers with written statements outlining their trade union rights on day one of employment and at other points that the Government see fit. But until Amendment 218 comes along, that principle appears to vanish entirely so far as political fund contributions are concerned. A worker can be enrolled into a union and begin contributing to political causes, most often aligned with one single political party, without ever being clearly and directly told what that money supports or how to stop contributing. I believe that to be a serious democratic deficit.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, Lord Jackson of Peterborough and Lord Burns, and the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, for tabling their amendments.
I start by speaking to Amendment 217. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Burns, for the constructive engagement that we have had on the topic of political funds in recent weeks and for his thoughtful contributions to this debate. I echo the points a number of noble Lords have made on that. I am grateful for his considerable work in chairing the Trade Union Political Funds and Political Party Funding Committee in 2016, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, for her work on that committee.
However, the Government’s view is that the political fund changes brought in by the Trade Union Act 2016 had the impact of limiting unions’ ability to raise funds to enable them to campaign on political issues that were important to them. Therefore, as we have been debating, the Bill repeals the requirement for trade unions to opt out their members from contributions to political funds, unless they have expressly requested to opt in. This will mean that new trade union members will be automatically opted in to contributions to a political fund unless they expressly opt out.
The noble Baroness, Lady Finn, talked about Churchill’s quote on avoiding tit for tat in parliamentary democracies. However, what we are proposing broadly restores the position before the passage of the Trade Union Act 2016, which had been the position for the previous 70 years. So our proposal is a very long- standing set of propositions. I should also say to noble Lords that the change we are proposing will apply only to new members of a trade union, with the current opt- out status of existing members remaining unchanged.
Several noble Lords have described workers as being “compelled” to make political donations to the Labour Party. This is simply not the case. It remains a decision for each individual trade union member that they are free to make as to whether they wish to contribute to any political fund of a trade union.
The Government have been mindful of the conclusions of the Trade Union Political Funds and Political Party Funding Committee, and indeed we have learned lessons from that report. I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and indeed the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, and others, that we have been careful to draft the Bill to ensure that new members will continue to be notified of their right to opt out on the membership form that they will have to fill in when they join the union. In line with the recommendation in the report of the noble Lord’s committee, the membership form will also have to make it clear that opting out will not affect other aspects of their membership.
This is a substantial change to the legal requirements that existed pre 2016. These changes to the system that existed before 2016 should help to address concerns that trade union members were not always aware of their right to opt out of the political fund. Unions will also be required to send an opt-out reminder notice to members on a 10-year basis.
We have been clear on our intention to substantially repeal the Trade Union Act 2016, as set out in our Make Work Pay plan. Retaining the automatic opt-out, as proposed by this amendment, would frustrate the goal and maintain unnecessary and burdensome requirements on the way that trade unions manage their political funds.
I should have responded earlier to one of the other questions from the noble Lord, Lord Burns, about the Government’s impact assessment. The Government’s impact assessment on the repeal of the Trade Union Act set out:
“The return to an ‘opt-out’ option for political fund contributions for new union members with political funds may increase the proportions of new members contributing to the political fund in these unions”.
So we have made an assessment of that.
I also say to the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Cash, and others, that what we are proposing is clearly not the same as consumers spending billions of pounds each week on unwanted subscriptions due to unclear terms and conditions and complicated cancellation routes. What we are proposing here is that a union, which is a collective of workers, and its political fund should be considered in that light. If a union has a political fund, its members have control over how their political fund is spent, through the democratic structures of the union. Unions put considerable effort into raising engagement in their democratic processes, which any member is free to participate in, meaning that they are able to decide on how their political fund is used.
I am grateful for my noble friend Lord Prentis for reminding us of that and indeed giving us some very good examples of how his political fund has been used in campaigning. He and others also made the point that less than half of the unions that have political funds affiliate to the Labour Party. Indeed, only a minority of Labour Party funds at the last election came from unions’ political funds.
I turn to Amendments 221, 222, 223, 223A and 223B, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe. Section 84A specifies that a union must send information notices reminding its members of the right to opt out of contributing to the union’s political fund, should one exist. Amendments 221, 222 and 223 would introduce the requirement on trade unions to send those notices to members every two years, as opposed to every 10 years, as specified in the Bill. We acknowledge that the removal of the 10-year political fund review ballots could reduce awareness among trade union members of their right to opt out of the political fund contributions. This is why we amended the Bill to require that unions send opt-out reminders on a 10-year basis.
The Government believe that 10 years strikes the appropriate balance between maintaining awareness among members of their right to opt out of contributing to a political fund while minimising the administrative and cost burdens on unions of providing such a notification. It also reflects the current arrangements for the 10-yearly review of ballots and recognises that the Bill will ensure that new members will already have been made aware of their right to opt out when they apply for union membership.
Amendment 223A would require unions to issue opt-out information notices that comply with specific requirements. The Bill will require unions to issue opt-out notices that comply with the rules of the union. Unions must provide the certification officer with a copy of their opt-out notice. Members of a trade union will be able to complain to the certification officer if they do not believe that an opt-out notice complies with Section 84A of the Trade Union Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. In those circumstances, the certification officer can issue an order to remedy this failure if the complaint is upheld. So this amendment is unnecessary as there are already requirements for opt-out notices that unions must comply with.
Amendment 223B would grant the certification officer the capacity to conduct audits of opt-out notices to monitor compliance with Section 84A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, as amended by the Bill. The legislative framework as amended by the Bill will allow the certification officer to investigate complaints from members about failure to comply with Section 84A, but the power to conduct audits is unnecessary and disproportionate to the rest of the powers of the certification officer, who will continue to hold their powers after the repeal of the Trade Union Act.
Amendment 218, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, would require trade union members to confirm their ongoing willingness to contribute to a political fund on an annual basis, and they would need to be given an annual notice about their right to opt out of the political fund. As I have mentioned, we believe that requiring unions to issue opt-out reminders to members every 10 years is proportionate and aligns with the current frequency of 10-year review ballots. The Government also believe that, if members have joined a union and are notified of their right to opt out, their decision not to opt out clearly reflects their consent to make political fund contributions. Asking members to reconfirm their willingness to contribute to the union’s political fund on an annual basis would impose an onerous and unnecessary burden on unions and their members. Indeed, members are not currently required to restate on a regular basis their preference to either opt in or opt out of political fund contributions.
Amendment 218B, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, would alter Section 84 to require unions to provide members with a defined means of opting out of political fund contributions, including a digital option and allowing the certification officer to issue guidance or prescribe minimum technical standards on the opt-out notice. We are already clear in the Bill that members of a trade union are able to be served an opt-out notice via post, email, completion of an electronic form or such other electronic means as may be prescribed. Therefore, we are already making it easy and straight- forward for members to express their decision to opt out should they so desire. The certification officer already issues a set of model rules for political funds, and the rules of every union’s political fund must be approved by the certification officer.
Amendment 218C would create a statutory right for members not to suffer any detriment when deciding to opt out of political fund contributions, and it would allow members to complain to the certification officer where they feel that that right has been breached. Such an amendment is unnecessary, given that Section 82 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 already compels unions to inform members in their union rules that they shall not be placed at a disadvantage or disability compared with other union members, nor will they be excluded from benefits, if they decide not to contribute to the political fund. Members can also complain to the certification officer if that rule is breached.
Amendment 218D would require unions to issue an opt-out reminder notice on the day that a member joins the union. Through Clause 59, which amends Section 82 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act, we will require unions to inform members of their right to opt out of political fund contributions on any forms, including electronic forms, that members must complete in order to join a union. This requirement will make the need to provide new members with an opt-out notice on joining a union superfluous.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
Can the Minister clarify—to be absolutely crystal clear—that, by removing Section 32ZB, union members will have absolutely no idea where campaign money is being spent?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
I thought I answered that: the information on the expenditure of the political fund will still have to be given to the certification officer.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
With great respect, I asked whether union members would have clarity as to where their money was being spent.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
I am absolutely confident that unions’ accounts, which will include the political funds, will be available to all members in the usual way. I am sure that is a requirement.
Baroness Bousted (Lab)
I can inform the noble Lord that unions have to produce an executive report for the membership every year. That is available to all the membership; it is on the union’s website. In most unions, by the rulebook, the executive report is the first thing debated at conference. All the union’s activities and expenditure are described and explained to the membership in that report, including the amount of the political fund and the expenditure of the political fund. It is the same with the international fund and the campaigning fund. This is a requirement, as part of unions’ democratic processes, to make the executive accountable to the membership, and the information will be contained in the executive report.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
I am grateful for that. I am sure that the Minister will agree that, if that is true—and it certainly was not pre-2016—there can be no resistance to it being included—
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
It was certainly not disclosed in the political fund accounts, which are not the same as the union accounts; they are separate accounts. Those political fund accounts did not specify where the campaign funds were spent.
Baroness Bousted (Lab)
The noble Lord asked where the members would get the information. That is the question to which I have replied. He is now saying that they are not disclosed in another place, but that was not the question I was answering.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
I think we have answered that question in quite a lot of detail now. I hope that noble Lords feel that I have answered these points in sufficient detail.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
We appreciate the detail that the Minister is going into, but a number of questions have not been answered. Can she undertake to write to noble Lords with the answers? Also, can she clarify whether, if a union member fails to opt out of contributing to the political fund on day 1, they could then be bound not to have the opportunity to opt out again for 10 years?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
I am absolutely confident that union members can opt out at any time, not just every 10 years. It is the reminder that goes every 10 years, rather than the requirement for them to remain.
We have had a very detailed, long debate, and I have attempted to answer all the questions noble Lords have raised. If there are any outstanding issues, I will write. In the meantime, I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, to withdraw her Amendment 216YC.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this extensive debate. There are still a number of issues on which there is not agreement, either on the nature of the legislation or the desired effect.
I particularly thank the noble Lord, Lord Burns. I am conscious that this is going over old ground, but he is right to resurrect it and to put his concerns forward. On the exchanges between my noble friend Lady Cash and the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, in any legal debate, normally we come up with one winner. However, in this case, it is fair to refer the noble Lord to paragraph 251 of the Bill’s human rights memorandum, where the Government specifically state that:
“Implicit in Article 11 is a right not to contribute to a trade union’s political fund”.
I would be grateful if the Minister would, unusually perhaps, be open to sharing the legal or policy advice on the bracketed portion of that paragraph: that
“the opt-out will take effect on 1 January of the following year”.
That is why my noble friend Lady Cash was pressing the point that continuing to have to pay would not, according to various judgments, be compatible with Article 11.
That said, I am sure that we will return to a lot of this on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Employment Rights Bill
Tuesday 10th June 2025
(9 months, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Employment Rights Act 2025 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 81-VIII Eighth Marshalled list for Committee - (6 Jun 2025)
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I rise to express my deep concern about the inclusion of the clause repealing Section 116B of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, and to urge that it be removed in its entirety from the Bill. The clause does not merely tidy up legislation or modernise outdated provisions, it seeks to dismantle a vital safeguard that upholds the principle that taxpayer funds should not be used to subsidise the activities of private organisations, no matter how long-standing or worthy those organisations may be.
Section 116B was introduced to ensure that where public sector employers agree to deduct trade union subscriptions directly from employees’ pay, a service commonly known as check-off, the administrative cost of doing so is reimbursed by the union. This is a reasonable and proportionate expectation. After all, unions are private membership organisations. It is not the role of the taxpayer to underwrite the cost of maintaining their finances, especially when alternative methods of payment, such as direct debit, are readily available and commonly used by the unions themselves. Repealing this provision would, in effect, shift the cost burden for this private financial arrangement on to public sector employers and, by extension, the taxpayer. These are costs that would be no longer recoverable, whether they involve payroll staff time, IT systems or administrative oversight.
Although each individual deduction might seem minor, across large public bodies—for example, the NHS, schools, local authorities or Whitehall departments —these costs accumulate. The public purse, as noble Lords opposite do not need reminding, is already under immense pressure and it should not be expected to shoulder this additional financial responsibility. There is a very real risk that this repeal, however well-intentioned, would result in taxpayers unknowingly subsidising trade union operations.
Moreover, Section 116B introduced a measure of transparency and accountability into the system. It ensured that unions have to make active choices about how they collect their subscriptions and whether to invest in alternative systems, such as direct debit. It also gave employees greater awareness of and control over how they supported union activity. Removing this provision without putting any comparable mechanisms in place risks eroding that transparency. It suggests a return to a one-size-fits-all approach in which the employer bears the cost and the worker has little visibility over the arrangements.
There is also the issue of equity. Public sector employers are distinct in that they are funded by the state and their accountability is to the taxpayer. In the private sector where check-off arrangements still exist, employers and unions are free to negotiate the terms of such systems, including where the cost should be reimbursed. Why should public employers uniquely be placed in a position where they must provide these services at their own expense without any form of compensation? It is a contradiction that undermines the rationale for removing Section 116B.
The proposed repeal would also remove the flexibility that currently exists in the system. Under Section 116B, the Secretary of State has the power to make regulations specifying exceptions, such as for devolved Administrations or specific categories of public bodies. That allows the provision to be adapted in a way that respects local autonomy; for example, in Wales, where different arrangements have been supported by the devolved Government. By removing the entire provision, this clause strips away that flexibility and imposes a blunt uniformity that does not reflect the complexities of public sector governance across the United Kingdom.
Finally, we must consider the broader message that this repeal sends. It risks creating the impression, fair or not, that trade unions are being afforded preferential treatment and being allowed to impose their operating costs on to the taxpayer without scrutiny. At a time when public trust in institutions is fragile and when every pound of public spending is rightly under the microscope, this is a deeply unhelpful signal to send.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Information and Technology (Baroness Jones of Whitchurch) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, for posing arguments against Clause 60 standing part of the Bill.
This clause seeks to repeal Section 15 of the Trade Union Act 2016 by amending the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 to remove Section 116B. Section 15 required trade unions to pay public sector employers where they administer payroll deductions for trade union subscriptions, known as check-off. It further required that this service be made available only where workers have the option to pay their union subscriptions by other means.
The Trade Union (Deduction of Union Subscriptions from Wages in the Public Sector) Regulations 2024 were introduced as a cost-saving measure, with estimated annual savings of £1.6 million, totalling £12 million over the following 10 years. However, as the impact assessment acknowledged, the regulations would bring a cumulative cost of £17 million to public sector employers and trade unions over that period. This is far higher than the estimated cost savings.
The current system places bureaucratic processes on both trade unions and public sector employers that can be clearly simplified to support productive trade union relations. There should be no costs to employers associated with withdrawing the check-off regulations. Employers will have the choice to continue with or amend any agreed arrangements regarding the deduction of union subscriptions from their employees’ wages, in discussion with their recognised trade unions.
We feel that there is a need to simplify this process, which is what our proposals intend to do. While I thank the noble Lord for this very short debate, I urge him to support this clause, for the reasons I have set out.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I thank the Minister for her explanation, although I am not particularly persuaded.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, I have tabled a number of probing amendments to Clause 61. As I alluded to earlier, I take the view that the amendments are not unhelpful but should be seen through the prism of fairness, balance, proportionality and reasonableness. There is the possibility that, as drafted, it could plausibly be argued that the Bill’s balance is very much in favour of not just employees and union members but unions themselves as corporate bodies and organisations, rather than employers.
We are on our eighth day in Committee, and we have discussed on a number of occasions the less than benign economic circumstances faced by many businesses, including small businesses. The situation is deteriorating. Pretty much every week, there is worse economic data than one would hope for, particularly for the jobs market and the levels of employment and potential unemployment.
Therefore, anything that the Government do—and certainly this Bill represents a very far-reaching change to the employment relations regime—to make things more difficult for small and medium-sized enterprises, and businesses generally, to employ people should be a cause for concern for Members of your Lordships’ House.
I will briefly go through the amendments. Amendment 224 would qualify the right to time off for union officials with a reasonableness test. I can see that most relationships between employers and union representatives are positive, based on mutual respect and it was ever thus. Therefore, this will not be a problem for the vast bulk of employers. However, when I was a local councillor, I had to rely on the Employment Rights Act 1996 to enforce my right to attend a number of meetings held during the day—in my case, at Ealing Borough Council, although I was an alternate member of the London Fire and Civil Defence Authority, which met across the road at County Hall. As a young working man, it was sometimes very difficult to get time off, and I understand that we went in the right direction in guaranteeing the right to time off. Equally, reasonableness is key, and this amendment speaks to that.
Amendment 225 would qualify the right to the provision of facilities for union officials with an appropriateness test. Again, this reflects a real-world experience of the discrete circumstances affecting a business at the time that the request is made. It might not be appropriate for a business to provide a room, audio-visual facilities or materials. This would be easier for a big company, which has a bespoke budget for HR training et cetera, than for a much smaller commercial entity, which might struggle to provide a similar level of facilities for trade union officials.
Amendments 226, 227 and 228 would reverse the burden of proof in disputes over the reasonableness of requested time off for union activities, and therefore there would be more of a balance for making the case for facilities being provided. I do not want to delay the Committee at this relatively late juncture; the amendments stand on their own merits.
Amendment 229 would qualify the right to time off for union learning representatives, again with a reasonableness test. In past debates, I mentioned my admiration for the Workers’ Educational Association and the great work it did in empowering working people to improve their life and their life chances, which is very important. However, a reasonableness test makes sure that it can be accommodated in a way which will not undermine the commercial viability of a business, while at the same time assisting individual workers and their representatives to deliver education and training outcomes.
Amendment 230 would qualify the right to the provision of facilities for union learning representatives, again with an appropriateness test.
Amendments 231, 232 and 233 would reverse the burden of proof in disputes over the reasonableness of requested time off for union learning representatives. It would be for the union representatives to explain why their request for facilities and learning resources was reasonable rather than the other way round.
These are probing amendments. I know I have said it before, but it bears repetition that these are not wrecking amendments. They do not alter substantially the kernel of the Bill, which is—and I take Ministers on their word—to improve the working lives of people, as in the report, Make Work Pay. I accept that premise and that Ministers sincerely want to do that, but these amendments are an attempt to rebalance between the workforce, their representatives and employers in a fair and equitable way. On that basis, I beg to move Amendment 224.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I oppose the question that Clause 62 should stand part of the Bill, with the intention of removing provisions which compel employers to allow time off for trade union equality reps. To note, I am not opposed to trade union facilities time per se, and I am actually not objecting to Clause 61 in relation to learning reps.
My concern is specifically on the nature of equality as has been interpreted by the trade unions in recent years, the divisive nature of their adherence to identity politics, for example, and the ideologically contentious implementation of prescriptive policies, often setting one group of workers against another. Trade union priorities under the auspices of fighting for equality have been skewed, to say the least.
The wording in this unfeasibly long clause states at subsection (12)(b)(i) that:
“‘equality’, in relation to a workplace, means … the elimination of discrimination, harassment and victimisation … in accordance with the Equality Act 2010”.
You would think I would have nothing to disagree with there, yet, time after time in the last few years, what we have actually seen is the discrimination and victimisation of women workers that has been at best ignored and too often actively abetted by trade unions’ own version of inclusive equality. They have in fact ignored the Equality Act.
Let me use as an example an incident that happened in May 2024 at Epsom and St Helier University Hospital. A black female nurse, Jennifer Melle, indirectly called a six-foot transgender patient “Mister” while on the phone to a consultant. The patient, whom I will call Mr X, was having treatment on the ward, having been transferred from a male prison. He was chained to two guards. Mr X is serving a sentence for luring young boys into sex acts on the internet while pretending to be a woman. For Ms Melle’s alleged misgendering, Mr X, the convict, violently lunged at her, screaming, “Do not call me Mister, I’m an effing woman”, and then called her the N-word, screaming it at her. He of course used the full words in those instances, and he screamed that word at her three times.
After her shift, Jennifer went home shaken but resilient about the reality of unpleasant abuse at work. She was then contacted by her hospital trust. You might think it was a welfare check—but no. There was no mention of support after the racist attack. Instead, she was issued with a written warning, and the trust reported her to the Nursing and Midwifery Council to investigate her fitness to practise, because she posed a risk to the public, it was said, and the reputation of the NHS for not using the patient’s preferred gender identity. Only when Jennifer went public and the story hit the media did the trust say it would investigate the racist abuse. But by then, it had suspended Jennifer for telling her story. Then, they moved her to another hospital, demoted her to a lower grade, and she lost pay et cetera.
Now, I would have assumed that this shocking story would be a huge equality-at-work story for the trade union movement to take up: an ethnic minority female, a front-line health worker, a victim of explicit racist harassment and male violence, all over the papers, and then gross discriminatory employer behaviour. But no, not a dicky bird: a deafening silence in the nursing unions and the TUC. Maybe Nurse Jennifer was, as an open evangelical Christian, rather than a trade unionist, the wrong kind of victim.
Recently, we heard that another nurse, Sandie Peggie, a Royal College of Nursing member for 30 years, has been forced to sue her union for its failure to support her or provide legal assistance when she was suspended by NHS Fife. Her crime was that she challenged the presence of Dr Beth Upton, a biological man, in the women-only changing rooms at Victoria Hospital, Kirkcaldy. That Nurse Peggie’s legal action is necessary should shame the trade union movement. As Mrs Peggie’s solicitor, Margaret Gribbon, explained, her client expected the union to
“exercise its industrial muscle to challenge the decision which was adversely impacting her and other female union members”.
She alleged that she
“spoke to the union about the issue of single-sex spaces in February last year”.
In relation to this amendment, how can we mandate employers to provide generous facility time for trade union equalities work with such a risible attitude to the real-life attacks on equality at work, as evidenced? When Nurse Peggie is forced to take legal action to get justice from her own union, I am not sure I want any more union equality officers. Susan Smith, of the For Women Scotland organisation that brought the successful Supreme Court action, notes:
“We imagine this is likely to be first of many such cases. Sadly, it seems that only financial penalties will persuade the unions to step up, do their job, and represent women in the workplace”.
Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)
My Lords, the amendments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, which have been tabled in good faith and with good intent, aim to clarify employees’ rights for reasonable time off and to maintain a balance of obligation between employers and employees. However, this tempting repeated emphasis on balance and responsibilities risks adding unnecessary complexities to what should be a straightforward provision. The focus on sustainable assessments closely tied to individual circumstances, while well-intentioned, may create complicated decision-making for both the employer and employees, rather than finding the guidance we are looking for.
I am not a clairvoyant; I am summing up from the notes I have in front of me. The amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, talk about linking facility time for equality representatives with statutory performance targets in the public sector—that is what the time off is for—to introduce additional conditions aimed at ensuring accountability. The proposal for a sectoral cost assessment before these changes take effect offers a measured way of evaluating their impact. It will be important to monitor how these conditions interact with the support available to employees’ representatives to maintain an efficient and effective balance.
I look forward to the Minister’s response to these amendments. I will not comment on the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, tonight. I will leave that for the Minister to deal with.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, for their amendments and contributions to today’s debate.
I speak to the amendments in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom, where we seek to make the provision of facility time for equality representatives conditional on public sector employers meeting their statutory performance standards. I believe such amendments are not merely sensible but essential if we are to ensure that public resources are allocated responsibly and with accountability.
It is no secret—we hear it constantly—that politicians and civil servants routinely claim that they want to protect taxpayers’ money, yet too often the rhetoric is hollow and budgets expand unchecked. One glaring example is the unchecked proliferation of equality, diversity and inclusion, or EDI, roles in the public sector. For those unfamiliar, EDI is a branch of human resources. There are now some 10,000 EDI officers employed across public sector organisations. There has been a veritable explosion of spending that has occurred with minimal scrutiny or measurable outcomes.
Against this backdrop, it is right and proper to demand that facility time—a significant use of public resources—should be granted only to employers who are delivering on their statutory performance targets. Our amendments would introduce a performance condition that requires the Secretary of State to be satisfied that a public sector organisation is meeting relevant standards before facility time can be allocated.
I believe this to be a vital safeguard that Clause 62 as currently drafted just fails to provide. Clause 62 in its current form risks allowing facility time to be given indiscriminately, without regard for whether the employer is fulfilling its primary obligations to service users and taxpayers. That is a pretty laissez-faire approach, which I believe is unacceptable in an era of tightening budgets and growing demand for public services—no doubt we will hear much more of this from the Chancellor of the Exchequer tomorrow morning. Without this condition, facility time risks becoming yet another unchecked entitlement, further diverting scarce resources away from front-line delivery.
We must be clear, however, that supporting and moving these amendments does not mean opposing equality representatives themselves or the very important functions they perform. Rather, it just means insisting that public funds should be spent prudently, and that facility time should be tied to organisational performance. If a public sector body is failing to meet statutory targets, I believe it is irresponsible to allow additional resource commitments without first addressing those failures. Moreover, our proposed new clause would require a sector-by-sector cost assessment of facility time, introducing much-needed transparency and evidence-based policy-making. Before expanding facility time or making it more widely available, Parliament must understand its real financial impact and weigh it carefully against the public benefits.
We urge all noble Lords to refuse to accept Clause 62 in its current form but to embrace these amendments, and then we will have a crucial performance condition. In that way, we will ensure that facility time is provided responsibly, with accountability, and only when public sector employers are meeting their statutory obligations.
However, I commend my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough on introducing what I felt were very reasonable amendments. Of course, he is drawing on extensive experience serving on council business and the London Fire and Civil Defence Authority, on which he served with such distinction, so I hope the Minister will accept those amendments.
I have to say to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, that I was appalled by the stories she gave, showing the experience of Nurse Jennifer and Nurse Peggie. They are shocking stories, and how right she was to bring them to the attention of the Committee. There is a great worry that somewhere, deeply embedded in the system, is systemic sexism. I suppose I am looking back—it is far too long ago—to when I was, and I think I probably still am, the only man to have been appointed Minister for Women in the Cabinet. I have to say that the experience I had in that position warned me of the impending problems about which the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, spoke so passionately and so clearly.
We really have to get something right. In many ways, I know that the Bill has been put together with great haste, but Clause 62 in particular at least requires amendment, or perhaps another clause more carefully thought through should be presented to the House on Report. That is why we look forward to hearing from the Minister. We are talking about not just good governance but a necessary step to protect both taxpayers and front-line public services.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Jackson of Peterborough and Lord Sharpe of Epsom, for their amendments relating to the provision of facilities to trade union officials and representatives, and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, for speaking to them. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, for initiating debate on Clause 62, to which I will also speak.
In Amendments 224 to 233, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, he seeks to amend Clause 61 to maintain, as he argues, a reasonable balance of obligations and responsibilities between employers and employees. Like the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, I take the amendments at face value: they are probing and not wrecking, and the noble Lord is trying to understand the appropriate balance. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, that the clause already seeks a reasonable balance of obligations and responsibilities between employers and employee representatives. The paid time off that trade union representatives receive is often insufficient to fulfil all their trade union duties. Many union representatives use significant amounts of their own time to support workplace relations. Indeed, in some sectors, in some companies, in some firms, their trade union activity is carried out very much on a voluntary basis rather than it being about people having full-time release and doing nothing towards the organisation apart from conducting trade union duties.
The Government want to rebalance obligations and responsibilities by ensuring that union workplace representatives are able to take sufficient paid facility time and have sufficient access to facilities to enable them to fulfil their union representative duties. While the clause grants trade union representatives the right to facility time and accommodation and other facilities from their employers, it does so by having regard to a relevant code of practice issued by ACAS. The ACAS guidance will help employers to implement these measures and will be updated in partnership and through consultation with both employers and trade unions. It will therefore help to ensure that a balance of obligations and responsibilities is secured, and ACAS is a very appropriate and worthy organisation to undertake that role.
Greater facility time will lead to improved work representation and better industrial relations by giving trade unions and workplace representatives the freedom to organise, represent and negotiate on behalf of their workers. This will result in more mature industrial relations and increased co-operation between employers and unionised workers, leading to beneficial outcomes for businesses and the economy. This is a framework to promote more co-operation and understanding at work, not more scope for conflict.
Amendments 234 to 236 concerning Clause 62, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, require that a performance condition must be met before facility time for equality representatives is provided by public sector employers. This would make the provision of facility time contingent on the employer already meeting certain performance standards, although the amendment is not specific about what those standards are.
We fully recognise the importance of strong public sector performance and accountability. However, linking facility time for equality representatives to performance conditions is both disproportionate and counterproductive, as it would create a barrier to improvement and creating stronger industrial relations. These amendments would require the Secretary of State to certify that a public sector employer is meeting relevant statutory performance standards before facility time can be granted. Together, they would pose heavy administrative burdens on both employers, who would need to apply and provide evidence, and central government, which would have to assess compliance for every employer.
I hesitate in suggesting this, but in speaking to other amendments on the Bill in Committee, those on the Benches opposite have been very quick to point out the administrative burdens that they assume are being placed on employers across all sectors by various measures in the Bill. The kind of burdens that this amendment would place on the public sector would not be tolerated by them on the private sector. More fundamentally, they would risk delaying facility time precisely for those organisations most in need of support and undermine the very purpose of equality representatives. Furthermore, a Secretary of State-led certification process would create legal uncertainty and potential disputes. It could also harm industrial relations in the public sector.
Finally, I turn to the opposition of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, to Clause 62. This clause inserts new Section 168B into the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 and requires that an employer must permit an employee who is
“a member of an independent trade union recognised by the employer, and an equality representative of the trade union, to take time off during the employee’s working hours”
for specified purposes. However, this applies only if
“the trade union has given the employer notice in writing that the employee is an equality representative of the union”,
or will be undergoing or has completed training to become an equality representative. Sufficient training is that which is sufficient for fulfilling the purposes of an equality representative role, having regard to a relevant code of practice issued by ACAS or the Secretary of State.
Clause 62 also requires that the employer must permit the employee to take paid time off during working hours to undergo training relevant to their role as an equality representative and, where requested, provide the employee with accommodation and other facilities to enable them to fulfil their role, having regard to the relevant code of practice issued by ACAS. Should an employer fail to permit the employee to take time off or to provide the employee with facilities as required, the employee may present a complaint to an employment tribunal, at which it will be for the employer to show that the amount of time off that the employee proposed was not reasonable. So far on those grounds, it is as for any other recognised rep status.
Trade unions have long fought for equality: from Grunwick to the Bristol bus boycott, to campaigning on Section 28, to recently standing up for retail workers—mostly female—who have to cope with violence in the workplace, particularly from customers. It is important to recognise, as, it is fair to say, the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, did in her remarks, that equality reps have a key role in raising awareness and promoting equal rights for members, as well as in developing collective policies and practices that enable organisations to realise all the benefits of being an equal opportunities employer.
The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, gave some specific examples. I join with the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, in saying that the cases the noble Baroness recounted, of Nurses Jennifer and Peggie, were horrific experiences you would not want to see anyone encounter. However, I am unsure that using that single brush to tar the feathers of the whole equality reps proposal is proportionate. There may be some correlation, but I am not sure that there is causation.
Clause 62 recognises a trade union equality representative as a person appointed or elected in accordance with the trade union rules, in a manner consistent with the Equality Act 2010. I contend that equality reps have a key role to play in raising awareness and promoting equal rights for all members, as well as in developing collective policies and practices that will enable organisations to realise all the benefits of being an equal opportunities employer. It is pure speculation but, had equality reps been in place in local authorities in earlier decades, and had there been more awareness of inequality in women’s pay, those local authorities facing significant equal pay claims today might not be facing them. Who can say?
I am not sure how rhetorical the questions were from the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, on the sort of equality. For the purpose of the clause, it is defined in the Equality Act 2010.
Turning to Amendment 237—
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, as the Minister asked a direct question, I might as well answer it now. I gave individual examples. I am sorry if the personalised examples made it sound as though they are one-off cases. I was simply trying to bring alive trends, not say, “Nurse Peggie”. There are loads of them, but I only had 10 minutes. They are trends, but I have brought them alive, I hope.
I ask the Minister to reflect on two things. As the Equality Act 2010 defines equality, I used the example that many trade unions are saying that they will refuse to acknowledge the Supreme Court clarification of what equality means under that very Act. They are going to defy it in the name of equality—trans inclusion and so on. How do you square that circle?
Secondly, the Minister read out the points about training. In part, I was challenging whether the Government care what the content of that training is. My argument was that the training being used in the name of equality is divisive and may not be helpful in the workplace, and is in fact likely to turn worker against worker, rather than the reverse. Do the Government consider any of that, or do they just hand it over to the reps?
Lord Katz (Lab)
I will try to address those points now. Of course we care whether reps, when undertaking any role—whether it is health and safety, learning, or workplace negotiation—comply with the law and are trained in a suitable manner. That does not mean we should necessarily be scrutinising every single thing they do, because one would not expect that in the normal way of things.
I certainly did not mean to belittle the examples the noble Baroness gave, and I am sure they are not the only ones. But at the same time, one cannot make the generalisation that this is endemic across all workplaces where there is union representation. I will also speculate —as we are sort of speculating here—that the engagement and involvement of equality reps might prevent the kind of activity the noble Baroness outlined in the case of Nurses Sandie Peggie and Jennifer. That is counterfactual speculation; one cannot say either way, but it is worth positing if we are serious about discussing this.
I should add, without wanting to stray too far from my brief and, indeed, land myself in some kind of legal hot water, that the Government’s expectation is that all organisations will comply with equalities law in every manner while carrying out their duties. Whatever equality law clearly specifies, we expect all organisations, employers and trade unions to follow that.
Baroness Verma (Con)
May I just ask the Minister a very small question? In business, we already comply with the Equality Act. Most businesses do it because it is mandated, but we would do it anyway because it is a good thing to do. Reflecting on the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, my only concern is the cultural sensitivities that may arise from equality reps taking into account, or not taking into account, some communities’ internal machinations regarding how they see certain equality roles.
Lord Katz (Lab)
For what it is worth, my experience of working in businesses is that most employers, large or small, understand the importance to the nuts and bolts of economic growth and productivity of having harmonious workforces and being respectful employers who listen to the needs of their workforces, however they manifest themselves.
Again—a hypothesis. I think I understand what the noble Baroness is getting at. In a workforce that largely comes from a particular BME community, but that has a management not of that community, the presence of an equality rep from the majority community in the workforce who can make representations concerning sensitivities around religious observance, modes of dress, and modes of communication, could be to the good for that workplace in creating a greater understanding between the management and the workforce. One is only speculating here.
Before the noble Baroness stands up again, as I sense she might, I will say that equality reps are a new idea. They already exist in voluntary organisations, but the Government think that it would be good for workplaces to have more of them in place and that they would promote more harmonious and productive workforces. I observe that having health and safety reps has led to better adherence to health and safety laws and regulations, with fewer issues with health and safety misdemeanours, accidents and the like in workplaces. Similarly, union learning reps have been a fantastic innovation in promoting learning and skills in different workplaces. The notion of promoting equality and cultural sensitivities in different workplaces, as the noble Baroness put it, is a noble aim.
Baroness Verma (Con)
I thank the Minister, but I think he is going to tie himself in knots on this one, because there are challenges that will not be rightly represented. To indulge the Minister, maybe I could have an offline conversation with him to explain where I am coming from.
Lord Katz (Lab)
I am very happy with that and I apologise if I have misunderstood the point that the noble Baroness was trying to make. This has been a fascinating debate but, in the interests of time, I want us to make progress and finish.
Amendment 237 was tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom. The Government resist this amendment, which unnecessarily asks the Government to conduct a sectoral cost assessment of trade union facility time. We strongly dispute the notion that facility time represents a significant cost to employers. We have already conducted an impact assessment that covers the measures in the Bill. This assessment noted that the cost of facility time is not likely to be significant for particular employers. Instead, it could benefit business performance in the form of increased worker training and support greater worker retention through a reduction in dismissals and voluntary exits.
It is worth noting that the estimated percentage of public sector pay bills spent on facility time in the first year of reporting regulations that were enforced in 2017-18 was 0.07%, and that, for the 2023-24 reporting year, the figure was 0.06%. That suggests a minimal impact of facility time in the public sector. Before I turn to Amendment 333, it is worth saying that we expect further savings from the Exchequer resulting from more positive industrial relations, which come about through greater facility time. For instance, we expect enhanced facility time to result in a reduction in the number of disputes going to an employment tribunal. This again makes the point that more harmonious workforces are more productive workforces.
Amendment 333 was also tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom. Again, the Government strongly dispute the notion that facility time represents a significant cost to employers and we have already conducted an impact assessment covering the measures in the Bill. The amendment is therefore not necessary and would simply delay the implementation of this clause and the benefits that equality representatives would bring.
I therefore ask the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, to withdraw Amendment 224 and I hope that noble Lords agree that Clause 62 has a rightful place in the Bill.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, I am happy to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Hendy
“Right to take industrial action(1) The Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 is amended as follows.(2) After section 219, insert—“219A Right to strikeEvery worker shall have the right to take industrial action, whether or not in breach of any contract, subject to the provisions of this Part.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would establish a clear positive right to strike (and take action short of a strike).
Lord Hendy (Lab)
My Lords, it is a bit daunting, at 9.50 pm, to speak to a series of amendments relating to the right to strike. I thank my noble friend the Minister for taking time out of her very busy schedule to discuss these amendments, and amendments on collective bargaining, with me last week. The meeting was very amicable and very constructive, but Members opposite will no doubt be pleased to learn that she yielded not an inch on these amendments. None the less, I think it worth while to advance them.
Amendment 238 is intended to confer a positive right to strike. Striking and other forms of industrial action constituted a criminal offence until 1875 and were subject to civil liability until the Trade Disputes Act 1906. Since then, the law has undergone various evolutions, until the Conservative Governments passed a series of Acts in the 1980s, consolidated in the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, which severely restricted industrial action.
Subject to those restrictions, the Court of Appeal in Metrobus v Unite in 2009 held:
“In this country, the right to strike has never been much more than a slogan or a legal metaphor. Such a right has not been bestowed by statute. What has happened is that, since the Trade Disputes Act 1906, legislation has provided limited immunities from liability in tort. At times the immunities have been widened, at other times they have been narrowed. Outside the scope of the immunities, the rigour of the common law applies in the form of breach of contract on the part of the strikers and the economic torts as regards the organisers and their union”.
As the Court of Appeal put it in RMT v Serco Ltd in 2011:
“The legislation therefore secures a freedom rather than conferring a right as such”.
Both judgments noted that the European convention and other international laws ratified by the UK protected the right to strike, but that was held to be insufficient to establish such a right in UK law. So there is no positive right to strike in the UK, merely a freedom to take industrial action, protection from what would otherwise be unlawful. My amendment proposes that we should have such a right. In making that case, I do not suggest that such a right should be free of limitations. If this amendment were adopted, the current statutory restrictions on its exercise would remain.
The international treaty obligations by which the UK has elected to be bound support the case for my amendment. The UK ratified ILO Convention 87 on freedom of association and protection of the right to organise on 27 June 1949. The ILO, of course, is a tripartite body representing Governments, employers and workers of virtually every country in the world. Though Convention 87 does not expressly mention the right to strike, since the 1950s the relevant supervisory committees of the ILO have held repeatedly that it does so implicitly. For decades, member states have acknowledged that jurisprudence. For example, the UK Government have argued in the ILO:
“The right to strike, which, although not expressly laid down in Convention No. 87, was implied by the provision there for the right freely to organise activities”.
Independently of Convention 87, the ILO recognises the right to strike. A joint statement issued by the employers’ group, workers’ group and governmental groups in 2015 affirmed that:
“The right to take industrial action by workers and employers in support of their legitimate industrial interests is recognised by the constituents of the International Labour Organisation”.
I turn to other international treaties ratified by the United Kingdom. The UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights protect freedom of association and the right to be a union member. In 2017, the UN special rapporteur on freedom of association stated:
“The right to strike is also an intrinsic corollary of the fundamental right of freedom of association. It is crucial for millions of women and men around the world to assert collectively their rights in the workplace, including the right to just and favourable conditions of work, and to work in dignity and without fear of intimidation and persecution”.
Article 8.1(d) of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights explicitly requires
“States Parties … to ensure … The right to strike”.
In 2019, the supervisory bodies responsible for the two covenants I have just mentioned—respectively the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the Human Rights Committee—issued a joint statement on the basic principles of freedom of association common to both covenants, stating,
“the right to strike is the corollary to the effective exercise of the freedom to form and join trade unions”.
In 1997, the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights addressed in relation to the United Kingdom the very issue raised by this amendment, holding that:
“The Committee considers that failure to incorporate the right to strike into domestic law constitutes a breach of article 8 of the Covenant. The Committee considers that the common law approach recognising only the freedom to strike, and the concept that strike action constitutes a fundamental breach of contract justifying dismissal, is not consistent with protection of the right to strike”.
This led the committee to recommend that the right to strike be established in UK legislation because
“the current notion of freedom to strike, which simply recognises the illegality of being submitted to an involuntary servitude, is insufficient to satisfy the requirements of article 8 of the Covenant”.
In 2002, the committee reiterated its concern that
“failure to incorporate the right to strike in domestic law constitutes a breach of article 8 of the Covenant”,
and repeated its recommendation that the right to strike be incorporated in UK legislation. It cannot be acceptable that the UK will not comply with these obligations.
At European level, the European Court of Human Rights has recognised in a succession of cases that the right to strike is implicit in the right to form and join trade unions, protected by Article 11.1 of the convention. The other instrument of the Council of Europe, the European Social Charter 1961, is more specific and provides in Article 6.4 that the contracting parties recognise
“the right of workers and employers to collective action in cases of conflicts, including the right to strike”.
Not only is the right to strike incidental to freedom of association but it is a necessary corollary of the right to bargain collectively. Without power to withdraw their labour collectively, workers have no leverage against the much greater power of employers to set the wages, hours, and terms and conditions under which they labour.
The point was elegantly stated by the Supreme Court of Canada in the Saskatchewan Federation of Labour case in 2015:
“The conclusion that the right to strike is an essential part of a meaningful collective bargaining process in our system of labour relations is supported by history, by jurisprudence, and by Canada’s international obligations … The right to strike is not merely derivative of collective bargaining, it is an indispensable component of that right. It seems to me to be the time to give this conclusion constitutional benediction”.
Finally, in this survey, it is to be noted that the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement 2022 provides in Article 399 that:
“Each Party commits to implementing all the ILO Conventions that the United Kingdom and the Member States have respectively ratified and the different provisions of the European Social Charter that, as members of the Council of Europe, the Member States and the United Kingdom have respectively accepted”.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I am going to speak on this even though it is completely pointless, as I feel quite strongly about it.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
I am getting snarky comments from the Tory Front Bench. I object strongly to that.
I am speaking in support of Amendment 238, even though the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, needs no support at all. This would establish
“a clear positive right to strike (and take action short of a strike)”.
As the noble Lord pointed out at the start of his introduction, from the early 1980s onwards, we have had one set of anti-union laws after another, and there are now decades of them. Conservative Governments have introduced anti-union laws, and Labour Governments have mostly kept them. The result has been declining union membership and that the power of working people has been taken away. The UK has gone from being a country where income inequality was not that bad, and was even falling in the 1970s, to one where inequality has been rising sharply ever since. That means more billionaires and more money for the top 1% of earners, while more people exist on low incomes and live their entire lives owning nothing but debt.
Our economy has stopped working in the interests of the majority of people. Working people have less power but businesses and capital have more. That is one reason why in this country millions of pounds now disappear to offshore tax havens. The right of working people to withdraw their labour is a fundamental right, but it has been eroded. This amendment on the right to strike is another little step towards restoring the balance of power in the workplace. Without these little steps, which enable working people to stand up for themselves, this country will continue to get worse for the majority of people who do the real work.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I want briefly to commend the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, for putting this amendment forward. I have a lot of sympathy with it. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, has explained some of my reasons for supporting it.
I just wanted to note that it is very tempting when rights are being taken away to want to consolidate them via the law and constitutionally. I felt it myself in relation to civil liberties, which I think are under attack: the right to protest and in particular free speech. I keep wishing there was a First Amendment, because then it would be there and they would not be able to attack it.
However—this a good faith question—when I heard the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, justify it in relation to international treaties, ECHR, the Council of Europe and so on, I started to worry that maybe this would become one of those treaties where it would be, “You can’t touch this” and you would end up treating it technocratically, as it were. Rather than it being fighting for the right to strike, it would be fighting for the principle of the right to strike with ordinary workers, rather than simply referring to defending it in the law. So can the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, even though he does not stand a chance of getting it through, reassure me that this is not just an attempt at ring-fencing a right, but then neglecting to fight for it in real life? I commend him and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, for raising this, because I really do feel that rights need to be protected under this Government as much as any other, I have to say.
Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)
My Lords, these amendments, proposed by the noble Lords, Lord Hendy and Lord Woodley, are I think as people have outlined. I have been on the wrong end of that legislation on a number of events—official strikes, unofficial strikes and secondary picketing. As a shop steward you are responsible for taking those actions for a company; there are consequences and I have suffered consequences from that.
It is not that I agree with the rights being taken away, but I think times have changed and unions have moved on now. The right of anybody to remove their labour, if they are pushed to it, should be a universal right, but it should be used very sparingly and in very special circumstances. It is all very well rushing to legislation and quoting the European Court, but we live in the real world and when things happen to people at work and people are treated badly, sometimes we have not got time to go and contact the KC and get case law. We just do the things that we used to do and take that action straight away. Sometimes that resolves the matter fairly quickly, because a reasonable employer will see the action you have taken as a direct result of another manager doing something that was not in agreement. So I get the thrust of this.
I have had notes typed and I have been writing my own notes, but I think the top and bottom for me is the amendment is seeking to restore a trade union’s flexibility in choosing which members to ballot and removing some procedural requirements and obligations to notify employees in advance of ballots. I think that time has gone as well.
Reinstating rights for prison officers, the group currently subject to significant legal limitations, is one I would like to slightly explore. The intent behind these amendments is to strengthen trade union rights and promote collective bargaining. The concern is potentially around impact, industrial relations and public safety, especially with the actions of prison officers. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, and to the Government that the way to protect prison officers is not to enshrine the right to strike but to remove the reasons why they would want to strike. That really is about improving the Victorian conditions that we have in 2025 prison systems, where people go into prison and come out worse criminals or nine out of 10 as drug addicts or whatever.
Governments, instead of trying to give extra law for prison officers, should be looking at the root cause. I know there is a prison plan being built and we are trying to get more education into prisons—if you want to speak to the noble Lord, Lord Timpson, he can give you chapter and verse on that, as I have listened to him doing. I hear why it is being done, I understand why it is being done and I know that it is not got a hope in somewhere else of getting through. But I thank the noble Lord for bringing it forward, because sometimes it is good to realise that things that we used to do are perhaps today not even politically correct to do. Human rights and the rights of people who go every day to work, to earn a living and support their family, need airing and need protecting. I know this is a probing amendment, but I thank the noble Lord for bringing it because it is interesting. Now and again it is good to be reminded of how it used to be and how it can be now.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I join the general thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Hendy. I thought it was a most interesting introduction and I learned a great deal. I particularly liked the phrase “constitutional benediction”, which I am planning to nick—although not in this context, because I rise to join the Minister and express my clear and firm opposition to the proposed new clause after Clause 64. It seeks to enshrine in statute a so-called positive right to strike even in breach of contract, as opposed—if I follow the noble Lord’s arguments correctly—to the freedom to strike. It strikes me as somewhat semantic in terms of the practical outcome, which I suspect is an argument we will hear again.
Let us be absolutely frank about what the amendment would entail. It would insert into the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 a wholly unprecedented and therefore dangerously broad provision that every worker shall have the right to take industrial action, whether or not it is in breach of any contract. It would not be subject to employer agreement or tethered to lawful procedures but would be an absolute statutory right to break contract terms and withdraw labour.
Industrial action, particularly strike action, is obviously a serious matter, and I think everybody would agree on that. It affects not only the employer but the public, the economy and, critically, the most vulnerable in society, who rely on public services. That is why we believe our existing legal framework strikes a careful balance. It protects the right to strike but does so within clear procedures and obligations: balloting requirements, notice periods and protections against unlawful disruption. This amendment would ride roughshod over all that.
What does it mean to have a right to breach your contract, regardless of process or proportionality? Surely, that is not a right; that is just carte blanche. This provision would displace the carefully constructed framework that governs how industrial action can be taken lawfully and responsibly. It would empower disruption without accountability. The purpose of employment law is not to tilt the playing field in one direction or another but to ensure that fairness, order and mutual obligations between employers and workers are respected. The right to withdraw labour must remain conditional on lawful procedures and not granted in the abstract, regardless of impact or legality.
Moreover, the proposed amendment would likely bring the UK into direct conflict with established contract law and create endless legal uncertainty. If workers are told that they have a statutory right to strike, even in breach of a contract, what does that mean for essential services, public safety, or the ability of schools, hospitals and transport systems to function with any consistency?
I do not think we should be mistaken. This amendment is not some minor clarification; it is a fundamental rewrite of the basis of workplace relations. It would undermine the principle that contracts entered into freely carry obligations and it would sweep away the balance between rights and responsibilities. I also have to ask: once a principle of contract breaking is established, how long before that is used as precedent in other contractual disputes?
Nobody denies that workers must be able to organise, speak up, bargain collectively and act where necessary. That is already protected in the legal framework. This amendment would take a sledgehammer to that balance. It would replace legal clarity, we believe, with legal radicalism, and accountability with absolutism. For those reasons, I urge the Government to reject the amendment.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Hendy for tabling Amendment 238, which would establish a broad statutory right to strike. I thank him also for our constructive and amicable meeting a few days ago and for his impressive tour of international conventions this evening. I have to say to him that anything I subsequently say does not mean that I do not take our international obligations seriously. In fact, in this increasingly uncertain world, we have more of an obligation to work collaboratively across countries. I think there is a lot to be gained from countries if we do that, not only on these sorts of issues but obviously on other issues of social justice as well.
I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Fox and Lady Jones, for adding to this short debate and the noble Lord, Lord Goddard. He raised some of the issues around prisons. I will be addressing those in the next group of amendments, but the point is well made that we certainly have to look after and defend our prison officers and recognise the service that they do for us.
The Government recognise the intention to reinforce protections for industrial action but it is important to emphasise that the right to strike is already protected under UK law, as set out in Sections 219 and 244 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, provided clear conditions are met. Introducing a specific codified right to strike would cut across the uncodified nature of the UK constitution and lead to a far-reaching and undefined statutory right that risks legal uncertainty and conflict with long-established frameworks that carefully balance the rights of unions and employers.
Lord Hendy (Lab)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for her support and her economic analysis of the consequences of the absence of the effective right to strike. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley. I am not sure I quite understood her question, but I am not trying to ring-fence an artificial, theoretical right. This amendment has purpose. I recognise the realities of the political situation in which we are arguing, but this right, were it to come about, would have practical, real consequences and continue what she described as the fight in real life.
The purpose of these international laws, of course, is to lay down minimum fundamental standards for the entire globe. Although some of them are quite ancient, dating to just after the Second World War, and while I accept that capitalism and the world of work have evolved, the fundamental nature of the entitlement to freedom of association, the right to bargain collectively and the right to strike remains, and it is very important that we keep an eye on these international standards and the modern interpretation of them by the bodies which are charged constitutionally to interpret them.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, for what I discerned was his support, in a way, at least for the principle. This is my fault entirely, but I was moving Amendment 238 only. I am afraid that he has the further ordeal of listening to me again for the range of further right to strike amendments, including that in relation to prison officers.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, for his thorough response to my arguments. He can use the phrase “constitutional benediction”, but it is better coming from the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada. I will not take up time dealing with all his arguments; the differences between us are self-evident. I just point out that a positive right to strike exists in virtually every country in Europe, and they do not have a difficulty with issues of breach of contract. Of course, the restrictions on the exercise of the right to strike differ from one country to another, but the positive right exists almost everywhere.
Finally, I thank my noble friend the Minister for her very full response. She says that a positive right to strike would cut across our constitutional arrangements. I just remind her that Section 220 of the 1992 Act provides a positive right to picket; if we can have a positive right to picket, I do not see why we cannot have a positive right to strike. For the avoidance of doubt, I was not suggesting for a moment an absolute and unqualified right to strike. Everywhere in the world that there is a right to strike, it is always subject to limitations, which differ from country to country. The question that these international bodies wrestle with day in, day out is whether the particular limitation is in conformity with whatever the international treaty is.
My noble friend asserts that we are in compliance with international law on this. We have to agree to disagree on that point. I do not believe that to be the case. Of course, I agree with her that this Bill is a great improvement on the law as it is at the moment, but she knows that my view is that it is not quite enough. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Hendy
“Right to take industrial action (No. 2)(1) The Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 is amended as follows.(2) Omit section 223 (action taken because of dismissal for taking unofficial action).”Member’s explanatory statement
These amendments would remove section 223 of the 1992 Act which renders industrial action unlawful if one of the reasons for the industrial action is that the employer has dismissed one or more workers for taking unofficial industrial action.
Lord Hendy (Lab)
My Lords, it is now 10.22 pm, so I apologise for assaulting your Lordships’ ears with a series of amendments which also deal with the right to strike. Since time is precious, I have decided to focus on one amendment in particular and let the rest speak for themselves. I had hoped that my noble friend Lord Woodley would speak to his amendment on prison officers, but he is unavoidably not in his place. I will deal with that amendment when I get to it.
I will focus on Amendment 240, which introduces six specific measures aimed at the restoration of statutory protection for secondary action. Again, I do not entertain a great deal of hope for this amendment—I am a realist—but I express my gratitude for the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, who has added her name to it; for a briefing from the British Medical Association; and for the support of unions, including ASLEF, the BMA, the Bakers, Food and Allied Workers Union, the Fire Brigades Union, the RMT and the University and College Union.
Solidarity action is an inherent aspect of freedom of association and the right of workers to act for and on behalf of fellow workers, particularly fellow trade unionists. From 1906 to 1982, there was no legal distinction between solidarity action and other industrial action. The Conservative Government then introduced restrictions on certain kinds of secondary action, and in 1990 all statutory protection was withdrawn. The Labour Party strongly objected. In the parliamentary debates on the 1990 Bill, Tony Blair, then shadow Employment Minister, said in the other place:
“The abolition of sympathy action is unreasonable, unjustified and way out of line with anything that happens anywhere else”.
In relation to the proposal that all forms of sympathy and secondary action were to be forbidden, he said:
“That proposition is so manifestly unfair and unreasonable … that it is fatal to any pretence of even-handedness in the Bill”.
Compliance with international law is a duty incumbent on the state. Lord Bingham’s eighth principle of the rule of law is the obligation of the state and Ministers to comply with their international treaty obligations. In this House, last November, the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General said of compliance with international law that:
“We should all be immensely proud of it, and this Government will seek at every turn to comply with our obligations”.—[Official Report, 26/11/24; col. 680.]
He developed the theme in a lecture to the Royal United Service Institute on 29 May this year in which he rejected “cherry picking” among international obligations. He continued,
“The argument … that the UK can breach its international obligations when it is in the national interest to do so, is a radical departure from the UK’s constitutional tradition, which has long been that ministers are under a duty to comply with international law … states can leave the treaties they have signed and agreed on. But the integrity and force of the system requires that once a party, to an agreement, they abide by its rules — they don’t pick and mix”.
It will be recalled that the Labour Party in 2021 adopted a Green Paper, Labour’s New Deal for Working People. It was integrated into Labour’s Plan to Make Work Pay: Delivering a New Deal for Working People. It was explicitly referred to in the election manifesto and in the King’s Speech. The paper said:
“The laws regulating industrial action should ensure that UK law complies in every respect with the international obligations ratified by the UK, including those of the International Labour Organization and the European Social Charter, as reiterated in the Trade and Cooperation Agreement with the European Union”.
The UK has ratified ILO Convention 87, which protects the right to strike. Since 1989, the ILO committee of expert jurists has reviewed the UK’s legislative restrictions on secondary action and held them in violation of ILO Convention 87. The committee held that secondary action should be permitted in three situations. First, where it relates directly to the social and economic interests of the workers involved in either or both of the original dispute and the secondary action, and where the original dispute and the secondary action are not unlawful in themselves. Secondly, in any event, a general prohibition of sympathy strikes could lead to abuse, and workers should be able to take such action, provided the initial strike they are supporting is itself lawful. And thirdly, furthermore, the restriction to disputes only between workers and their own employer
“could make it impossible for unions to take effective action in situations where the ‘real’ employer with whom they were in dispute was able to take refuge behind one or more subsidiary companies who were technically the ‘employer’ of the workers concerned, but who lacked the capacity to take decisions which are capable of satisfactorily resolving the dispute”.
That condemnation in 1989 has been repeated many times in the Committee of Experts’ observations on the United Kingdom, including in 1995, 1999, 2001, 2003, 2007, 2009, 2011 and 2013.
The other ILO committee, the tripartite Committee on Freedom of Association, has also condemned the UK in this regard, holding that:
“a ban on strike action not linked to a collective dispute to which the employee or union is a party is contrary to the principles of freedom of association, the Committee once again requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that sympathy strikes, as well as social and economic protest action, are protected under the law”.
In November 2023, that committee reviewed the P&O Ferries scandal, and among other things, held that:
“At the outset, the Committee recalls that a general prohibition of sympathy strikes could lead to abuse and workers should be able to take such action provided the initial strike they are supporting is itself lawful … The Committee recalls that it had previously requested the UK Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that sympathy strikes were protected under the law … The Committee requests the Government to engage with the social partners to overcome challenges regarding the legislative prohibition on sympathy strikes, in conformity with freedom of association”.
The request was ignored.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, it is getting late—it is more than an hour and a half past my preferred bedtime—so I am going to show incredible restraint: although I have signed five amendments, I will speak to only three. I see that the Chief Whip is scowling at me even before I have started, so obviously I am going to milk it for all it is worth.
As a Green, I see that, with every decade of globalisation, this country has had less industry and more of our public services sold off to foreign owners. I do not understand why that has happened; it does not seem to be good business. The next step, of course, will be freeports, where basic rules and protections just disappear. That is where this country is heading. We need the return of strong trade unions to help turn the tide. Each of these amendments aims to give back the power that organised labour once had.
Amendment 239 would enable workers to act collectively if the employer has dismissed someone for downing tools. That person might have refused to work for all sorts of reasons: they might have been asked to do something dangerous, been asked in an abusive way or been asked to do something beyond their job description.
The Chief Whip is making me laugh now.
There are a lot of good reasons why somebody might walk out, and their colleagues can judge whether they are sensible.
The noble Lord, Lord Hendy, said he only really wanted to talk about Amendment 240. I agree that it is quite important because modern industry and services are broken up into small, interconnected companies and subcontractors, and it is essential that workers are able to bring their grievances to the attention of other workers in closely related workplaces. Employers do not like it because it is working people acting in solidarity with each other. It is one set of workers asking another set of employees to make their own decisions about which side they are on.
The idea of democracy does not stop at the ballot box, not that we would know much about that; it should be in the workplace as well. Last week, I met a trade unionist from Italy. He and his coworkers took over the GKN factory in Florence. They are trying to move as a co-operative working force from making parts for very expensive cars to making eco-bikes and solar panels. It is a fantastic opportunity, and I really hope they are successful.
Amendment 241 is the most crucial of these amendments as it restores the right of workers to take industrial action to be recognised as trade unionists. This is the most basic of rights, and it is shameful that a Labour Government have not put this into the Bill. What is Labour for if it is not about working people? Everything else, apparently.
The decline in trade unions has led to the growth of the gig economy and spurious self-employment. The age of secure employment and regular hours has become a fading dream for far too many. This amendment is another small step towards giving people some power in their workplace. Collective bargaining should be automatic in workplaces if a large enough group of employees want it. With so many employers unwilling to take that step, it is crucial that those employees have the right to strike and demand that recognition from an employer.
I would like a just and fair society. The richest 50 families in the UK hold more wealth than the bottom 33.5 million people. How is that okay? I argue that it is not. Nothing in this country works properly any more because the gap between the richest and the poorest is increasing every single day. Those on a low income are being left behind and those on middle incomes are being fleeced by privatised services. Strong trade unions are one way of helping people find a bit of power and control in their lives—these amendments enable that.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, for bringing this into our debate but, candidly, his Amendment 240 is truly extraordinary. The only success Flying Pickets had was a number one in 1983 with the single “Only You”—and, by the way, that was a copy from the great band Yazoo. The idea that we would go back to flying pickets is just extraordinary.
Some 45 years on, no sensible Labour Peer has put this forward until tonight. I genuinely find it astonishing that we are here still debating the idea that it is democracy for a strike to be called somewhere else all of a sudden and for you to go off somewhere else for a dispute you are not part of.
While I appreciate the erudite speech we have heard tonight, going back to the real substance and principle of this, this is an important Bill. I do not agree with a lot of it, but I find it extraordinary that we are going back in time when this country actually needs to move forward in modern industrial relations. I regret the amendments that have been tabled today.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak against this amendment very briefly. I agree wholly with my noble friend Lady Coffey. I also agree that the speech by the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, was very persuasive, compelling, detailed and comprehensive, but completely wrong. It would be a disaster for our country if we were to go back to the era of Saltley coke works, Grunwick, the disaster inflicted on the automotive industry, flying pickets and the closed shop.
Baroness O’Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones. It seems to me that the key purpose behind this group of amendments is seeking to shift the balance of power a little bit more towards working people. I think you would find that many people in the country agree that that balance of power has swung too far against ordinary working people for too long.
I just want to very, very briefly say a word on Amendment 253 and underline the very grave sense of injustice that prison officers feel about the removal of what is a fundamental human right, the right to withdraw your labour, back in 1994. There is a sense that that did not in any way improve the Prison Service; I think many of us would agree that the Prison Service has subsequently faced huge challenges. We know of the huge problems that prison officers face very often, day to day, in their workplace: violence, poor conditions and vermin. I stress the appeal made by the noble Lord, Lord Hendy. Given the grave sense of injustice that is felt by people who not only stand up for fellow workers as members of the POA but stand up for a service that we could become proud of as a country, a prison service that also, I hope, does the job of rehabilitating people, we must look to engage with the POA to find a remedy to the real sense of injustice that they feel.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, I will quickly follow and agree with my noble friends Lady Coffey and Lord Jackson of Peterborough in their speaking against the amendments in this group. We feel that these amendments collectively represent a dangerous and retrograde step that would just take us back to the industrial chaos of the 1970s.
Such amendments would fundamentally undermine the carefully balanced framework of industrial relations that has served this country well for, now, over 30 years. I suppose the conventions of the House require me to address each amendment in turn, starting with Amendment 239. As the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, described, this would remove Section 223 of the 1992 Act, which currently renders unlawful any industrial action taken in response to dismissals for unofficial action.
When workers engage in unofficial action—that is, action not sanctioned by their trade union and without proper balloting procedures—they are essentially taking the law into their own hands, so employers must retain the right to dismiss workers who breach their contracts in this manner. To permit official industrial action in response to such lawful dismissals would create a vicious circle where lawlessness begets more lawlessness. It would effectively immunise unofficial action from any meaningful consequences, and encourage workers to bypass the proper, democratic procedures that unions themselves have surely fought hard to establish.
Amendment 240 is perhaps the most pernicious of all these proposals. It would restore secondary action, the ability of workers not just to strike against their employer over their conditions, but to support disputes elsewhere. We banned secondary action for compelling reasons. It allows disputes to spread like wildfire across the economy, dragging innocent third parties into conflicts that have nothing to do with their industrial relationships. A dispute between workers and one employer could paralyse entire supply chains, disrupting businesses that have committed no wrong and harming workers who have no stake in the original dispute.
The amendment would also remove the sensible restrictions on picketing, allowing pickets to target any workplace, rather than just their own. This opens the door to flying pickets and the mass intimidation tactics that we witnessed in the darkest days of industrial conflict. When pickets can descend on workplaces with which they have no employment relationship, the result is not legitimate industrial pressure but mob rule. Furthermore, by changing the definition of trade disputes from those “wholly or mainly” relating to employment matters to those merely “connected with” such matters, this amendment would politicise industrial action. Strikes could be called on the flimsiest of pretexts, with only the most tenuous connection to genuine workplace issues. This is a recipe for politically motivated disruption that serves no legitimate industrial relations purpose.
Amendment 241 would restore the right to strike for union recognition. We have established statutory procedures for union recognition that are fair, democratic and effective. These procedures protect workers’ rights to choose whether they wish to be represented by a union, without the coercion that inevitably accompanies strike action. When recognition can be achieved through industrial action, the process becomes tainted by intimidation, rather than informed by genuine worker preference. No worker should ever face the choice between supporting their family and supporting union recognition demands.
Amendment 242 would remove the requirement for unions to provide employers with notice of strike ballots. This seemingly technical change would also have profound practical consequences. Employers need advance notice to make contingency arrangements, to protect vulnerable service users and to engage in meaningful dialogue that might resolve disputes before they escalate. In essential services—our hospitals, schools and transport networks—such notice is crucial for public safety. To remove this requirement would be to abandon the vital principle that industrial action should and must be a last resort rather than a first response.
Amendment 243 would eliminate the requirement for separate workplace ballots, allowing unions to aggregate completely different workplaces and employment relationships into single ballots. This strikes at the heart of democratic participation. Workers in one workplace may face entirely different conditions and concerns from those in another. They should not be bound by the votes of workers with whom they share nothing but a common union membership. Workplace-specific ballots ensure that industrial action has genuine support from those who will participate in it, rather than being imposed by a union hierarchy pursuing its own agenda.
Taken together, these amendments would create a perfect storm of industrial instability. They would restore the legal framework that gave us the winter of discontent, when rubbish piled up in our streets, bodies went unburied and hospital patients were turned away by striking workers. They would empower union leaders to spread disputes across entire industries, to bypass democratic procedures and to hold essential services hostage to political demands. We must not forget the lessons of history. The industrial relations reforms of the 1980s and 1990s did not destroy trade unionism; they civilised it. They required unions to be accountable to their members and responsive to legitimate concerns while preventing the abuse of industrial power.
The noble Lord, Lord Hendy, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb and Lady O’Grady of Upper Holloway, would have us believe that they simply want to restore workers’ rights. But rights without responsibilities are merely privileges, and privileges being exercised without regard for their impact on others quickly becomes tyranny. The right to strike is not an absolute right; it is a powerful tool that must be used judiciously and with proper safeguards.
Moreover, these amendments would do nothing to address the real challenges that face working people today. They would not raise a single wage, improve a single workplace or create a single job. Instead, as my noble friends pointed out, they would create uncertainty, discourage investment and ultimately harm the very workers that they purport to be helping. Businesses need stability and predictability to grow and prosper. Industrial relations law that encourages conflict and chaos will drive investment elsewhere, taking jobs and opportunities with it.
I urge this Committee to reject these amendments. They represent not progress but regression, not liberation but license, and not workers’ rights but workers’ wrongs. We must maintain the balanced approach that has served our economy and our society so well. Let us resist the siren call of those who would drag us back to an era of industrial warfare that all of us hoped that we would never see again. The choice before us is clear. We can preserve a system that protects workers’ legitimate rights while maintaining economic stability and social peace, or we can return to those bad old days of secondary picketing, political strikes and industrial anarchy. I think and I hope that I know which path this Committee would choose.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
I thank my noble friend Lord Hendy for his amendments on the right to strike and for raising the issue of prisoner officers’ right to strike, which was strongly debated in the other place.
I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has taken such a strident approach to the issues which my noble friends have raised. Although we do not necessarily agree with everything that my noble friend has put forward, I would say equally that we distance ourselves from the tone and attitude that has been presented by the other side this evening.
Lord Hendy (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for her support, her attention to Amendments 239 and 241, and her economic analysis of inequality in the role of trade unions. I thank my noble friend Lady O’Grady for developing that by explaining that the purpose of these amendments is to restore the balance of power somewhat.
I also thank her for dealing with Amendment 253 on prison officers. I feel somewhat guilty that I did not give due time to that subject in my speech. However, I note the additional point that prison officers in Scotland have the right to strike. It seems inexplicable to me that those in England, Wales and Northern Ireland are deprived of it while those in Scotland enjoy it.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, for her contribution. She did not deal with the requirements of international law; instead, she put forward a case that we have heard before, which in essence is that of special pleading that the circumstances of the United Kingdom justify non-compliance with international law. I do not think that that argument is capable of success.
The noble Lord, Lord Jackson, rather misunderstands the position of international law and the theory of dualist and monist regimes. The United Kingdom is a dualist regime. That means that the obligation of international law falls not on the citizens, corporations, trade unions or other bodies in the United Kingdom but on the state itself. The obligation to comply with international law is that of the state, not of the citizens within it.
The noble Lord mentioned the European Convention. That is somewhat different, because Parliament has made most of the European Convention part of UK law itself. That is a different thing altogether. I am not arguing that the provisions in international law that I have explained apply directly in the United Kingdom or in UK courts or tribunals. The obligations are on the state to conform to those obligations which it has ratified.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, regards these measures as a dangerous and retrograde step and regards the current regime over the last 40 years or so as being very successful. On the contrary, I am with the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, in regarding the legislation of 1980s as having led to powerlessness, poverty, inequality, insecurity of work and insecurity of earnings. I disagree with his analysis, in which he describes the consequences of some mythical fantasy world of his own imagination. I say just this about the 1970s, as we do not have time to go into it: for all its faults, it was the most equal decade in British history for wealth and income. The consequence of the 1980s legislation has been to reduce collective bargaining coverage from over 80% to something like a quarter today, which is the essential cause of inequality and poverty.
Finally, I thank my noble friend the Minister for her attentive and detailed response. Again, we must agree to differ in our conclusions, but I add that we cannot go on being damned year after year by these international supervisory bodies. There has to be some way of resolving Britain’s non-compliance. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Goddard of Stockport
Member's explanatory statement
This probing amendment would reinstate the 50% threshold requirement for industrial action to be voted on by a trade union and seeks to understand whether the Government perceives a risk to the democratic integrity of trade union ballots for industrial action as a result of the provisions to remove the 50% requirement.
Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)
My Lords, an interesting night has been had by all. More ammunition has been thrown into the laps of these Benches than on any other night of the entire debate. Of course, that is called an unintended consequence—never mind. I rise to speak to the important group of amendments that address the key aspects of the industrial ballot process. I wish to highlight my own probing Amendments 244 and 246, which focus on maintaining a robust democratic mandate for industrial action and ensuring clarity around the ballot’s effective period. I thank the Ministers for making time to meet me last week to understand the rationale behind these probing amendments, and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, for signing my amendments—she is my new best friend for at least the next 45 minutes.
Amendment 244 is a probing amendment that aims to reinstate the 50% turnout threshold for industrial action ballots, questioning whether removing this requirement could weaken their democratic legitimacy. In the process, that could have significant consequences for workers, employers and the public. It is clear that the ballots genuinely reflect the clear will of the membership. That would seem obvious to me. We have spoken tonight about courts from all over Europe and the world, but there is another court: the court of public opinion. When you hear of people having strike ballots with percentage turnouts in the low 20s or 30s, you really must question the legitimacy of the argument for the ballot if you cannot at least get 50% of the workforce to take part.
Lord Hutton of Furness (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 251A stands in my name. I draw the Committee’s attention to the interests I have disclosed in the register. I chair the operating company that runs London Luton Airport.
Much in the Bill is to be welcomed. It will deal with some of the manifest gaps in our framework of employment law and will strike a better balance of rights in the workplace. I strongly congratulate my noble friends on bringing this Bill forward. My amendment addresses the question of balance. Ministers have repeatedly emphasised the importance of balancing the need for better protections for workers and a simplified, less complex framework for industrial relations law with the legitimate and reasonable concerns of employers about flexibility and the regulatory costs of additional legislation. Being both pro business and pro worker is a laudable aim, but it will depend on this balance being properly struck.
I believe that Clause 71 as drafted does not strike the correct balance as it affects UK airlines because this clause directly, but probably inadvertently, brings into play in any future industrial action involving UK airlines the regulations concerning airline passenger compensation set out in what is known in the industry as UK261, which would impose potentially significant costs on airline operators in any future industrial dispute. This regulation gives passengers a right to compensation if a flight is cancelled fewer than 14 days before departure, unless there are, according to the regulations, extraordinary circumstances. Compensation can be anywhere between £110 and £520 per person, depending on the length of the flight, not the value of the ticket. Unions are required under the current law to give 14 days’ strike notice to any UK airline operator, allowing flights to be cancelled without incurring potentially enormous claims for compensation from passengers.
The regulations and the primary legislation are, in this context, extremely and entirely harmonious. Clause 71 would change the current careful balance and expose airlines to significant claims for compensation as in future if the Bill becomes law only 10 days’ notice of strike action would be required. An important ruling of the European Court of Justice in 2019 made it clear that strikes by an airline’s own staff are not to be considered extraordinary circumstances under UK261, so we have an obvious problem. I cannot believe that Ministers intended this outcome because, put simply, there is no balance here. Uniquely in this sector, the law would discriminate against airline operators.
My amendment proposes a solution to this. UK airline employees should continue to be required to provide 14 days’ notice of strike action. I do not believe that my amendment raises any fundamental issues of principle. Trade unions should, and must, have the freedom to take industrial action, but employers also have the reasonable expectation that the law will remain neutral and will not favour one side over the other. I am afraid that Clause 71 does precisely that as far as the airline sector is concerned. If my solution is not considered acceptable to my noble friend on the Front Bench, I hope that she will be able to tell me how she plans to deal with this situation.
Lord Moynihan of Chelsea (Con)
My Lords, I am embarrassed to keep your Lordships even a few minutes more, but I stand to support the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, and my noble friend Lord Jackson in his opposition to Clause 69 standing part, and to introduce my own opposition to Clause 66 standing part. Thus, I go further than the noble Lord Goddard, even though I very much support his words.
Why is Clause 65, in combination with Clause 66, so damaging? The noble Lord, Lord Goddard, was quite right to focus on the democratic legitimacy of the provisions of Clause 65, but there is a further, even more key, set of problems with these clauses. With noble Lords’ permission at this very late hour, for which I apologise, I will give a very brief review of the history.
Let us first look at days lost to strikes in the 1970s. In 1970, 10 million days were lost; in 1972, 24 million days were lost; and in 1979, 30 million days were lost during the winter of discontent. We consequently had the Thatcher reforms, which outlawed secondary action, banned strikes conducted for political reasons, regulated picketing, required secret ballots for strike action, and made trade unions legally accountable for actions taken in their name. This enabled unions to restore control and reduce the number of unofficial strikes, which had been a major source of the growth in strike activity in the 1960s and 1970s. The result, post-Thatcher through to the 2020s, was that, on average, less than half a million days a year were lost to strikes. Industrial peace was a direct consequence of those reforms. There were no more winters of discontent. This was enormously valuable, for example, for the Blair and Brown Governments of the noughties.
Let us note that the Government’s Bill seeks to eliminate very few of those specific Thatcher reforms. The amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, which we have just discussed, made an attempt at that; I am glad to hear the Government sensibly decline his invitation. However, even though the Government apparently see the sense of leaving most of the Thatcher reforms in place, they seem, in Clauses 65 and 66 in particular, to be looking to find other ways to unionise the private sector landscape.
If the Government succeed in that, there will be inevitable consequences for the UK’s economy. Last week, it was observed that unions are currently mostly confined to the public sector in the UK, but nobody asked why that was so. It is obviously because public sector workers have a monopoly of employment, so can enforce their will, and timid Governments seek to placate them so as to be able to appear, at least, to be in charge. What is the impact of this? They are multiple public sector strikes and excessive wage settlements in the public sector, the costs of which are now directly leading the Chancellor to her current dilemma of a runaway deficit, plus underserved public services such as social care and child welfare, and an impending debt crisis.
What will Clauses 65 and 66 collectively do to the union landscape in the UK? Clause 65 removes Section 226(2)(a)(iia) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, meaning that for the ballot to be valid, you no longer have any floor for the percentage of employees voting. Clause 66 alters subsection (2)(a)(iii) so that only a majority of those voting would be required for a strike to go forward. One businessman whom I spoke to just today was utterly startled by this news. He runs an SME employing 36 workers. If, say, one-third of them—12 people—vote, and only six of those 36 employees vote to strike, then you have a strike. It is not hard to find six out of 36 employees to vote for a strike.
However, is that, as the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, pointed out, democratic? Will the electorate’s heart warm to this quantitative gerrymandering? As I described just now, we all see the impact of unionisation in the public sector. What will happen in the private sector if this Bill, in the undemocratic manner that the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, has so rightly decried, passes?
I described last week in this Chamber some of the past, when unionisation destroyed industries such as the London docks, and the present, when the public is tormented by public sector strikes ranging from dustbins to doctors and from teachers to train drivers. This present-day public sector malaise, if it spreads to the private sector, will, as my noble friend Lord Hunt made clear, take us straight back to the 1970s and the winter of discontent.
If the Government are, sensibly, really not proposing to change much of the Margaret Thatcher reforms, which have brought industrial peace to the private sector at least, why is there any need to bring in these new anti-democratic changes? Do the Government really think that allowing strikes to go forward, with feasibly only 10% or even less of employees voting for the strike, will be seen by the public and indeed by the other 90% of the employees of that company as anything but outrageous and leading to even more strikes, even more outrageous wage settlements, even more yawning deficits, even, dare I say, a very large and this time real economic black hole?
If the Government proceed with these changes, the inevitable consequent industrial strife will be laid at their door. The Labour Party saw what happened to it in the 1979 election as a result of the winter of discontent. Why is it now seeking a similar fate in 2029? I urge the Government to withdraw Clause 66 and indeed Clause 65.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I will speak briefly to the amendments that I have signed. I do not actually wish to add anything on Amendments 244 and 246 as what the noble Lord, Lord Goddard of Stockport, said was straight to the point. I agree with him absolutely on those matters.
I just want to briefly turn to the Clause 71 stand part notice and Amendment 251A from the noble Lord, Lord Hutton of Furness. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Hutton of Furness, explained it very eloquently. Why, when we are getting into this level of legislation, does it really matter about going from 14 days to 10 days? Actually, it does. There are wider consequences of some of these legal changes which need to be recognised in terms of the practicality of some of this legislation. It would be very helpful to hear from the Minister why that particular move is being made.
The other reason I oppose entirely Clause 71 standing part—to be more accurate, it is probably about subsection (1)(b)—is the categories and the NHS and trying to prepare for strikes. You never know exactly how many people will go on strike when you are running a hospital or other parts of the NHS. Having a clear sense of what capability you are still going to be able to run is critical for patient safety and for patients getting better.
I hope that the Government consider the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Hutton, when it comes to the airline industry. I hope Ministers will also carefully consider the NHS in their deliberations, because that genuinely can mean the difference between life and death or, to be less dramatic, whether a whole series of operations will need to be cancelled for many patients across the country. I genuinely believe, recognising that health unions are currently issuing ballot papers, that Ministers should be carefully considering what impact this new clause would have.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friends Lady Coffey and Lord Moynihan, and the noble Lords, Lord Goddard and Lord Hutton. I will come back to their amendments shortly.
I will speak to Amendments 245, 251B and the question of whether Clause 68 should stand part, which is tabled in my name. On the clause stand part, this clause represents a dangerous step backwards. The noble Lord, Lord Goddard, objected to it in the sense that he thought it might introduce a lack of clarity. But the fact is that the clause itself is a step backwards in transparency and democratic accountability that this Committee must not allow to pass unchallenged.
The provisions that Clause 68 seeks to remove, notably subsections (2B) to (2D) of Section 229, are not bureaucratic obstacles but fundamental pillars of informed democratic participation. They require that voting papers should include a summary of the dispute, specify the types of industrial action proposed and indicate when such action is expected to take place. These are not unreasonable burdens. They are the basic information any voter needs to make an informed decision.
Democracy thrives on transparency, not opacity. When we ask working people to vote on whether to take industrial action—a decision that may affect their employment, their families’ livelihoods and their future prospects—surely they are owed the courtesy of clear, comprehensive information about what they might be voting for.
Consider the absurdity of what this clause actually proposes. It is a ballot paper that asks, “Are you prepared to take part in industrial action short of a strike?” without specifying whether this means a work-to-rule, an overtime ban, a refusal to cover additional duties or any combination of actions. How can any reasonable person make an informed choice without knowing what they are agreeing to participate in?
The Government may well argue that these requirements impose administrative burdens on the trade unions, which is an argument we have heard on a couple of groups tonight. But since when did we consider informing voters to be an administrative burden rather than a democratic duty? We would not accept a general election ballot that failed to specify what office candidates were seeking or what their party stood for, so why should we accept industrial action ballots with less information?
Furthermore, these information requirements serve to protect union members themselves. Clear information helps ensure that workers understand not just what they are voting for but the potential consequences of their actions. This protects both their interests and those of their unions by reducing the likelihood of disputes over the course, scope or nature of mandated action.
Turning to Amendment 245, I agree with the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Moynihan of Chelsea, and the noble Lord, Lord Goddard. I will speak to this amendment, although I must emphasise that my primary concern is not with the amendment itself but the Government’s fundamentally flawed approach to this critical issue. To be absolutely clear, the 50% turnout threshold for industrial action ballots should be maintained. This threshold exists for the very good reason that it ensures that strikes and other industrial actions have genuine democratic legitimacy, as the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, pointed out, and that they represent the will of a substantial portion of union membership and not merely an activist minority.
If the Government are determined to weaken these democratic protections, and regrettably it appears that they are, they must not compound this error by hiding behind secondary legislation. Businesses across this nation deserve better. They need to know the regulatory framework within which they will operate—a theme to which we have returned a number of times through the Bill. They cannot plan for investment, assess risk or make employment decisions when fundamental aspects of industrial relations law are left hanging in regulatory limbo. The Government’s approach creates precisely the uncertainty that undermines economic confidence and job creation.
I urge the Government to reconsider entirely and maintain the 50% threshold to provide the certainty that businesses need and the democratic legitimacy that industrial action requires. If the Government insist that they are going to lower the threshold, which we think will be disastrous, it should be in the Bill, so that we can scrutinise it fully, which is what my amendment would ensure. As my noble friend Lord Moynihan pointed out, a 20% threshold could lead to only 10% of a workforce supporting strike action. The House deserves the opportunity to examine and debate such fundamental changes properly and not have them smuggled through in statutory instruments with minimal parliamentary oversight.
I will speak very briefly to Amendment 251A, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hutton. I could not agree with him more. It would be a very regrettable error if the Bill were to inadvertently introduce an unintended consequence of potentially swingeing fines for airlines, for reasons that are not really any fault of their own. It is to be supported, and I hope he will return to the theme.
My Amendment 251B proposes a modest but vital extension, from 10 to 14 days, of the notice period required before industrial action can commence in the railway sector, for slightly different reasons. This is not an attempt to restrict workers’ rights but rather a recognition of the unique role that our railway system plays in the economic and social fabric of the nation. The railway network is not just another industry. As my noble friend Lady Coffey pointed out, it is the circulatory system of the economy and it moves millions of passengers and vast quantities of freight every single day. When railway services are disrupted, the effects cascade through every sector of society, from healthcare workers unable to reach hospitals to students missing examinations and businesses losing millions in productivity. The current 10-day notice period that is proposed is simply insufficient for the complexity of railway operations. I could go on, but I think I have said enough on the subject.
Four additional days may seem modest, but, in the context of the operations of the railway and airlines, it represents the difference between chaos and managed disruption. It allows time for proper contingency planning, for negotiations to continue and for the travelling public to make alternative arrangements. With that, I shall wind up, but I hope the Government are paying attention and will at least listen to these carefully considered amendments.
Lord Katz (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe of Epsom and Lord Goddard of Stockport, and my noble friends Lord Hutton of Furness and Lord Hendy for tabling amendments on the subject of industrial action ballot mandates, thresholds and notice. Despite the late hour, I recognise that there is significant interest here. I will try to do justice to all those amendments and to the opposition to certain clauses standing part of the Bill.
Before I go into the detail, I want to make it clear that a lot of what we are discussing relates to the repeal of the great majority of the Trade Union Act 2016, which was a clear manifesto commitment for this Government. I think it is worth framing why that is the context. This does, in a way, speak to a lot of what the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, mentioned. Far from supporting the economy, the strike legislation in the 2016 Act that we inherited from the then Opposition did not actually prevent strikes. In 2022, we lost more days to strikes than France. In 2023 and 2024, NHS strikes alone cost the taxpayer £1.7 billion.
Lord Moynihan of Chelsea (Con)
The noble Lord and others keep referring to the 2016 Act, but the amendments that we have been addressing in this section are all amendments to the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.
Lord Katz (Lab)
With respect, there are definitely elements in the group of amendments we are talking about that relate to the 2016 Act. I was simply setting out the context for my remarks. Perhaps the noble Lord will let me make some progress, and, if he is still not satisfied towards the end of the speech, we can spend a bit more time on this.
As I was saying, 2.7 million working days were lost to strike action in 2023, up from 2.5 million in 2022, and these were the highest annual number of working days lost to strikes since 1989. Put frankly, the 2016 Act did not achieve its objective of reducing strikes—in fact, it made things worse.
Amendment 244, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, and Amendment 245, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, both seek, in different ways, to remove the repeal of the 50% industrial action ballot turnout threshold. The Bill as drafted repeals this threshold in its entirety, returning us to the situation pre 2016, where only a simple majority of members voting in favour of strike action was required for industrial action to be deemed lawful.
We want to create a positive and modern framework for trade union legislation that delivers productive, constructive engagement, respects the democratic mandate of unions and reduces bureaucratic hurdles. The date for repeal of the 50% threshold will be set out in regulations at a future date, with the intention that it is aligned with the establishment of e-balloting as an option for trade unions. In combination with the delivery of modern, secure workplace balloting, we hope that this will ensure that industrial action mandates will have demonstrably broad support.
I turn to the opposition to Clause 66 standing part. In answer to the concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, this clause does indeed seek to amend Section 226 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act to reverse the change made by Section 3 of the Trade Union Act 2016. Section 226 is amended to omit subsections (2A) to (2F), thereby removing the requirement for industrial action ballots in six defined public services—health; fire services; education for those aged under 17; transport; decommissioning of nuclear installations, management of radioactive waste and spent fuel; and border security—to have the support of at least 40% of those entitled to vote for the industrial action in order to be valid.
Alongside Clause 65, which removes the turnout threshold, a trade union will need only a simple majority of those voting in the ballot to vote in favour of industrial action for the industrial action to be deemed lawful. This was the case prior to the Trade Union Act 2016. This clause is a key part of the Government’s agenda. Again, I want to be clear that this is part of our commitment to repeal the Trade Union Act 2016.
I turn to Amendment 246, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Goddard of Stockport, and will speak to the opposition to Clause 69 standing part of the Bill. The noble Lord’s amendment seeks to retain the current six-month mandate period for industrial action following a successful ballot. The Government want to strike the right balance between ensuring that industrial action is based on a recent vote and reducing the need for re-ballots. Strike action is always a last resort; it is costly to workers as well as employers. For this reason, we consulted on the appropriate length of time before a trade union should re-ballot its members.
In that consultation, trade unions were very keen to have no need to re-ballot for a mandate at all. However, following the consultation, the Government have set the mandate period at 12 months, because the majority of industrial action concludes within that time. This will ensure the appropriate balance between reducing the costs of re-balloting and allowing mandates to continue for longer where they are likely to have continued members’ support, without prolonging disputes or permitting action to be called based on a more than year-old mandate. Retaining the six-month mandate period would prevent the Government delivering on their commitment substantively to repeal the Trade Union Act 2016.
I turn to the opposition to Clause 68 standing part from the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom. The purpose of this clause is to reduce the information that unions are required to include on a voting paper for industrial action, through repealing Section 5 of the Trade Union Act 2016, which introduced additional requirements into Section 229 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. Section 5 of the 2016 Act required trade unions to include on the ballot paper a summary of the issues that are in dispute between the employer and the trade union; the type of industrial action that amounts to action short of a strike; and an indication of the time period during which it is expected that those specific types of action are to take place.
Repealing Section 5 will not remove all the information requirements. Under Section 229, the ballot paper will still require unions to ask their members on the ballot paper whether they support industrial action and which type of action they want to take part in, expressed in terms of whether it is strike action or action short of a strike. The noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, made an analogy with ballot papers not containing details such as the names of candidates or the nature of the election. I respectfully point out that there is a danger in that analogy; I do not think it is fair. After all, noble Lords opposite would not expect democratic elections for elected office to carry the kind of mandate threshold that they are insisting trade union ballots should have. Whether they want to make the analogy that democratic elections are like union ballots or not, there is a bit of a pick and mix going on—
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
That is fair enough; I accept the noble Lord’s point when it comes to general elections but, in effect, this is a referendum, which is usually much more clear-cut.
Lord Katz (Lab)
The point remains that there was not a threshold mandate for the few referendums that we have had. I maintain my point that ballots and elections are not really analogous, and there is danger for everyone in trying to compare the two.
The removal of the initial requirements imposed by the 2016 Act will reduce the red tape on trade union activity that works against their core role of negotiation and dispute resolution.
On the opposition to Clause 69, the purpose of the clause is to amend Section 234 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 to change the mandate period for industrial action following a successful ballot from six months to 12 months without the possibility of extension, which we have already discussed in Amendment 246. Among other things, the clause brings the appeals process back in line with the position before the Trade Union Act 2016 and many other enforcement bodies of employment law. For example, appeals against the decision of employment tribunals are considered only on points of law, not points of fact.
Amendment 249, tabled by my noble friend Lord Hendy, would require unions to publish results of industrial action ballots on a publicly accessible website, removing the current obligation to notify individual members and employers directly. The Government recognise that the current arrangements can impose a communications burden on trade unions, especially where first-class post is used to provide the notification to members and employers. However, removing the requirement to send direct notification risks reducing the accessibility and certainty of this information to those entitled to receive it. In our view, it undermines transparency and thus confidence in trade unions and the balloting process. Relying solely on a website assumes that members and employers will proactively seek out information, which could lead to disputes over whether that proper notification has occurred. Direct notification ensures clarity and transparency.
To address concerns about the administrative burden associated with these communication standards, the Government intend to update the Code of Practice: Industrial Action Ballots and Notice to Employers to encourage the use of email in place of posts where practicable. This approach preserves the principle of direct communication while reflecting modern methods of engagement and reducing administrative costs. For these reasons, I am afraid the Government do not support this amendment.
Amendment 251, again tabled by my noble friend Lord Hendy, seeks to simplify requirements on trade unions when issuing notices. While the Government understand the desire to streamline procedures, these notice provisions serve a vital purpose in ensuring that employers have the necessary information to plan for and respond to industrial action. The Government are already reducing the minimum notice period for industrial action from 14 days to 10 days, and removing the specific requirements that unions must provide in notice for industrial action, such as to disclose the number of employees in each category. This amendment risks removing too much detail, potentially leaving employers unclear on the nature, scale and timing of the action being proposed. Again, I am afraid, this is why the Government do not support my noble friend’s amendment.
The last amendments in this group are Amendments 251A, tabled by my noble friend Lord Hutton of Furness, and Amendment 251B, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom. The Government do not support either of these amendments because our general position is not to make sectoral carve-outs from the limitations and conditions which apply to industrial action. This is consistent with our repeal of the 40% support threshold for industrial action and ballots in the repeal of the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act that set further conditions on industrial action in some public services. The same statutory notice period for industrial action across all sectors ensures a simple rule that is clear for all parties involved and that applies in all circumstances. It is then for employers in each sector to manage their industrial relations and their businesses accordingly. However, my noble friend Lord Hutton has some specific concerns around the airline industry and we are happy to meet to understand these concerns further.
The issue of the Clause 71 standing part of the Bill was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey. Alongside our manifesto commitment to repeal the 2016 Act, the Government are committed to bringing in a new era of partnership that fosters meaningful engagement between government, employers and unions, and this is grounded in co-operation and negotiation. We recognise the importance of striking a balance between allowing for effective strike action while also ensuring that employers are able to reasonably prepare for industrial action when, sadly, it has to occur—I should say when workers have voted for it to occur.
Clause 71 makes targeted changes to Section 234A of the 1992 Act to simplify the process by which trade unions provide that notification. Specifically, we are removing one element from the current requirements: the need to specify the number of affected employees in each job category. Employers will continue to receive essential information, including the overall number of employees affected, the categories they belong to, and the workplaces concerned. This strikes a sensible balance between reducing bureaucracy and enabling employers to plan to mitigate the impacts of industrial action.
Clause 71 also reduces the notice period for industrial action from 14 days to 10 and, consequently, Section 8 of the 2016 Act will be repealed. Moving from a 14-day notice period to a 10-day notice period provides a more flexible, workable approach that reflects modern industrial relations practice.
We acknowledge that some groups argued for a return to the previous seven-day notice period, and that others have called for the current 14-day period to be retained. In our view, 10 days represents a balanced compromise. It is the appropriate balance in allowing employers the ability to plan to mitigate the impact of and reduce the disruption and knock-on impacts of strikes, while respecting the right to strike. It reflects consultation feedback, and allows employers time to prepare, while reducing the burden and uncertainty faced by trade unions. Taken together, these reforms simplify the industrial action framework and reduce unnecessary burdens and legal risk for trade unions.
Finally, Clause 72—
Baroness Coffey (Con)
Before the Minister sits down, I particularly focused on the NHS. I was not trying to see it as a sector—I was thinking of the categories and the number by category. I appreciate it is late, so if the Minister wants to write to me, I would be happy to receive that.
Lord Katz (Lab)
For the sake of brevity and time and all of us staying awake, I will undertake to write to the noble Baroness.
Finally, Clause 72 seeks to reverse the effect of Section 10 of the 2016 Act, removing the requirement under Section 220A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 for trade unions to appoint a picket supervisor and to meet other administrative burdens in relation to this supervisor, such as taking reasonable steps to provide their name to the police.
As the period of disruption that I have already referred to between 2022 and 2024 has shown, administrative requirements and bureaucratic hurdles only make it more difficult for trade unions to engage in good-faith negotiations with employers. These changes will bring trade union law into the 21st century and fix the foundations for industrial relations that have not delivered for workers, employers or unions.
However, the Government recognise that regulations regarding picket lines are important. To be clear, the Bill is repealing only those measures introduced by the 2016 Act in relation to the role of a picket supervisor. Other legislation and an amended code of practice on picketing will remain in place. Picketing must take place at a lawful location and must be peaceful, and those on picket lines must not intimidate or harass workers who choose to attend work. We are returning the law on picketing to what it was prior to 2016, when it was working well and was understood by all parties.
In summing up, I hope my justification for these clauses and how they meet the Government’s intentions has been clear to noble Lords, and I ask the noble Lord, Lord Goddard of Stockport, to withdraw Amendment 244.
Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)
I thank the Minister for his reply and thank other speakers who have spoken in this group. The noble Lord, Lord Hutton of Furness, talked about balance, in airlines and other industries. Balance runs through the conversation on this group of amendments.
The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan of Chelsea, is always good value. He throws all these numbers at us and gets very agitated, but he wants the balance to be right between the trade unions and not to swing the wrong way to the other side, and he gave us the history of what happens when that happens. I understand what he is saying and I thank him for his contribution.
The noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, almost used me as a Trojan horse, but I accept that, because her intervention was exactly on pitch. She speaks about clarity, honesty and the NHS. Again, there are many instances in this group that touch all parts of the country, from aviation to the NHS and back again.
The noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, made his position very clear. He wants transparency and responsibility, and he really wants to know where the reasonableness is in the Government’s reluctance to accept these amendments.
Today could be a watershed, because the debates we have been having as Report looms could be where some of these battle lines will be drawn. These are fundamentals. It is fundamentally not right that 50% to call for a ballot is unreasonable. All I am asking is for the Government to take back the comments we have made tonight and, when we return on Report, show some cognisance and understanding that these are not just anti-union amendments. We support the unions, but they have to be seen to be democratic and accountable to the wider public. I hope that they take my comments and criticism in the way they are offered: to help to make a better Bill that is more acceptable to everybody.
I will read the Minister’s comments in Hansard, because he went through at a canter. I was a bit concerned when he talked about balloting being a positive modern experience. I have always found it to be the opposite: it is soul destroying to vote for industrial action.
With the benefit of the doubt, this party will listen and hope that the Minister has taken on board some of our positive criticism tonight before we come back with this set of amendments. These amendments, among all the others, could be the contentious ones, and the Minister has the opportunity to lance that boil early. Getting tonight’s amendments right will go a long way to making this Bill work fundamentally better for employees and employers. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Employment Rights Bill
Monday 16th June 2025
(9 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Employment Rights Act 2025 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 81-IX(Corrected)(b) Amendments for Committee (Supplementary to the Corrected Ninth Marshalled List) - (16 Jun 2025)
Lord Hunt of Wirral
“Workplace intimidation in regard to balloting (1) The Employment Relations Act 2004 is amended as follows.(2) After section 54(12)(c) insert—“(d) measures are in place to prevent workplace intimidation.””Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to consider whether there are sufficient measures to be in place to prevent workplace intimidation before they make any order to allow balloting to take place by a means other than by posted ballot.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, Amendments 247, 248 and 250 stand in my name and in the name of several of my noble friends. Amendment 247 requires the Secretary of State to consider whether sufficient measures are in place to prevent workplace intimidation before approving any balloting method other than postal ballot.
I believe the postal ballot has served as a cornerstone and a guarantor of democracy for good reason: it provides privacy, anonymity and time for reflection. Workers receive their ballot papers at home, and can consider the issues away from workplace pressures, mark their ballot in complete privacy and return it without anyone knowing how they have voted. This system has protected workers from intimidation for generations. Alternative balloting methods, while potentially more convenient or faster, create new possibilities for intimidation that simply do not exist with postal ballots. When voting moves into workplace environments and on to devices that can be observed, we fundamentally change the dynamic of how workers participate in crucial decisions about industrial action.
Consider workplace balloting stations. Denied the privacy of home voting, workers might find themselves voting in break rooms, meeting rooms or other workplace locations where colleagues, supervisors, or even union officials can observe who is participating and when they are voting—and potentially seek to influence their decision through presence alone. The queue to vote becomes visible; the time spent considering options becomes observable; and the act of voting transforms a private decision into a semi-public one. Electronic balloting presents its own challenges. They might use personal devices in workplace settings where screens can be observed or where pressure can be applied to vote immediately rather than after proper consideration. The technology that enables quick voting can also enable quick pressure.
Each of these alternative methods, while offering potential benefits in terms of speed and convenience, also creates vulnerabilities that postal ballots simply do not have. The private space of the home; the sealed envelope; anonymous returns—these features of postal balloting provide protections that we must be careful not to lose as we embrace new technologies and methods.
We simply want assurance that, before any alternative balloting method is approved, proper safeguards exist to prevent intimidation scenarios. These might include requirements for private voting spaces, prohibitions on observing voting, secure systems that protect voter anonymity, or cooling-off periods that prevent immediate pressure to vote on the spot. Workers should be able to vote according to their genuine views about proposed industrial action, free from any form of pressure or intimidation, regardless of the source.
The employee who has concerns about strike action, or worries about lost wages, or simply needs time to consider the implications should be able to participate in balloting without feeling rushed or being observed. This protection is particularly important because industrial action ballots directly affect workers’ livelihoods. These are not abstract political decisions. They are choices about whether to risk wages, potentially face disciplinary action, or take steps that could affect their employment. Workers deserve the space and privacy to make these difficult decisions according to their own circumstances and conscience.
Amendment 248 takes a clear and necessary step to protect the fundamental principle of democratic voting by prohibiting balloting taking place in the workplace. This would prevent the Secretary of State making any order that would allow trade union ballots and elections to be held in workplace settings. The workplace is fundamentally incompatible with free and fair democratic voting. When balloting moves into the workplace environment, we create a setting where the very people who have power over workers’ daily lives, career prospects and working conditions, can observe, influence and potentially intimidate voters during the democratic process.
This prohibition recognises a simple truth: the workplace is not a neutral space. It is not a safe space for democratic participation; it is an environment structured by power relationships, hierarchies and dependencies that can compromise the integrity of voting. When workers must cast ballots surrounded by colleagues, supervisors, union officials or managers, the essential privacy that democracy requires is fundamentally undermined.
Consider what workplace balloting means in practice. Workers would be voting in break rooms, where conversations could be overheard; in meeting rooms, where attendance could be monitored; or in common areas, where voting behaviour becomes visible to everyone present. The simple act of participating or not participating in a ballot becomes observable workplace behaviour, rather than a matter of private and democratic choice. The physical presence of authority figures during workplace balloting creates inherent pressure. Union officials can observe who votes enthusiastically and who hesitates. Shop stewards can monitor participation levels and, potentially, identify workers who seem reluctant to engage. Supervisors, even if not directly involved in the balloting process, may become aware of industrial action votes taking place on their premises during work hours.
This pressure operates both explicitly and implicitly. Workers may feel compelled to demonstrate loyalty or enthusiasm through their voting behaviour when that behaviour occurs in workplace settings. The colleague who takes time carefully to consider ballot questions may be seen as insufficiently committed. The voter who votes quickly may be assumed to be following group pressure rather than individual conscience.
Workplace balloting also creates logistical pressures that can compromise democratic participation. Workers may feel rushed to vote during limited break times or lunch periods. They may worry about being seen as taking too long away from their duties. The natural rhythm of workplace life—shift patterns, busy periods and urgent deadlines—can interfere with the thoughtful consideration that democratic voting requires.
Amendment 250 would introduce a crucial requirement for transparency and accountability in industrial action by requiring trade unions to conduct and publish economic impact assessments and family tests before balloting their members on strike action. It would require trade unions to take three essential steps before any ballot for industrial action can take place: publishing an economic impact assessment; publishing a family test on the impact of industrial action; and informing their members that these reports have been published. That would ensure that workers had access to comprehensive information about the broader consequences of proposed industrial action before they cast their votes.
The case for impact assessments is compelling when we regard the real-world consequences of industrial action. For example, in 2023 the RMT union estimated that its industrial action had cost the UK economy £5 billion. The Office for National Statistics reported that during those 16 days of NHS strikes between December 2022 and February 2023 at least 93,000 out-patient appointments, 18,000 elective procedures, 9,500 mental health and learning disability appointments and around 28,000 community service appointments had to be rescheduled because of strike action. That had a significant impact on people who were in urgent need of important support.
The ongoing Birmingham bin strikes provide a stark illustration of how industrial action can affect whole communities. Birmingham City Council declared a major incident after 17,000 tonnes of rubbish were left uncollected on the streets, requiring assistance from not only other local authorities but even Army specialists for logistical support.
The strike has disproportionately affected lower-income and inner-city areas, such as Sparkhill, Balsall Heath, Small Heath, Sparkbrook and Ladywood, where refuse has piled up to a greater degree than in more affluent suburbs. The health implications have been severe: uncollected waste has the potential to create not only nuisance for the community from flies and vermin, but public health risks. The policing costs alone have been substantial, with the costs of policing the Birmingham waste dispute reaching almost £1 million.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, I support the amendment so eloquently moved by my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral. There is not much more to add, but I will try. I also put my name to the amendment.
I thought we had gone past the stage where we look back at history and do not learn its lessons on protecting the franchise and the ballot in sensitive elections. There are no more sensitive elections than workplace elections, on which people’s very livelihood, careers, family and income depend.
I take your Lordships’ Committee back to February 1834. Colleagues on the other side of the Chamber will be aware that in 1833 agricultural workers in the village of Tolpuddle in Dorset quite rightly formed a union to fight wage cuts. The following year they were arrested, arraigned, found guilty and transported not because they had administered oaths, which was the official reason for their incarceration, but because they assembled as a group. The point is that they did not have a secret ballot. They had an open meeting to form the union and a strategy for fighting those wage cuts, and they were betrayed by two union members. If you talk to Unite the Union and GMB, there is nothing new under the sun.
That said, the point was they did not have a secret ballot. One reason that the unions have evolved in a positive way over many years—hitherto, until we reached this Bill—is that we have had that workplace democracy, unlike in the bad old days of the 1970s and before, where people were pressured to join a union in the closed shop and sometimes pressured to support industrial action which was uncalled for and damaging both to their own jobs and to the business generally, as we saw, for instance, in 1984 with the miners’ strike. Amendments 247 and 248 tabled by my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral are very sensible. I would say: be careful what you wish for, because there is another historical example, although noble Lords on the other side may resile from it. The Jim Crow laws in the southern part of the United States existed for many years post-reconstruction in 1865. That they marginalised, traduced and undermined the right of black people, of African Americans, to vote was, in effect, because they did not have a secret ballot and had to register, and there were many legal impediments to them voting.
We respect the integrity of the secret ballot. We would not dream of asking local councillors, parish councillors, borough councillors, county councillors and certainly not Members of Parliament to seek election on the basis that their electorate would be corralled into voting a certain way and there would not be a secret ballot. That is as it should be and as it has been for modern times, and it is correct. Why are we now going back to a potential era of bullying, harassment and attacking people who may not support the union line? Give people a chance to think, reflect and choose the right way for not just themselves and their families but their union by means of a secret ballot. For those reasons I strongly support my noble friend’s amendment, and I hope the Minister will give it due regard.
Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)
My Lords, I oppose this group of amendments. I have to say that it is with deep regret, because my assessment of them is that they are trying to stir up a spectre of trade union intimidation, which reminds me strongly of the initiative going back in history—not quite as far as the noble Lord, Lord Jackson—to 2014, when the Government commissioned Bruce Carr QC, as he was then, to conduct an investigation of intimidation in workplaces. As it transpired, Mr Carr declined all opportunities to make any recommendations whatever on the basis of the evidence that he received. For the TUC’s part—and I was at the helm at the time—we described it as a party-political stunt and said that, frankly, the then Conservative Party in government should have repaid the taxpayer for the significant cost of conducting that investigation that led to zero—I repeat, zero—recommendations for changes in the law. In fact, Mr Carr went on just a year or two later to oppose the then Conservative Government’s Trade Union Bill as “a threat” to industrial relations and to civil liberties.
That brings me to safe and secure e-balloting. It seems to me that anybody who was a true democrat would be looking to increase opportunities for participation in safe, secure, secret and electronic balloting. Any boost to democracy should be welcome. I have to say that it is disappointing that those who oppose the right for trade unionists to cast their vote safely, securely and secretly by electronic ballot apparently believe that there is no threat of intimidation in respect of political parties. Therefore, it is fine for political parties to use modern methods of balloting; it is not fine for trade unionists. I would ask what view that gives us of the perception of trade unions from the Benches opposite, when, on the contrary, we should be proud of trade unions. We should tackle the causes and not just the symptoms of industrial action. We should be proud of constructive industrial relations in this country, which are vital for productivity and growth.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, Amendments 247, 248 and 250 would introduce further requirements in relation to trade union ballots, particularly concerning the risk of intimidation, the use of workplace locations and the information that unions must provide to members. While the intention to ensure that ballots are conducted fairly without pressure is understandable, I question whether these proposals are justified. They appear to introduce new procedural barriers for trade unions, with little evidence that safeguards are failing. There is a broader concern that measures of this kind may tilt the balance even further against workers attempting to organise and exercise their rights. I would be grateful if the Minister could set out whether these amendments are proportionate and necessary, and how they align with the broader approach to employment and industrial relations.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, for introducing these amendments tabled by his noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom. I thought that, with the contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, we were starting the history lessons a little early today—early in terms of this being the first group and in going back to the 1830s. I bend to no one in enjoying anecdotes about the Tolpuddle Martyrs, so I thank the noble Lord for his contribution, although I am not sure what it added to the debate.
Amendment 247, although well intentioned, is unnecessary. We all share the concerns outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, about interference in balloting around industrial action. We understand that no worker takes a decision about voting for industrial action lightly—whether it is strike action or action short of a strike—and that they understand the consequences, because if action is voted for, they will be the ones who suffer directly by losing pay. We must ensure that when we talk about this, we talk about both sides of the ledger.
The amendment is well intentioned, but it is unnecessary, because Section 230 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 already requires that every person entitled to vote in an industrial action ballot must be allowed to do so without union interference. Furthermore, recognition and de-recognition ballots under Schedule A1 are already subject to provisions prohibiting unfair practices whereby the Central Arbitration Committee can order that a ballot is re-run if an unfair practice claim is found to be well founded. To introduce a new voting method to statutory trade union ballots using Section 54 of the Employment Relations Act 2004, the Government must already consider that the new method would allow the ballot to meet the requirements under Section 54(12). Specifically, the Government must consider that those entitled to vote have an opportunity to do so, that votes are cast in secret and that the risk of any unfairness or malpractice is minimised. Therefore, safeguards are already provided for in Section 54(12)(c) that cover intimidation if it takes place in the workplace or elsewhere. The noble Lord’s amendment is therefore not required.
I thank my noble friend Lady O’Grady of Upper Holloway for reminding us of the outcome of the inquiry by Bruce Carr QC, as he was then, about the absence of intimidation within workplaces. It is important that we bear this in mind. The question was asked. It was tested by independent opinion and the proposition that underlies the spirit of these amendments was found to be wanting.
Amendment 248, also in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, would prevent the Secretary of State using the power in Section 54 to allow workplace balloting as a new means of voting in trade union ballots and elections. Unfortunately, the amendment fails to take into account the fact that workplace balloting is already an option for statutory trade union recognition and derecognition ballots. The existing legislation permits workplace ballots conducted by independent scrutineers appointed by the CAC. One wonders why this is deemed acceptable by the Front Bench opposite but other sorts of workplace balloting are not.
Furthermore, as I said earlier, any new voting methods introduced under Section 54 of the Employment Relations Act 2004 must enable a ballot to meet the requirements of Section 54(12). The Government are committed to updating our industrial relations framework and aligning it with modern working practices and technology. This includes allowing for modern and secure balloting for statutory trade union ballots.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough. I had not thought, when preparing my address, to look back to 1834. The only time I ever talk about 1834 is recalling that on 16 October 1834, this whole place burned down and gave rise to the new mother of parliaments we know today. Only Westminster Hall survived that terrible fire in 1834.
All I will say about the Tolpuddle Martyrs who were sentenced to be sent to Australia is that two years later they were pardoned, and they all went to Canada; I think Canada benefited hugely from that exodus. But I am not quite sure that we can read across because so much has changed, as the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady of Upper Holloway, reminded us.
The noble Baroness also referred us back to the coalition—it was not a Conservative Government but a coalition in 2014—and cited Bruce Carr KC, who I respect hugely. He is a brilliant advocate in this whole field of employment law, but I am not quite sure that I read across in the way the noble Baroness did.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, that it is all a question of balance. We have to try to do our best to get the balance right but, as we draw the debate on these amendments to a close, I want to say how sorry I am that the Government declined to accept these modest but essential amendments, although I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Katz, for saying that they are well intentioned. Of course they are, because they are rooted not in ideology but in common sense, democratic principle and a genuine concern for those people who will be affected most by this legislation.
Throughout this short debate, we have tried to put across the case that industrial action is not just a technical but a deeply human process. It involves individuals making weighty decisions that affect their income, their job security, their families and the wider community. That is why the processes we set in place to govern these decisions must be fair, private and informed.
We argue in these amendments that workers deserve to vote on industrial action in conditions that are free from coercion or surveillance. We said that the workplace, structured as it is by hierarchies and power dynamics, is not and cannot be a neutral environment for democratic expression. I do not need to go back to the 1970s but, of course, that is when I entered Parliament for the first time, and we saw a lot of decisions made in the workplace that people regretted afterwards.
I ask the Government to consider the very real risk of intimidation, whether explicit or subtle, and to preserve the privacy that postal balloting has long guaranteed. We were not asking the Government to turn the clock back on technological progress; we were just saying that any movement away from the postal ballot has to be accompanied by genuine, enforceable safeguards. Yet, sadly, the Minister refused to accept even the simple premise that the method of voting matters—that how a person votes is as important as the person for whom they are voting.
We also asked for transparency. Through Amendment 250, we sought to ensure that unions undertaking industrial action do so with an honest reckoning of the broader consequences—economic, social and familial. We know that strikes do not happen in a vacuum; they ripple outward, touching the lives of patients, parents, commuters, businesses and whole communities. I certainly do not want to prohibit strikes, but we believe that workers have to be given the full picture before they make a serious decision to withdraw their labour.
I am particularly disappointed because these amendments would strengthen the public’s confidence in this legislation. They would have shown that Parliament is serious about protecting not only workers’ rights but democratic process, public welfare and social responsibility. Instead, the message is now that efficiency is more important than privacy, that speed matters more than integrity, and that the consequences of industrial action—no matter how far reaching—need to be honestly appraised before the strike begins.
All I will say in conclusion is that the debate does not end here. I do not believe that these concerns will go away. The consequences of inaction, the risks of intimidation, the lack of transparency and the damage to public trust will, in time, make themselves known. When they do, I hope the House will remember the case that we have made today. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
“(2A) Subsection (1) only applies where the protected industrial action is the result of a properly conducted ballot in accordance with sections 226 to 232.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that subsection (1) only applies where protected industrial action follows a properly conducted ballot under sections 226–232.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, the amendments in this group seek to address gaps in our current legislation by establishing clear exemptions from detriment protections when workers engage in unacceptable conduct during industrial disputes, while creating a comprehensive framework that restores balance to industrial relations.
I am willing to be corrected, but we do not believe that these specific protections against certain leverage activities currently exist in legislation, which is precisely why Amendment 252 is necessary. However, this forms part of a broader package addressing systemic failures in our industrial relations framework. In our assessment, leverage may manifest in various forms, but at its core lies a deliberate strategy to publicly intimidate and humiliate employers, compelling them to make concessions in industrial disputes that they would not otherwise consider. We fundamentally reject this approach as unacceptable in civilised industrial relations.
When describing leverage in the context of the Grangemouth dispute, Unite the Union explicitly stated:
“Leverage targets all areas of weakness of an employer … Leverage is the translation of an organising mind-set into the planning and implementation of a campaign strategy, underpinned by the escalation of pressure to create uncertainty”.
Even more concerning, Unite the Union expressed the view that in a leverage campaign
“the employer is routinely treated as a target to be defeated not a friend to be convinced”.
This adversarial approach treats employers as enemies to be vanquished, rather than as partners in resolving legitimate grievances.
Amendment 252 specifically identifies actions that constitute leverage: intimidation at picket lines; protests at company premises or the private homes of senior managers; the harassment of non-striking workers; and deliberate actions designed to undermine business continuity planning. Workers who engage in these intimidatory tactics should face the prospect of dismissal without recourse to employment protection.
However, the problems extend beyond leverage tactics. Amendment 251C responds to the troubling rise of wildcat strikes and unofficial action lacking democratic mandates. The Grangemouth dispute exemplifies this. Leverage tactics were employed in pursuit of objectives that may not have commanded genuine workplace support. If workers are to enjoy enhanced protections, those protections should be reserved for action properly sanctioned through domestic process under Sections 226 to 232 of current legislation.
Amendment 251G seeks to address the growing problem of co-ordinated action by workers outside of established collective bargaining frameworks. We have seen increasing instances of social media-organised workplace action that deliberately circumvents union structures and creates chaos for employers facing industrial action without recognised representatives to negotiate with.
Amendment 251D seeks to address the very real risk that, without proper definition, every minor management decision during a dispute could become grounds for a detriment claim. We have seen in other jurisdictions how broad definitions create litigation cultures, where employers face constant threat of claims for routine operational decisions. This amendment would prevent the trivialisation of genuine grievances while protecting employers from vexatious claims.
Our compensation framework amendments respond to documented failures. Amendment 251K would establish three bands of detriment severity—minor, serious and extreme—addressing the current lack of guidance that leads to wildly inconsistent awards. Amendment 251L would require proof of “actual financial loss”, preventing the speculative claims that proliferate without such requirements. Amendment 251N would restrict compensation to economic losses, preventing the concerning trend towards “injury to feelings” awards that represent a fundamental category error in industrial relations contexts.
Amendments 251E and 251F seek to address the stark reality that industrial action has already compromised public safety. During recent NHS strikes, emergency cover was inadequate, putting patients at risk. The 2019 London Underground strikes left commuters stranded, creating security vulnerabilities. Amendment 251E would provide essential legal clarity for employers who must prioritise continuity of critical operations. Without this protection, fear of litigation prevents necessary operational decisions. Amendment 251F recognises that some industrial action poses direct threats to public health and safety. Such considerations must take precedent over detriment protections.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, I speak to Amendment 251C through to Amendment 252, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe. These amendments would introduce a wide range of limitations to the new right not to suffer detriment for participating in protected industrial action. The amendments seek to define and restrict the scope of protection, introducing exclusions based on business continuity, public safety, union membership status and compliance with employer instructions. They propose new requirements around compensation, such as proof of financial loss, statutory severity bans and caps on awards.
Although I understand the desire to ensure clarity and prevent misuse of these protections, I am concerned that, taken together, these amendments risk hollowing out the underlying right. They would place significant hurdles in the way of workers seeking redress and could undermine confidence in the fairness and accessibility of the system. I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify whether the Government support this overall direction of travel and how they intend to ensure that the core principle of protection from unfair treatment during lawful industrial action is preserved in practice.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Leong) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her contribution, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, for tabling these amendments. I ask noble Lords to bear with me as I respond to each of them.
I want to be clear about why this clause is required. Clause 73 inserts new Sections 236A to 236D into the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. New Section 236A is required because the Supreme Court ruled in April 2024 that Section 146 of the 1992 Act is incompatible with Article 11 of the European Convention of Human Rights.
Amendments 251C, 251F, 251H and 251J are unnecessary as their purpose is already covered in existing legislation. In the case of Amendment 251C, Clause 73 already requires a ballot compliant with Section 226, as specified in Section 219(4) of the 1992 Act, and makes it clear that protection is limited to cases where the action is compliant. Furthermore, in the case of Amendment 251J, secondary action is already prohibited under Section 224 of the 1992 Act, and the new protection of Section 236A will not apply where the industrial action was unlawful secondary action.
With regard to Amendments 251F and 251H, Section 240 of the 1992 Act allows for criminal prosecution of those who intentionally and maliciously endanger life or cause serious injury to a person by going on strike. Furthermore, if an act of an employer is motivated primarily by health and safety concerns, not for the sole or main purpose of preventing or deterring the employee from taking protected industrial action or penalising them, they have a defence from detriment claims, and the tribunals will consider whether the employer’s act or failure to act constitutes detriment.
Amendments 251D and 252 seek to prejudge a full and open consultation on this issue by setting out circumstances in which the detriment protection will not apply. We will prescribe detriments in secondary legislation only once we have conducted a comprehensive consultation seeking views across the public, including those of workers, employers, trade unions and all other stakeholders.
With reference to Amendment 252, that protection from prescribed detriment applies only where the sole or main purpose of subjecting the worker to detriment is to prevent, deter or penalise the worker from taking protected industrial action; for example, if a worker is subjected to detriment solely or mainly because they have harassed or bullied non-striking workers, the protection will not apply. I can be clear that criminal law will continue to apply to pickets.
Amendment 251E would be an unnecessary limitation on the protections from detriment. The prohibitions that new Section 236A places on an employer are clear: the sole or main purpose of the action must be to deter or penalise industrial action, which would not apply in the case of genuine maintenance of critical operations. Amendment 251G would be an unreasonable restriction to apply to detriment protections. Non-union members have the right to participate in official protected industrial action and, where that is the case, must be afforded the same protections from detriment as union members.
Amendments 251L and 251N would place a burden on individuals to prove that they had suffered financial or economic loss as a result of detriment, and would limit the circumstances where they were eligible for compensation. These hurdles and limits would potentially deter them from engaging in industrial action, limiting compliance with the Supreme Court ruling and Article 11.
Amendments 251M and 251P seek to restrict compensation with regard to business deeds. I want to be clear that an employer’s action or failure to act in relation to prescribed detriments will be a legal obligation that cannot be breached proportionately, and there is no legitimate business interest defence for seeking to deter or penalise an employee for taking protected industrial action.
Amendment 251K seeks to establish bands of detriment severity of “minor”, “serious” and “extreme”, and would require the Secretary of State to specify maximum compensation limits for each, which tribunals would have to comply with. New Section 236D is already clear that employment tribunals must have regard to any loss sustained by a claimant that is attributable to the actions of, or failures to take action by, an employer. Therefore, tribunals will award compensation based on what the tribunal considers to be just and equitable and will be able to proportionately determine the amount of compensation, taking into account all the relevant circumstances. I hope I have reassured the noble Lord. I therefore ask him to withdraw Amendment 251C.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I am very grateful to the Minister for his very comprehensive answer, and also to the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, for her comments. I will have to read Hansard very carefully, because there is quite a lot of detail in the Minister’s answer, but I will say that for months we have listened to Ministers speak at considerable length about the urgent need to address bad actors in our workplaces. On a number of occasions, they have painted fairly vivid pictures of unscrupulous employers who exploit workers, flout employment law and engage in practices that undermine good industrial relations. However, having been presented with clear evidence of equally concerning bad actors within the trade union movement, the Government’s response has been, in effect, to stay silent. I repeated those Unite comments, and I will repeat them again here, that
“the employer is routinely treated as a target to be defeated not a friend to be convinced”.
To use a word that came up in the last group, that is not “constructive” or collaborative; that is very hostile in intent.
Without going into enormous detail, Amendment 251L, for example, would require proof of actual financial loss, which is a basic principle that would prevent speculative claims. I do not see how that would deter anyone with a legitimate claim from engaging in industrial relations, so how would their Article 11 rights be infringed, as I believe the Minister outlined?
We will have to come back to these amendments because, as I say, there was a good deal of detail in there. Once again, the Minister is relying on the mythical consultation; I would like to know when that consultation on these aspects of these amendments will take place. Of course, that also calls into question when he expects all this to be implemented—a subject to which I am quite sure we will return on a number of occasions this evening. But for now, I beg leave to withdraw.
Lord Prentis of Leeds
“Amendments to law on unlawful inducements(1) The Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 is amended in accordance with subsections (2) to (3) below(2) In section 145A (inducements relating to union membership or activities)—(a) after subsection (1), insert—“(1A) A worker has the right not to be excluded or omitted from an offer made by the employer to any of its workers if the exclusion or omission was on the ground that the worker—(a) ?save-line2?was, or proposed to become, a member of an independent trade union;?save-line2?(b) had taken part, or proposed to take part, in the activities of an independent trade union at an appropriate time;(c) had made use, or proposed to make use, of trade union services at an appropriate time;(d) had failed to accept an offer made in contravention of this section or section 145B;(e)?save-line2? was not a member of any trade union, or of a particular trade union, or of one of a number of particular trade unions, or had refused, or proposed to refuse, to become or remain a member.”(b) in subsection (2), for “subsection (1)” substitute “subsections (1) and (1A)”;(c) in subsection (4), for “subsections (1) and (2)”, substitute “subsections (1), (1A) and (2)”;(d) in subsection (5), after “has made him an offer” insert “or has excluded him or omitted him from an offer”.(3) In section 145D (consideration of complaint)—(a) in subsection (1) after “145A”, insert “or relating to an infringement of section 145A(1A)”;(b) after subsection (1) insert—“(1A) On a complaint under section 145A relating to an infringement of subsection 145A(1A) it shall be for the employer to show the ground on which the worker was omitted or excluded from the offer.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that workers are protected if they are excluded or omitted from an offer because they are trade union members. The provision aims to ensure that section 145A applies to conduct which undermines the employees’ rights to freedom of association.
Lord Prentis of Leeds (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 253A concerns inducements relating to union membership or activities. This is a simple amendment to clarify Section 145 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The reason for this amendment rests in the dispute between Livv Housing Group, a housing association based in Liverpool, and its staff, represented by UNISON and Unite.
In 2011, the pay of Livv Housing workers had fallen by over 30% in real terms. But Livv Housing was not a failing company: it had recorded annual surpluses in the last five years ranging from £14 million to £25 million, with reserves of over £110 million. In the autumn of last year, talks on a long-overdue equal pay agreement and an annual pay rise had broken down. Union members voted to take lawful industrial action. Livv Housing did not engage. It did not look to the underlying causes of the dispute. Instead of seeking a fair deal, it decided that it had found a loophole in the 1992 Act which it would exploit.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Prentis of Leeds, for describing this amendment to us. It is simple and easy to understand but founded on a very difficult and testing industrial dispute. Looking back over my time as a parliamentarian, I often found that facts get distorted, beliefs underpinned and positions entrenched. The last thing that should ever happen is an overt change in the law. I do not believe that is necessary. Let me explain why.
The Minister should not support this amendment, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Prentis, explained, seeks to extend Section 145A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 to cover the exclusion or omission of a worker from an offer on grounds related to trade union membership or activity. While the noble Lord presented this amendment as a measure to strengthen workers’ rights and reinforce freedom of association, in reality, on reflection, as he virtually admitted when he introduced it, it is poorly drafted, conceptually flawed, legally confusing and potentially deeply damaging to the legitimate and practical functioning of workplace relations.
At its core, the amendment misunderstands the balance that needs to be struck between protecting the rights of trade union members and preserving the autonomy of employers to make operational decisions in good faith. The current law already provides robust protections against unlawful inducements that seek to undermine collective bargaining. I recall, because I was in government at the time, that Sections 145A and 145B were carefully crafted to target deliberate attempts by employers to bypass or undermine collective agreements. This amendment goes significantly beyond that, seeking to introduce for the first time in statute a wholly ambiguous and legally unstable concept—exclusion from an offer—without providing any meaningful guidance or definition as to what such exclusion means, how it is to be assessed and in what contexts it is to be deemed unlawful.
An offer, by its very nature, is made on the basis of specific criteria—sometimes economic, sometimes strategic and sometimes tied to an individual’s performance or to business need. To say that a worker has a right not to be omitted from any offer and to link any such omission to trade union membership or activity would place an intolerable burden on employers. It would open the door to speculative claims and second-guessing of decisions that may have been made for entirely legitimate and neutral reasons, relying on an inference of motive in the absence of solid evidence. Effectively, it demands that employers should treat all workers identically in every instance of any offer—whether it is financial, procedural or preferential—or face litigation and the reversal of the burden of proof. Let me explain.
The amendment proposes that in any case brought under the new Section 145A(1A), it will fall to the employer to demonstrate the grounds upon which the worker was excluded. That is a fundamental reversal of the ordinary legal principle that a claimant must prove their case. It turns routine management discretion into presumed unlawful conduct unless proven otherwise. Such a reversal may be appropriate in narrow cases where discrimination is clearly alleged and supported by a pattern of conduct, but to write it into statute so broadly and in such general terms is not only disproportionate, it is potentially destructive to employer-employee trust and clarity. No employer, however well intentioned, will be able to manage negotiations or individual agreements with confidence under such a regime.
Furthermore, the amendment also risks creating legal confusion by overlapping with other provisions already in place to protect against victimisation or unfair treatment. Section 146 already protects against detriment related to trade union activities. Section 145A already prohibits inducements that would bypass collective bargaining. If the goal is to ensure fair treatment of trade union members, the proper route is through targeted enforcement of those provisions, not through the introduction of vague and speculative new rights that overlap and conflict with existing law.
The amendment is also unbalanced in its approach. It fails to consider that there are many reasons why an individual might not be included in an offer that are entirely unconnected to trade union status. It might be on account of their role, their location, the timing of their employment or performance-based factors. Yet under the proposed amendment, a worker could simply allege that their omission was because of trade union membership or activity, and the burden would shift entirely to the employer to justify its actions. That is not just an invitation to abuse; it is a structural distortion of fairness in employment law.
It must also be acknowledged that this amendment could have chilling effects on legitimate collective bargaining. Employers may feel compelled to make across-the-board offers rather than engaging in more flexible, targeted negotiations that take into account differences in role, responsibility or need. That could undermine not only business efficiency but also the ability of unions themselves to secure advantageous outcomes for specific groups of members. The very act of negotiating special terms for one group might now trigger complaints from others, citing this amendment as grounds for a claim of exclusion.
In conclusion, let me be absolutely clear: freedom of association is a vital right and must be protected. I do not believe, however, it would be served by new laws that are unclear, that burden employers without cause or that generate more confusion than clarity. This amendment—despite its rhetorical appeal to equality and fairness—will in practice be a blunt and imprecise instrument, increasing litigation, reducing operational flexibility and contributing little, if anything, to the genuine promotion of union rights. I hope the Minister will agree with that.
Lord Leong (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for his lengthy contribution. All he had to say was, “I do not support the amendment”. I thank and appreciate my noble friend Lord Prentis of Leeds for tabling Amendment 253A, which sets out that workers have a right not to be omitted from an offer by their employer because, among other reasons, they are trade union members. This amendment has been laid in response to a particular matter regarding the housing association Livv Housing Group, which last year reportedly made a pay offer to only those members of its workforce who confirmed that they were not trade union members. I am pleased that this matter has now been positively resolved in the workplace, as set out by noble friend.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
Do I take it the noble Lord wishes to withdraw the amendment without further contribution?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
“(4) The Secretary of State must conduct a review to assess the impact on emergency services arising from the repeal of the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023.”
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I support the amendments tabled after Clause 75, which would require the Secretary of State to assess the impact of repealing the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023 in terms of emergency service provision and the broader resilience of our public infrastructure during industrial action. These are pragmatic and proportionate amendments, and I regret that they are even necessary, but the manner in which Clause 75 proposes to repeal this legislation—abruptly and with no review, consultation or supporting evidence—leaves us no choice.
The 2023 Act was narrowly drawn. It applied only to a tightly defined set of sectors—ambulance services, fire and rescue, health, transport, nuclear decommissioning and border security—in which a complete withdrawal of labour poses serious and obvious risks to life, safety, national security or national functioning. It did not ban strikes or criminalise union membership. It allowed a minimum service level to be set, by regulation, after consultation with affected sectors. In other words, it was a public protection measure, a mechanism of last resort, and it mirrored provisions already in countries across Europe and beyond.
The Government now seek to repeal the law, seemingly on the basis that it achieved nothing. They will no doubt point to the fact that industrial action has continued since the Act came into force. Indeed, we know from statistics that 160,000 working days were lost to strike action in the first quarter of 2025 alone. However, that statistic proves nothing about the value, or otherwise, of the Act. It proves only that the right to strike continues to be exercised, as it should be.
The Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act was never intended to eliminate strike action, and its success should not be judged by whether workers stopped striking. It should be judged by whether the public was kept safe when strikes did happen, whether ambulances still reached heart attack victims, basic fire cover was maintained and border infrastructure functioned at a minimum level.
That is a relevant test, and the Government have produced no evidence to show that those minimum protections were either unnecessary or ineffective. In fact, if the Act truly achieved nothing, why the rush to repeal it? Governments do not normally spend valuable legislative time repealing laws that they believe have no impact. The truth is that this law has teeth: it provides leverage, and it establishes a legal baseline. The Government want to remove it not because it is useless but because it places limits on how far certain interests can allow disruption to stretch.
Even if one believes the Act was flawed, the responsible course would be to review its effects before repealing it, particularly when the law was so recent and implementation across sectors was still under way. Consultations on minimum staffing levels had not been concluded in all sectors, practical guidelines had only begun to take shape and the real-world application of the law was still emerging, so to repeal it now is to abandon public protection in the name of political symbolism, to uproot a tree before it even had time to settle and declare it a failure for not bearing fruit.
What is most striking, however, is that the Government have provided no evidence that repealing the Act will lead to improved industrial relations, despite making that very claim in the impact assessment for this Bill. It is asserted almost in passing that the removal of the Act will restore trust or reduce tensions in negotiations, but where is the proof of that? Where is the analysis? Where is the independent data or stakeholder feedback to support that optimism?
We are told to take it on faith that repealing a legal framework designed to protect the public will somehow produce a more harmonious climate between unions and employers. But we are not here to govern by faith—we are here to scrutinise and to ask hard questions, and to legislate with due diligence. I put this to the Minister directly: can the Government point to any serious evidence, whether from unions, employers, emergency service leadership or international examples, that repealing this Act will improve negotiation outcomes, reduce disruption or lead to faster resolution of disputes? If not, why are we legislating in the dark?
What is the Government’s alternative? If we strip away the only existing mechanism for maintaining safe service levels during strikes, what replaces it? Nothing in the Bill offers an equivalent safeguard. There is no provision for voluntary cover agreements, no incentives for minimum staffing, no rapid arbitration scheme and no contingency powers for life and limb services. We must assume that the Government are content to simply let key public services fall to zero capacity during industrial disputes. There will be no legal recourse, no duty to plan and no obligation to protect the public. That is not reform.
Meanwhile, the public, who continue to support the right to strike in principle, also expect a functioning state. They expect to be able to call an ambulance and get one; they expect transport to limp along during industrial disputes, not collapse entirely; and they expect public safety to be preserved. The amendments before us are not extreme; they merely require a clear-sighted review of the implications of this repeal, something that any responsible Government would do as a matter of course.
I urge noble Lords to support these amendments. If the Government are confident that repealing the Act would strengthen industrial relations and carry no risk to public welfare, they should have no objection to reviewing that impact and reporting to Parliament. If they are not confident, I submit that the repeal should not proceed at all.
In short, the issue here is not ideology; it is competence. We are about to discard the only statutory mechanism for ensuring minimum service level provision during strikes—a model recognised across Europe and endorsed by ILO principles—without evidence, without a plan and without a single word of accountability to Parliament. As I said earlier, that is not governance; it is recklessness. I beg to move.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to each of the three amendments in this group, starting with Amendment 254. A significant part of the reason for the minimum services, as my noble friend has just laid out, was to recognise that certain issues were affecting daily life.
It is worth while considering the timing of aspects of this, not long after the end of the Covid lockdowns, and recognising the economic challenges that our country faced. In combination with people’s need to access urgent medical support, bearing in mind that a number of activities had been cancelled many times already, the impact of seeing further strikes—cancelling a basic level of operation for patients—was starting to become potentially very difficult for the country to manage and for patients in getting better.
Other sectors were also discussed, and transport is a good example. I expect that none of the train operating companies used this, partly because many of them found different ways to keep trains running on a basic level—good examples of that would be Greater Anglia or South Western Railway. Greater Anglia will soon become a nationalised rail operator, so I would be very interested to know—I appreciate that the Minister may not have an answer today—what the practice will be in the future as a consequence of this. At the time, the operating company Abellio was able potentially to have gone to this piece of legislation to keep trains running, although it did not have to. Will nationalised rail companies be allowed to continue to keep services running so that users can get to work, or wherever they need to go, even though there are other people on strike? My expectation, candidly, is that no nationalised company will in any way go against any trade union strike. I cannot see a Labour Government Minister using that, so by repealing this legislation the Government will have lost a lever on behalf of many of the users of public services, or services put forward for public use, across the country.
At one point there was a discussion about schools. A similar issue had arisen with children during Covid, through no fault of their own and no fault of the teachers. Schools were kept open, by and large, physically for certain workers but also online. Undoubtedly, there was a challenge for education but also, frankly, the inconvenience to working parents when schools go on strike is particularly harmful and is disruptive to those families and the wider economy. But it was decided not to do that. We reverted back to making sure, in the spirit of the Act’s intentions, that we would keep it to what were deemed to be absolutely key public services. Otherwise, there would have been significant detriment to the wider public.
Amendment 258, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, on a review into the impact on small businesses, would be very helpful. Huge changes are being put in place after nine years of a piece of legislation that from the economy’s perspective has worked reasonably well. I appreciate that the trade unions may not have liked it—and I recall it being voted against, back when this was being debated in the House a decade ago—but it is vital to the wider economy that we get our companies growing.
It seems to change every time, but I think that overall the number one mission of this Government is growth and the economy. Yet they are starting to do things, through this Bill and other situations, that seem to be driven by ideology rather than pragmatism and practicality. As a consequence, the basics and the consequences of some of this legislation, or the repealing of existing legislation, need to be considered in proper economic depth. I would love this to have happened with an updated impact assessment for us to consider before we conclude the Bill. By the way, I am grateful to the Minister for making sure that the letter the Secretary of State sent me has been placed in the Library so that every Peer can see it, but it worries me that that issue will not be considered further.
Amendment 256 links with the idea of a certification officer. I will come to series of amendments on that soon, so I am not sure how much of a certification officer role will be left. When it applies its thoughts on how it goes about the enforcement of the laws to which it is subject—and which it is also doing on behalf of trade union members—it should consider our role in the world and, in particular, how that contributes to make sure that we have a growing economy. I am sure all Members of your Lordships’ House would agree that we need it to grow.
Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)
My Lords, I oppose Amendment 254 and the other amendments in this group.
I also admit to a certain degree of pleasure that they have been tabled, because they draw attention to the fact that such was the rejection, not just of unions or the minimum service levels Act but of the public and employers, that not a single employer used the minimum service levels Act and not a single work notice was issued. That was because the Act was so widely regarded as unfair and unworkable and, in addition, that it would put fuel on the fire of difficult industrial disputes when all decent people wanted to resolve those disputes. Finally, it ignored the fact that life-and-limb voluntary agreements are in place in the industries and sectors where safety is genuinely at stake.
I thank the Benches opposite for putting forward the amendments.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady of Upper Holloway, and I took part in the debates on the 2023 Bill when it went through your Lordships’ House—obviously, on different Benches. She is right that no employer sought to use the powers in the 2023 Act, but the Act had only a relatively short existence in which it was available to employers before, in effect, we went into an election period.
I accept that, at the time, employers did not wish to take advantage of the Act’s provisions. The main purpose of the Act was to protect individual citizens to ensure that they had the levels of service that they needed. That goes beyond safety issues, which are the minimum levels to which unions tend to sign up for, so that ordinary citizens have minimum service levels to get themselves to work, to get themselves to their hospital appointments and so on. We did not give that Act enough time to see: first, whether it would work in practice, which I believe it would; and, secondly, whether it would be popular with the British public, which I am absolutely certain it would have been, if it had had a proper amount of time to come into effect.
I accept that those in the party opposite, throughout the passage of that Bill, registered their strong opposition to it. So I understand that, in power, they seek to expunge it from the statute book. However, that is a grave mistake that ignores the needs of ordinary citizens and places unions above the needs of ordinary citizens.
I particularly support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Fox, which seeks an impact assessment on SMEs. I will always support an impact assessment on SMEs, because we have not had a proper one yet. I do not believe that Part 4 of the Bill will have the biggest impact on SMEs—other parts, particularly Part 1, will decimate SMEs—but I support any opportunity to get full public exposure of the impact of the provisions throughout the Bill on the health of our very important SME sector.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
My Lords, I support the amendments from my noble friends Lord Sharpe of Epsom and Lord Hunt of Wirral to require an impact assessment on the effect on the emergency services. That is proposed in Amendment 254, which seeks to insert proposed new subsection (4) to Clause 75; and in Amendment 255, on the ability of the services listed in the 1992 Act to provide minimum service levels with a new Section 75, requiring an impact assessment.
As noble Lords will remember, the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023 enabled the Secretary of State to set minimum levels of services in essential services, so that employers could give notices to trade unions that their employees must comply with Section 234B. Specified services included health, fire and rescue,
“decommissioning of nuclear installations and management of radioactive waste”
and border security. These are vital areas of the public services and, indeed, often incorporate private sector services too.
The noble Baronesses, Lady O’Grady and Lady Coffey, both pointed out that the Act was not drawn on, but it is my view that it acted as a leverage, as has already been pointed out. I support also what the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, said: given time, the Act would have come into its own. It was not given time, partly because the Opposition, who were then in pole position to take over from the Conservatives at the next general election, made it clear that they would repeal it and fought tooth and nail against the Bill throughout the debates.
Clause 75, to repeal the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023 for minimum service levels in these sectors, will appear, as has been said, to many people in this country as an irresponsible act of Government. They see that, every time the Labour Opposition is about to come to power or has the chance of coming to power, the trade unions ramp up their campaign, often calling strikes and causing chaos in the public services—some emergency services included—thus providing the Labour Government with the springboard to measures such as the present one, and indeed the present clause.
However, even if it served as leverage, the chaos was mitigated as a result of the 2023 Act, with schools kept open, rail services running reliably, if not quite as frequently, and hospital treatments taking place. Given the militancy of the unionised workforce mainly in the public sector, employers there may not particularly relish serving workplace notices, but there may be an incentive, and it may be necessary to give employers in the public sector an incentive or an instruction to do so. Right now, the issue we and the public face is, will we have our emergency and essential public services for which the country as a whole pays handsomely through its taxes for such services? Will people have a right to the benefit of the service they pay for?
Being an employer is not an easy job; it is a hard one: one of constant interaction and agreement with employees on whom the success of any enterprise depends, be it a business or charity or the public sector. It may be necessary to have such a requirement, as was stipulated under the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023, to bring employers who are not minded to go that extra mile to find an agreement to some dispute. It might be necessary to have that if there is no other incentive in place, and very often, in publicly paid for services, there is no incentive for an employer to go that extra mile.
Moreover, the prevalence of industrial action, with the disproportionate impact on the public sector and emergency services, must owe something—and does, in my view—to the prevalence of a proportionately large group of the public sector being unionised: almost 4 million, 3.9 million, in 2025 and 3.8 million in 2024, of the 6.4 million trade unionists.
This figure indicates that we are dealing with a potentially militant public sector union membership of around 50% who can hold our country to ransom if there is not a requirement for minimum service levels. This is not a very fair deal for employers who may want that extra muscle which the law has given to reach some agreement, and for the employees to reach an agreement also.
By inserting a requirement for an impact assessment, we shall at least be encouraging information to be supplied to taxpayers and the public, so they too can lend their voice to the need to mitigate the damage done by the lack of availability of treatment in hospitals and the damage done to children’s education, to border controls and to fire services, not to mention basic rail travel to go to work and earn a living, which is perpetuated by Clause 75. I therefore support my noble friend’s amendments, and I urge the Government, even if they are determined to bring forward this unnecessary clause, to allow the public to judge the impact by producing an impact assessment.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, I shall speak briefly to this group of amendments, which introduce various review provisions linked to the operation and impact of measures in the Bill. Amendments 254 and 255, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe and Lord Hunt, seek to ensure that the consequences of key provisions, particularly around the repeal of the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act and the content of Clause 75, are properly assessed after implementation. While post-legislative scrutiny can be helpful, there is a balance to be struck between evaluation and reopening the substance of the reforms.
I shall also speak to Amendment 258, tabled by my noble friend Lord Fox, who is unfortunately unable to be here today. His amendment would require a review of the impact of Part 4 on small and medium-sized enterprises within six months of Royal Assent. I am sure he will be delighted by the number of voices that have joined in support of that approach today, because this is an important proposal. Small and medium-sized businesses do not have the legal departments or HR infrastructure that larger organisations enjoy. Clarity, simplicity and practical support are essential if those firms are to understand and comply with new duties under employment law, particularly where industrial relations are concerned. This amendment would help to ensure that legislation worked in practice for the full range of employees it affected, and I hope that the Minister will give it due consideration.
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, for her contribution and I will endeavour to respond to her amendments. However, I will not respond to Amendment 256, because it is not in this group; it is in group 6.
I respectfully disagree with the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor. Trade unions do not cause chaos in this country. They are fighting for the better pay of their members. This Bill will update the UK’s outdated employment laws and turn the page on an economy blighted by insecurity, poor productivity and low pay. We will raise the floor on workplace rights to deliver a stronger, fairer and brighter future for the world of work in the UK.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, that we must be conscious of how the reforms will impact SMEs, and I will come back to that later.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, for tabling Amendments 254 and 255, and the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for Amendment 258, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer. On Amendments 254 and 255, our impact assessment of the repeal of the strikes Act was published on 21 October 2024 and is available for all to read. I remind all noble Lords that repealing the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023 is a manifesto commitment. The Act received Royal Assent in July 2023, but, since then, 2.7 million working days were lost to strikes in 2023—up from 2.5 million in 2022. Therefore, the Act has not proved to be effective, even though it has had a short lifespan. It has not prevented a single day of industrial action but has contributed to industrial unrest. Before the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023, most industrial action was consulted on, and voluntary agreements were put in place for minimum service levels in the interests of security. The system worked perfectly, so I do not see why this Act should be in place. There is nothing new to add to that assessment.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for his response, and to my noble friends Lady Coffey, Lady Noakes and Lady Lawlor for their comments. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, for introducing the important amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, which I neglected to speak to but will do in a second, for which I apologise. Regarding the Minister’s assertion that the unions do not cause chaos, perhaps somebody should alert the RMT to that. By its own estimation, it cost the economy £5 billion in 2023. I would call that fairly chaotic.
As we conclude this debate, I express some disappointment at the Government’s response to the modest and reasonable amendments that we have tabled. We have simply asked for evidence. A number of the assertions that the Minister made are based on none whatever. We have asked for an impact assessment—we repeatedly ask for impact assessments on all manner of aspects of this Bill. I will take him up on his offer of that meeting. However, to come back to the implementation plan, it would be a much better-informed meeting if we had an implementation plan and a timeline. We will not drop this until the Minister can provide one. I am sure he will be working “at pace”, in his noble friend’s phraseology.
All we have done is ask for the Government to pause and consider the real-world consequences of repealing a law that was designed to protect public safety during times of industrial action. The Government claim, with some optimism, that removing the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023 will somehow improve industrial relations. However, when they were asked to produce any evidence from employers, unions, the public or independent experts, none was forthcoming. There is no analysis of outcomes, no tracking of safety impacts, no consultation findings and no plan for what replaces the protections that they are so eager to tear down. In short, there is no case, just conviction without content.
We could go on and talk about how this is not theoretical, and I would again point noble Lords to look at Birmingham. If the Government truly believe that the 2023 Act was flawed, they should prove the case with data, with stakeholder consultation and with a sober assessment of what ought to follow in its place, and not simply repeal it blindly, prematurely and with no credible alternative offered. We are not asking for the impossible. Our amendments ask for a review, a report and a basic assessment of impact. They are measured, responsible and in keeping with the House’s role in ensuring good governance.
I have two more points. I should have acknowledged and expressed very strong support for Amendment 258 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Fox. That rightly seeks a review into the impact of Part 4 of the Bill on small and medium-sized enterprises, and I look forward to picking that subject up with him again when he is back.
I note that my noble friend Lady Coffey asked a very specific question about the nationalised rail industry. I am sure we would all like an answer, so perhaps the noble Lord will write with the Government’s intentions when it comes to governing that particular sector. For now, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, this whole group of stand part notices is basically about the removal of powers from the certification officer. We have already debated Clause 77. In thinking through what is going on here, I wondered whether there would be anything of a certification officer left, because it feels like a lot of this stripping out of certain aspects—for example, in Clauses 79 to 83—is very limiting in terms of what could be left to be done.
Since the Trade Union Act 2016 came into effect, the world has somewhat moved on in terms of transparency and wanting to know what is going on in an organisation. I appreciate they are not state bodies, but trade unions play an important role in our country. It is important that, while recognising there is a declining membership, not in the public sector but in the private sector, for those people who are contributing money every week, every month, every year—whatever it is—having a good amount of information in a consistent way is a good thing in terms of thinking about how we promote aspects of transparency.
We have had considerable debate, as I say, about Clause 77. But I am struggling to understand what the issue really is—why it is so difficult for these things to be produced. In thinking about investigatory powers, let us put a bit of reality or real life into this. There has been a situation within the last six months where an election for the general secretary of the Fire Brigades Union happened. On a 29% turnout, a person was elected. That turnout of votes equated to something like fewer than 10,000 people casting their votes in favour of that candidate. However, it was subsequently discovered that 3,000 ballot papers were not issued. I am happy to be corrected if I am wrong, but the difference between winning and losing was less than 3,000. Understandably, the person who lost, who had been in post for nearly 20 years, was somewhat aggrieved. However, when it was decided there had obviously been a breach and something had gone wrong, the certification officer went through a proper process. The Government may well argue that it would have been safer to email out ballots, or do an online ballot, rather than relying on the post. I am sure the union staff were not the only people struggling with things not being delivered by Royal Mail at that time. However, after that process, the losing candidate chose not to require the election to be rerun, which would have been within the gift of the certification officer. In terms of general justice, without having to go to the expense of going to the High Court, a certification officer was a simple way to try to remediate something that was clearly unfair.
However, the person who lost—I am not going to name them—was then very quickly appointed general secretary of another trade union. This time, that was challenged directly by the union’s members. In that instance, I think they went not to the certification but immediately to the High Court. So, one person having lost an election, another trade union—that is the teaching union—used its procedures incorrectly to put them in place as its new general secretary. Then, thanks to the legal challenge, the executive committee of that union recognised that it had not acted properly. This same person, by the way, is still acting general secretary of that trade union. The election commences on Thursday; it is up to the members who they decide to vote for, of course.
I looked at the fairness of a variety of the decisions that the certification officer made over time, and the same teaching union was in breach a few years ago because its general secretary outstayed their elected term. They were then made an acting general secretary and, about a year later, there was another election. It is very expensive if trade union members have to go to the courts over these sorts of things. As I researched these clauses and found out what has happened in real life, it reminded me somewhat of Animal Farm, and how—what was it?—“Two legs bad, four legs good” evolved over time to suit the needs of those who decided that they would be in charge.
I appreciate that trade unions might feel that we should not need to have a certification officer, but these are good examples of where people have had recourse to an independent person who, by law, is not subject to ministerial direction. Those people can have complete confidence in the integrity of the certification officer, and that going to them will lead to somebody having a look, without the cost of going to the High Court—as we know, that is expensive. I understand that Labour has this mantra that it is going to repeal anything to do with the 2016 Act, but I really want the Government to consider why, seeing some of the changes that have happened. By the way, at the same time, they are bringing in different rules for employers in dealing with their employees. It is perfectly valid for them to do so, but just imagine the impact these sorts of stories have. It so happens that both the trade unions in my examples are public sector unions, and we have seen their overall membership increase, but we should not be surprised if lack of confidence has started to drift people’s concerns away on why they need to pay to be a member of a trade union.
I wish the Government would consider carefully what the removal of any of these clauses would do to help the average worker and the average trade unionist, who may not be highly connected and may not have chosen to join a political party or to dedicate their lives, from quite an early age, to being part of that trade union leadership. They should also think about, and this is one of the reasons why I got triggered, what happens when somebody completely left-field—or right-field, whatever—comes in and their union’s ruling body decides, “Yeah, we like the look of that person” and they are not sure why; it may have felt sorry that he had just lost an election elsewhere. Let us think carefully about whether it is the right approach to remove all these powers from the certification officer, which I think people from every level can see are used, rarely and not extensively, to apply some common sense.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, I will speak in support of my noble friend Lady Coffey. I thank her for bringing forward these crucial amendments to oppose Clauses 76 and 78 to 83 standing part of the Bill. In doing so, she not only upholds the integrity of trade union regulation but calls out a deeply troubling double standard in the Government’s approach to industrial relations.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Information and Technology (Baroness Jones of Whitchurch) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all those who have contributed to this debate, and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, for giving me the opportunity to speak to these clauses and, I hope, to reassure her. Let me point out why they are important provisions that must stand part of the Bill.
The theme these clauses all share is that they remove some of the unnecessary bureaucratic burdens placed on trade unions as a result of the Trade Union Act 2016. This includes removing powers placed on the certification officer which have never been used since their introduction. Your Lordships’ House will be aware that the Government’s manifesto committed to repealing the 2016 Act, and these clauses deliver on that. They will enable trade unions to focus more of their time and efforts on delivering in the interests of their members.
Clause 76 seeks to reverse the effect of Section 7 of the Trade Union Act 2016. It will remove the additional reporting requirements imposed on trade unions for their annual returns to the certification officer concerning details of industrial action taken during the reporting period. I can assure noble Lords that trade unions will still be required to submit an annual return to the certification officer, but the amount of information they will have to include will be reduced. In addition, unions will continue to be required to provide information in those annual returns relating to their governance and finances, including the management of their political funds, as they have done for many years.
Clause 78 will remove the power of the certification officer to enforce certain requirements relating to trade unions’ annual returns. However, the certification officer will still hold enforcement powers for the other remaining annual return requirements—that is, those not removed by Clauses 76 and 77, for example in relation to a union’s financial affairs and governance. Clause 79 will repeal the certification officer’s enhanced investigatory powers, which include an ability to compel trade unions to produce documents, the power for inspectors to launch investigations, and the related power of enforcement.
The reason why Clause 79 is introduced is that the enhanced powers created by the 2016 Act are simply not necessary. No evidence of regulatory failure existed at the time of the 2016 Act, and the statutory obligations that existed prior to that Act regarding trade union finances, governance and reporting requirements were found to be sufficient. In addition, the Certification Officer has never used the additional powers since their introduction. Removing the Certification Officer’s enhanced investigatory powers is part of the Government’s commitment to reset industrial relations and ensure that employers, unions and the Government work together in co-operation and through negotiation.
In the examples that the noble Baroness gave, the Certification Officer—as I think she admitted—acted with complete propriety and authority. I assure her that unions continue to be hugely respectful of the power and authority of the Certification Officer. I also assure her that the Certification Officer’s role is partly to ensure that the rights of workers are properly protected. I really do not recognise the noble Baroness’s analogy with Animal Farm. Our repeal does not affect the ability of a trade union member to complain to the Certification Officer about an election and have that investigated.
Similarly, Clause 80 will remove certain powers of the Certification Officer to investigate trade unions proactively without first having received a complaint from a member of that trade union. Trade unions are voluntary organisations run by and for their members. We are returning the Certification Officer’s role to one where the Certification Officer adjudicates where the Certificate Officer receives members’ complaints in relation to a union. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, that members will not be shy about complaining if they feel that an injustice has been done within the conduct of their union. However, the Certification Officer will retain the power to investigate a union’s financial affairs. The Certification Officer’s powers have been in place for many years and were brought in prior to the Trade Union Act 2016.
Clause 81 will reverse Section 19 of the Trade Union Act 2016 to remove the Certification Officer’s ability to impose financial penalties on trade unions. I can tell noble Lords that the Certification Officer has not imposed a single financial penalty to date. However, the Certification Officer will retain the power to issue enforcement orders following the changes made by Clause 81, and if those orders are not complied with the the union could be found in contempt of court.
Clause 82 will remove the Secretary of State’s power to make regulations that require the Certification Officer to impose a levy on employers’ associations and trade unions. It was resisted by employers’ associations and unions when it was introduced. The levy impedes on the rights of voluntary association and has attracted criticism from the International Labour Organization. The ILO was concerned that the levy could negatively impact on the rights of workers to organise and bargain collectively and reduce the financial capacity of trade unions to carry out such collective bargaining on behalf of their members. The Government believe that we should interfere as little as possible in the activities of social partners, which are, as I say, voluntary associations.
Clause 83 will reverse changes made by Section 21 of the Trade Union Act 2016 so that the right of appeal against decisions of the Certification Officer to the Employment Appeal Tribunal is only on a question of law, as opposed to being on questions of fact as well as law. That returns the appeal process to the position before the Trade Union Act 2016, where appeals against the Certification Officer’s decisions were on points of law only. It also aligns with many other enforcement bodies on employment law. For example, appeals against the decisions of employment tribunals are considered only on points of law, not points of fact.
I hope that that explanation has been helpful and therefore that Clauses 76, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82 and 83 stand part of the Bill.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
“Certification Officer: growth dutyWhen discharging its general functions, the Certification Officer must, so far as reasonably possible, act in such a way as to advance the following objectives—(a) the international competitiveness of the economy of the United Kingdom, and(b) its growth in the medium to long term.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause would require the Certification Officer to advance the objectives of the international competitiveness of the economy and its growth in the medium to long term.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, as my noble friend Lady Coffey mentioned a short while ago, we have been told by this Government on numerous occasions that growth is their number one priority. Growth, growth and more growth has become something of a mantra for Ministers, but the harsh reality is that their actions are consistently undermining this stated objective, and their latest economic performance demonstrates the urgent need for the amendment before us today.
The UK economy shrank more than expected in April. The standard measure of economic output, GDP, contracted a sharp 0.3% according to data from the Office for National Statistics. Additional costs on businesses were also levied during that month as employer national insurance contributions took effect, which businesses told the ONS played a part in their performance. The biggest part of the economy, the services sector, contracted by 0.4% and manufacturing dropped by 0.9%. The Government are manifestly failing to reach their stated growth target.
It is not enough for the Government to tell workers, businesses and the British public what they want to hear about growth while simultaneously implementing policies that actively undermine economic competitiveness. The trade union provisions in the Bill represent a perfect example of this contradiction: they expand the protections and rights that will inevitably increase costs, reduce flexibility and diminish our international competitiveness, all while the Government claim to be prioritising growth.
My amendment would require the Certification Officer, when discharging functions under the Bill’s expanded trade union framework, to advance the objectives of international competitiveness and medium to long-term economic growth. It represents a vital safeguard against the economic damage that unconstrained implementation of these provisions could inflict. The Certification Officer oversees trade union administration from registration to financial transparency to complaint procedures. Under the Bill, these functions will expand significantly as new rights and protections are introduced. Without a growth duty, there is no mechanism to ensure that the Certification Officer considers the broader economic implications of how these expanded powers are exercised.
We operate in an intensely competitive global economy. Our European neighbours and international competitors are not standing still while we load additional costs and restrictions on to British businesses. When the Certification Officer makes decisions about trade union regulation, registration and oversight, those decisions must be made with full awareness of their impact on our ability to compete internationally. Countries such as Germany, despite having strong trade union traditions, maintain regulatory frameworks that prioritise economic competitiveness. Singapore, Ireland and other successful economies have demonstrated that worker protection and economic growth are not mutually exclusive, except when regulators are required to balance these objectives explicitly.
This amendment ensures that as we expand trade union rights and protections, we do so in in a way that enhances rather than undermines our economic position. It requires the Certification Officer to ask not just whether a decision serves trade union interests but whether it serves the broader national interest in maintaining a competitive and growing economy.
The concept of growth duties is well established across government precisely because regulators have learned that narrow focus on single objectives can create unintended economic consequences. Financial regulators have competitiveness objectives because financial regulation that ignores competitiveness can drive business overseas. Planning authorities must consider economic impact because planning decisions that ignore economic consequences can destroy local economies. Environmental regulators operate within frameworks that balance protection with economic considerations because environmental regulation that ignores economic reality becomes counterproductive.
The offshore employment trend demonstrates exactly why such balanced approaches are essential. When regulators focus solely on enhancing protections without considering economic consequences, they risk creating conditions where the protections become meaningless because the activity they are meant to regulate simply moves beyond their jurisdiction. It would be extraordinary if trade union regulation, which directly affects workplace costs, flexibility and productivity, were exempt from such considerations. This amendment brings the Certification Officer into line with best practice across government by requiring explicit consideration of economic impact.
The Government may argue that trade union regulation should focus solely on worker protection without economic considerations, but this position is fundamentally flawed for a number of reasons, and recent evidence makes it increasingly untenable. For example, it would create an artificial separation between industrial relations and economic policy that exists nowhere else in government and has proven counterproductive in practice. Every other area of regulation requires consideration of economic impact precisely because regulators have learned that ignoring economic consequences undermines policy objectives. It would also contradict the Government’s stated priority of growth while simultaneously demonstrating the practical impossibility of separating worker protection from economic performance.
When companies such as The Legends Agency can build multi-million-pound businesses by helping UK employers avoid UK employment law, the Government’s approach has clearly failed on its own terms. I beg to move.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, I am a great fan of international competitiveness and growth objectives for regulators. When the first one was introduced for financial services regulators in the Financial Services and Markets Act 2023, I thought it was an incredibly important addition to the way regulation of financial services is undertaken. Just last week, your Lordships’ Financial Services Regulation Committee issued its report on how that international competitiveness and growth objective is working, and I commend it to noble Lords.
I support what my noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom has said about applying the duty to the Certification Officer, but I invite him to consider whether there is a much more important area where such a duty should be applied in this Bill, which is to when the Secretary of State makes decisions about, for example, the enforcement provisions or making the various regulations that we know are necessary to make Part 1, and indeed other parts of the Bill, operate effectively.
The most important aspect of the Bill is going to be driven by what the Secretary of State does once it is enacted, but there is not an equivalent requirement on the Secretary of State to take into account the needs of international competitiveness and growth. It is essential for the Secretary of State to have that at the front of his mind when making regulations that will have such a big impact on the way that businesses operate in this country. I therefore commend my noble friend’s amendment, but if he is considering bringing something back on Report, he might consider something a little broader.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, this nation must earn its place in the world, and, regrettably, we are losing to some of our industrial competitors, particularly in energy-intensive industries such as steel, aluminium and so on. We must live by our wits, and that means increasingly leaning on highly skilled, knowledge-based employment in an economy that values strong intellectual property rights, the rule of contract and property rights themselves. That requires an economy with flexibility and agility.
Earlier today, along with other noble Lords, I sat on the Home-based Working Committee. We are seeing firsthand how the world of work is changing, not just in the way that we go to work but in the way that we sometimes work from home. The entire technological underpinning of our economy is changing too. We have not yet seen the end of artificial intelligence and what it might do to low-skilled, somewhat transactional arrangements.
It does not help the economy, and by extension those who work in it, if all participating employers and unions do not recognise that we have a duty to move with the times. We cannot put a wall around our economy and create some high-cost walled garden as the rest of the world trades its way to prosperity, leaving us behind. I strongly support Amendment 256 and want to give more power to the officer who, more than anyone, can cajole and encourage workers’ representatives to recognise the world as it is, rather than the world as they might wish it to be.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, for tabling Amendment 256. We fully recognise the importance of supporting growth and international competitiveness across our economy, and we will of course continue to pursue policies that will deliver on our economic ambition. However, we do not consider this duty to be appropriate for the certification officer.
The certification officer is not a traditional regulator; they are an independent quasi-judicial officeholder. Their core functions are to oversee regulatory compliance fairly and impartially and to ensure trade unions and employers’ associations adhere to statutory requirements in relation to their finances and governance. This includes investigating complaints, maintaining accurate registers and ensuring that democratic processes are upheld. Imposing a duty to promote growth and competitiveness would cut across this role. It risks introducing competing priorities, blurring legal clarity and ultimately undermining confidence in the CO’s neutrality. We cannot require the certification officer both to conduct their judicial and regulatory functions and to deliver economic outcomes. The certification officer has no role in relation to the international competitiveness of the United Kingdom economy or its growth in the medium to long term.
As noble Lords will know, this Government have been active in requiring a number of regulators to apply a growth duty. Those bodies to which the growth duty currently applies are purely regulators—regulators that set strategies and make decisions that significantly affect the type, scale and location of economic activity in important sectors. The decisions regulators take can set the parameters for economic activity across the economy, and, of course, we recognise that; but the certification officer does not have this responsibility or power. We share the noble Lord’s commitment to economic growth, but it must be pursued in the right way. Furthermore, requiring the certification officer to follow a growth duty would not be practicable, and there is no evidence that imposing such a duty would have any meaningful impact on the UK’s growth or international competitiveness. It would be like asking a court to consider cases based on their impact on economic growth rather than on the evidence of the case.
For those reasons, I must ask the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, to withdraw Amendment 256.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her answer, but I have to say that I am unpersuaded. The gist of it was that the certification officer does not have either the responsibility or the power, but by definition this amendment would deliver both those things. I completely agree with my noble friend Lady Noakes, and I shall take her suggestions on board and have a careful look at this. I do not believe that this amendment and the suggestions she made are mutually exclusive; in fact, if anything, they are very complementary. I thank my noble friend Lord Fuller for his comments, which, frankly, were just an expression of complete common sense.
I express my disappointment at the Government’s rejecting this amendment. I think it reveals more about the Government’s true priorities, frankly, than all the rhetoric about growth that we have heard. The Government are absolutely right to identify growth as a priority, but they will not find it in this Bill. In fact, there is nothing in the Bill that will bring any growth. I challenge the Minister to identify a single provision in these hundreds of pages that will increase productivity, enhance competitiveness or create jobs. The Government’s own impact assessment suggests the same: it is a document notably silent on growth benefits, while cataloguing increasing costs and regulatory burdens.
If the Minister is genuinely confident that the Bill will support growth, and if she truly believes that the expanded trade union protections and enhanced worker rights will somehow boost economic performance, I am surprised and somewhat mystified that she will not accept this amendment. The argument was that the certification officer is not a traditional regulator, but they still have a regulatory function, so I do not really see what difference that makes, frankly. What could be the objection to requiring the certification officer to consider growth when discharging functions under a Bill the Government claim supports growth? If these provisions truly advance economic competitiveness, a growth duty should be welcomed as a validation of the Government’s approach.
I could go on, but I do not see the point. The Government have rejected a genuine opportunity to demonstrate that their growth rhetoric has substance. The amendment would have required no fundamental changes to their approach, simply consideration of the economic impact when implementing trade union provisions. It would have aligned trade union regulation with best practice across government, while preserving all the work protections the Government claim to champion. The fact that they cannot even accept a modest requirement demonstrates that the commitment to growth is hollow rhetoric. It is designed to disguise an agenda focused more on trade union empowerment, regardless of economic consequences. How very disappointing for our great nation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Coffey
“Right to consider employer offerAfter Section 69 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, insert the following new section—“69A Right to consider employer offerA trade union must present any offer from the employer to their membership for a vote whether or not the trade union supports the offer.””
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, noble Lords may think that this amendment is a little odd: why does there need to be a right to consider an employer offer? It came about because of something that happened in the Port of Felixstowe within the last few years. At one point there was huge frustration on the part not just of the employer but of several workers, because, with the union and the employer negotiating in good faith—I am not criticising the union at all—the offer then made did not need to be put to the members. I am not suggesting that this is a loophole: I appreciate that there is back and forth and a current requirement to give lots of notice, with everything being done by post and so on. I can understand that it may not be reasonable that, every time an employer moves by a penny or so, that has to be spelt out. That would be truly ridiculous, but there is something to be said for establishing what is going on. Where is the leverage being applied?
Unfortunately—and I am not saying that there is a causal link between the two issues, but there is definitely a correlation—after a considerable number of strikes in the port of Felixstowe, within 18 months it was announced that a significant shipping line would no longer use Felixstowe as its principal destination in the United Kingdom but would go to the new London port at Tilbury instead. As I say, I am not saying there is a direct causal link, but I have my concerns about the lack of reliability. This, by the way, was the first dispute in 30 years at the port of Felixstowe, and it was quite fractious. It got more fractious because people started to break the strike. I understand that that is not the ideal place for people to be; nevertheless, people—although not everybody—felt that their union was not looking after them and their interests, but perhaps starting to look after the national interest. That led to quite a lot of aggro, not just face to face but on Facebook, with families falling out. In quite a small community, the impact of that can be quite substantial.
When I was speaking to people who worked at the port and to the employer, what stayed with me for some time was that they would have liked the chance to vote, even though the organisers of their local union—or, as they believed, the national union—decided they could not. For that reason, and recognising the transition that is coming as a consequence of the Bill, such as moving to much greater use of digital ballots, there is something to be said for enabling workers not to have to go through something as awful as breaking a strike. I understand why trade union members do not want to do that; but they feel that things need to be done in their interests locally, and that their employer should be allowed to make the offer.
I have put the amendment in this way—I am conscious of what the noble Lord, Lord Prentis of Leeds, who is no longer in his place, said earlier—because employers should not be trying to get around all sorts of rules to stop people being members of trade unions. That is already protected in law; the noble Lord referred to a situation that has only recently been resolved.
In effect, this amendment addresses one of the trade union disputes in my experience that I believe has had a consequential economic impact on a key part of the east coast. I should say that I intend to respond to comments made on this amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
The noble Baroness will need to because it is an amendment, and therefore at the end one has to ask for it to be either considered or, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, I support this amendment, but not for the reasons my noble friend gave. Many years ago—Members on the Government Benches may realise quite how long ago this is when I give the names of the unions concerned, which are long since consigned to history—I was the director of a small haulage firm. It no longer exists or trades, but I cut my teeth on labour relations behind the wheel.
In our small business, which employed about 50 people, there were three types of worker: those who were not in a union at all, a small number who were with the TGWU—that dates me—and those with a new union, the United Road Transport Union. The shop steward of the URTU came to see me and said: “It’s like this, John. I think that you should recognise our union”. So I did. It was personally convenient to deal with one person rather than try to have a mass meeting with 30 or 40 people, all with different views. Unlike what some noble Lords might think of those on the Conservative Benches, I found a huge amount of value in being able to negotiate with the URTU, which had the most members but was not entirely pervasive in our company. Arthur Harris was in the TGWU—he was such a long-standing member of our business that he was employee no. 1 on our payroll system—and was not about to go to the URTU for a moment.
The point of this story is that I negotiated in good faith with the URTU and recognised that it had the most members. When making an agreement, we were somewhat apart but not completely, and I said: “Peter, put this offer to them and let’s see what they say”. He did not really want to, but the point is that I needed to make the offer as well to the other union, the TGWU, and to those members who were not in a union at all.
My noble friend made the point about the Port of Felixstowe and I inferred from her remarks that there was a single union to deal with, but that is not the landscape for many organisations. Later this evening I will talk about my experiences in local government, where there are three different unions involved—UNISON, Unite and the GMB—and a complicated negotiating environment.
I support this amendment because it provides equality to the smaller unions, not just the big ones, some of which have their own agendas. It is incumbent on all unionised labour to at least see what is on the table, whether or not their union negotiated it. That is why my noble friend’s Amendment 257A is very important and should be given proper consideration; it recognises the complex labour landscape found in many companies, particularly in private business, not just the monolithic larger organisations where there are single unions, facility time and other things.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, I strongly support my noble friend’s amendment, which, as she explained, addresses a fundamental democratic deficit in our current industrial relations framework. I thank my noble friend Lord Fuller for giving his personal experience of how important this deficit can be if it is not addressed.
This amendment would require trade unions to present any employer offer to their membership for a vote, regardless of whether the union leadership supports it. My noble friend gave the example of Felixstowe; others could give similar examples, such as what has been happening with the Birmingham strike. This is not an anti-union measure—it is a pro-democracy measure that seeks to strengthen the voice of individual workers within the collective bargaining process. It recognises that in a democratic society it should be workers themselves, not union officials, who decide whether an employer’s offer meets their needs and aspirations.
The principle underlying this amendment is simple and would be seen as uncontroversial in any other democratic context: those affected by a decision should have the right to make that decision for themselves. When union leaders can simply reject employer offers without consulting their membership, they effectively deny workers the fundamental right to democratic participation in decisions that fundamentally affect their livelihoods. We would surely not accept a system where parliamentary leaders could reject government proposals without allowing MPs to vote. We would not tolerate local councils where executives could dismiss motions without having to present them to councillors. The same should surely apply to trade unions.
This amendment recognises that the priorities, circumstances and risk tolerances of individual workers may differ from those of their union leadership. A young worker saving for a house deposit may take a very different view of sustained strike action from that of an established worker nearing retirement. A worker in precarious financial circumstances may prefer settlement on reasonable but suboptimal terms to prolonged uncertainty and loss of income. Surely we all want to avoid a situation where workers are denied a voice in decisions that so profoundly affect their lives.
Contrary to weakening collective bargaining, this amendment would strengthen it by increasing member engagement and ensuring that union positions truly reflect membership priorities. When workers know that they will have the final say on offers, they are more likely to engage with the bargaining process and provide clear guidance about their priorities. Enhanced member involvement can improve union negotiating positions by ensuring that they are based on genuine membership preferences rather than leadership assumptions. It can also increase employer confidence in the bargaining process by ensuring that negotiated agreements will not be undermined by membership rejection.
Although many trade unions always act in good faith when considering employer offers, this amendment would put protections into legislation to prevent bad actors denying workers their democratic voice. Without legislative safeguards, the system could enable a dangerous information asymmetry where union officials control what information reaches members and the manner in which that information is presented.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, for tabling Amendment 257A. I am happy to explain to the noble Baroness that this amendment is not appropriate.
As the noble Baroness knows, trade unions are already required by existing legislation to ballot their members before commencing any industrial action. Union executives are therefore required to obtain a mandate from their members to negotiate with their employer on their behalf before industrial action can commence. We believe that union executives, as representatives of their members, are best placed to judge whether an offer is acceptable and in the best interests of the union members before deciding whether to ballot their members. Balloting members is a considerable financial and administrative challenge and repeated ballots could cause an unnecessary burden—as well as confusing members as to what was being proposed and the likelihood of a higher offer.
Amendment 257A would also remove the power of union executives to negotiate on behalf of their members for a deal that they consider will deliver before balloting members on an offer. This is one of the main reasons that members join a union: they delegate to those negotiators to get the best deal for them. The negotiators will have done a great deal of detailed research on economic indicators, what is happening in their market, on the knowledge of the financial stability of the business, and so on. They will take a very wide range of factors into account into that bargaining process. This is why, quite often, negotiations take time, because all those factors have to be discussed in some detail in a way that an individual member would not be able to do.
Furthermore, the amendment has no safeguards to prevent gaming. Were we to accept it, there are risks that employers could submit multiple derisory offers to unions in order to interfere with the industrial action ballot mandate by forcing the union to constantly re-ballot members on derisory offers at the cost of the union. As the noble Baroness said, balloting on small increases would be ridiculous, but this is exactly what her amendment would require.
We consider, therefore, that existing legislation is effective. As union representatives are elected by their members to represent them, union executives should have the discretion as to whether they put an offer by an employer to their membership. If a union executive believes an offer is acceptable, they should be free to put that offer to their membership and make that judgment at the time.
We think the noble Baroness’s amendment is unnecessary; the current system works well, and it brings great benefits to individual members. I therefore ask the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
I thank the Minister for her reply. She will be aware that I am a Back-Bencher and I do not have hundreds of civil servants crafting the perfect amendment and saying when to discuss these sorts of issues.
I am conscious that through the Bill, the mandate will be extended to 12 months. There is, therefore, the potential for handing over considerable power that is delegated to negotiators. I fear there will be situations that develop that can have economic consequences on workers when there are spats that not everybody wants to be involved in. I recognise all the other changes the Government are making in digitising the operations of the trade unions, and that is why I thought it was worth discussing at this point.
This has been a very useful debate. I thank my noble friends Lord Fuller and Lord Hunt for their support and consideration—and their experience, particularly that of my noble friend Lord Fuller. Having taken all this into account, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Coffey
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I have tabled Amendment 257B simply because I did not see the answer in the Explanatory Notes to the Bill. This is quite a straightforward one for the Minister.
In Section 293 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, the regulations are normally done by negative resolution—or the annulment, as set out in new subsection (6). However, I want to understand why the Government felt that these particular regulations needed to be done through the affirmative procedure. They are not the only changes—that I am aware of—in the Bill to that section, or others, of the Act. Can the Minister explain why they have been singled out? Given the trend of your Lordships’ House over many years, why do we not move to having affirmative resolutions instead of annulments for these ones in the future? I beg to move.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Coffey for her amendments; they are measured, necessary and principled amendments to Clause 85, which rightly restore a degree of parliamentary scrutiny that had been quietly eroded in the original draft of the Bill. As we stated at Second Reading, there are 173 delegated powers in the Bill, which is unacceptable—not just to those the legislation will impact, but to the House.
In the Minister’s contributions on similar legislation in the past, she expressed her strong reservations about the use of delegated powers. I recall well her interventions, which were made with clarity and conviction, as she tabled amendments recommended by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. But we now find ourselves considering a clause that does precisely what she once warned against because it carves out certain sensitive and constitutionally significant areas and exposes them only to selective scrutiny.
The original version of Clause 85 created a two-tier system. Some regulations would require affirmative approval from this House, while others—no less consequential—would not. This piecemeal approach to oversight is not only undesirable but unnecessary. Regulations made under Section 293 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act are not merely technical: they pertain to fundamental matters, such as the rights of trade unions, the balance of power between employers and employees, and the protections afforded to those who take lawful industrial action. It is therefore only right and proper that all regulations made under this section should be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure: they should be laid before and approved by both Houses of Parliament.
My noble friend’s amendment achieves this. It does so with economy of language, but with significant constitutional consequence. It removes the artificial distinction introduced by subsection (5), and instead applies a uniform standard of scrutiny to the entirety of Section 293.
Since the Government took office, many of us across these Benches have expressed concern about the growing use of skeleton Bills, Henry VIII clauses and broad enabling powers that allow Ministers to legislate without adequate consultation or scrutiny. This amendment is a quiet but firm step in the other direction back towards balance, principle and the proper functioning of Parliament.
Again, I thank my noble friend for tabling her amendment, and I hope the Government will not merely accept it but embrace it to show their commitment to transparency and to the constitutional propriety of this House.
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, for his contribution. I remember standing before him during the PRaM Bill and we discussed this very matter. Some of this negative resolution is required because not only does it save parliamentary time but it is technical. Anyway, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, for tabling Amendments 257B and 257C, which would make all the powers under Clause 56 subject to the affirmative procedure, as well as existing regulation-making powers that are currently covered by the negative procedure, by virtue of current Section 293 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.
It is worth noting that most of the access regulations are already subject to the affirmative procedure. Indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, mentioned, only four of the 12 delegated powers are subject to the negative procedure. Given the technical nature of those delegated powers, and to save parliamentary time, the Government are of the position that making them subject to the affirmative procedure would not be appropriate.
Further to this, as mentioned in previous debates, all regulations under Clause 57 will be consulted on via public consultation, the outcome of which will be published for all to see. This is an important process, which will help ensure that our policy development is informed by the practical experience and needs of trade unions, businesses and stakeholders.
The noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, and the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, will have noted in previous debates in this place that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee said that
“it is heartening that in a Bill with so many delegated powers”—
the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, mentioned 173—it had
“only found four on which to raise concerns”.
Clause 56 was not one of those. Therefore, I ask that the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, to withdraw Amendment 257B.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his comments. Undoubtedly, in the last decade, this House has started to move to have far more under the affirmative procedure, so it gets a level of scrutiny, although I appreciate your Lordships’ House does not vote against them. That is how to make sure legislation is properly considered, recognising it will be put to debate, which is certainly not the case with many regulations considered in the negative way. With that, I beg to withdraw.
Lord Freyberg
“Unionisation and collective bargaining in the arts and cultural sector(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations establish—(a) alternative collective bargaining models for trade unions in the arts and cultural sector,(b) provisions for financial viability assessments to ensure mandatory unionisation does not place unsustainable financial burdens on smaller institutions, and(c) a dispute resolution mechanism tailored to cultural institutions.(2) The Secretary of State may by regulations define which organisations form part of the arts and cultural sector.(3) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section is subject to the negative resolution procedure.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment establishes a tailored unionisation framework for arts and cultural organisations that includes alternative bargaining models for freelancers, financial viability assessments, and sector-specific dispute resolution to balance worker protections with organisational sustainability.
Lord Freyberg (CB)
My Lords, this group of amendments addresses the arts and cultural sector. I declare my interest as an artist member of DACS. I thank the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, and the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, for their support for the various amendments I have tabled in this group. I also thank the Minister and her officials for meeting with the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, and me earlier this month to discuss these amendments.
The arts and cultural sector is of national importance. Creative industries generated some £126 billion in gross value added, representing almost 6% of the economy, and supported roughly 2.4 million jobs, as of 2022. However, its workforce is highly atypical. A recent study found that a fully 32% of creative and cultural jobs are freelance, more than double the 14% of the wider UK workforce. Creative organisations tend to be small, low-margin and reliant on irregular income, such as ticket sales, grants and philanthropy. In short, a one-size-fits-all employment regime risks harming both workers and institutions. Our amendments in this group aim to strengthen protections for arts workers—especially freelancers—without inadvertently pushing theatres, galleries and arts charities over the edge. I remind the House of the earlier Amendment 16, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, regarding theatres and casual workers, as another worry.
The creative workforce is famously project-based and freelance-heavy. For example, BECTU reports that many film, TV and theatre freelancers were initially excluded from Covid support schemes. We propose sector-specific measures: flexible collective bargaining, phased implementation of new rules and targeted support, balanced by accountability measures such as impact reviews. These proposals reflect best practice abroad. For instance, new EU guidelines explicitly enable self-employed workers to engage in collective bargaining, and many countries even use cultural levies to fund arts employment. Our aim is therefore practical: to adapt the Bill’s intentions to the realities of the arts. It is a vital opportunity for the sector’s needs to be heard.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, my Amendment 287 in this group seeks to establish a freelance commissioner. I thank my noble friends Lord Freyberg and Lord Colville, and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, who have supported this amendment. I support all the other amendments in this group, including Amendment 286, which is similar in intent in wishing to improve the situation of freelancers in the creative industries, and Amendments 301 and 302 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, which very usefully seek to define what a freelancer is.
The only thing that I would add to Amendment 301 is the category of sole trader, which would highlight the point that an artist is always working, whether they have a client or not and whether we are talking about a visual artist, a photographer, a musician, a composer or a novelist. The buyer, the publisher, the venue or gallery may materialise at some stage, but it is sometimes a thing of the future. In the creative industries, worker and client are not always walking hand in hand at any one time.
I very much support the Bill as far as it goes, but a truly modern employment Bill—and it is an employment Bill, not an employee Bill—would have included consideration of the self-employed and freelancers, a group which of course includes the creative industries. On 5 June in the previous debate in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, said
“we cannot claim to be modernising employment law if we ignore how it interacts with one of the fastest growing and culturally significant sectors of our economy”.—[Official Report, 5/6/25; col. 950.]
In trying to deal with the problem of zero-hours contracts in the wider economy, the Government are already encroaching on this territory but without properly assessing the wider effects of doing so—one good reason why the whole landscape of employment needs to be looked at through employment law in the round.
As the previous debate on the amendment on theatre workers, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, pointed up, there is the danger of unintended consequences affecting workers in the creative industries. Freelancers constitute around 15% of the total workforce of the country, but as the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg says, the figure runs at twice that national average in the creative industries, rising to 70% in the visual arts and 80% for musicians. Indeed, freelancers are often described as the backbone of the arts landscape. For a number of reasons, this is a growing workforce, despite—or in some cases because of—the increasing difficulties for workers.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I declare an interest as chair of Authors’ Licensing and Collecting Society. I rise to speak to Amendments 301 and 302, which aim to provide vital protections for freelance workers in the UK. It was a pleasure to hear the introductions from the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, and the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, who set the scene extremely effectively.
The common theme is that the Bill take steps to modernise employment law but risks leaving a significant segment of our workforce behind. As we have heard from both out initial speakers, the UK’s freelance workforce is a powerful engine of our economy and culture, particularly in the creative industries. As both illustrated, the number of self- employed is not only rising rapidly, reaching 1 million now in the creative industries; but the actual proportion of those engaged in the creative industries, representing 32% of jobs within the creative sector, is an extraordinary figure.
Despite their immense contribution, however, freelancers currently lack a single clear voice representing their interests to government. This absence has led to a decline in pay and conditions, with nearly two thirds of freelancers reporting low or unfair pay in their careers, and an overwhelming majority impacted by late payments. As the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, mentioned, the Covid-19 pandemic starkly exposed their vulnerabilities, highlighting a lack of security, unequal access to opportunities and inadequate basic safety nets. These three amendments specifically address those critical issues.
A fundamental problem is the lack of a consistent legal definition for freelancers. Freelancing is not the same as self-employment, and freelancers often operate through a mixture of engagements, blurring the lines of employment status. This ambiguity creates uncertainty and can inadvertently exclude them from rights.
Amendment 301 proposes to insert a new section into the Employment Rights Act 1996, providing a clear definition: a freelancer is an
“individual who is engaged to work by a company directly on flexible contracts, through their own company or through other companies on a short-term basis, and who is typically responsible for their own tax and national insurance contributions and is not entitled to the same employment rights as employees”.
I take the point of the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, about sole traders, but this clarity is essential for effective policy-making and for freelancers themselves to understand their status and rights.
The amendment also empowers the Secretary of State to issue further guidance and to create an online tool to assist in determining freelancer status, adapting it as time goes on. Once we have a clear definition, we need a dedicated champion, and the noble Earl’s Amendment 287 proposes the establishment of an office of the freelance commissioner, to be led by an independent freelance commissioner appointed by the Secretary of State. This role, as he mentioned, has been overwhelmingly called for by voices across the sector, including my own Authors’ Licensing and Collecting Society, Creative UK, the Federation of Small Businesses, Prospect and a host of other organisations to which he also referred.
The freelance commissioner would serve as a critical conduit between industry and government, providing expert knowledge and genuine oversight. The responsibilities are set out in the amendment, but, in effect, he or she would advocate for the needs of freelancers across all government departments; bridge the existing gap in representation, especially where councils such as the Creative Industries Council lack advocacy for individual artists or creatives; drive change in government and business, aiming to eradicate the red tape affecting freelancers; gather and analyse crucial data on the freelance workforce, with a focus on the creative industries; and improve government understanding of the employment issues facing freelancers.
Finally, to ensure that the commissioner’s role is embedded in government policy considerations, Amendment 302 introduces a duty on relevant government departments to consider the specific needs of the freelancer workforce when formulating new policies or regulations. Currently, freelancers are often left behind in government policy due to gaps in data and their irregular employment patterns. They are more susceptible to economic fluctuations and lack the fundamental protections that employees enjoy, such as sick pay, flexible working hours and parental rights.
This amendment would mandate that departments such as the Department for Business and Trade, the Department for Work and Pensions and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport have due regard to freelancer circumstances. Crucially, it would also require those departments to consult with the freelance commissioner during the development of any such policies. This duty is vital to ensure that upcoming employment reforms are fit not only for more traditional forms of employment but for the self-employed and freelance workforce, thereby safeguarding the long-term success of industries such as the creative sector.
These three amendments, which seek a clear definition of a freelancer, the establishment of a dedicated freelance commissioner and a statutory duty on government to consider freelancers in policy-making, are interconnected and essential. They represent a fundamental recognition of the modern workforce and a commitment to creating a fairer, more secure environment for those who drive innovation, creativity and economic growth.
Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)
My Lords, I apologise for being unable to here at the beginning of this debate despite having added my name to Amendment 287. I was stuck on the motorway for the last three hours. I absolutely support the amendment; it is an incredibly good measure. I hope that the Minister will listen kindly to my noble friend’s amendment and speech.
Baroness Caine of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, I support Amendment 287 tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, which provides an opportunity to address a long-standing gap in protection for freelance workers. To illuminate that, I will focus on one area of specific concern: health and safety.
At least 70% of the production workforce in film and TV operates on non-permanent contracts. Technically classified as “self-employed”, they do not meet the standard definition of autonomous self-employment. Current laws surrounding health and safety at work are often open to interpretation by those on productions who hire them, and, in some productions, a culture of minimum compliance becomes compounded by an industry that tends to self-regulate. Freelancers often do not raise safety concerns or request reasonable adjustments to the work they are doing, as they fear gaining a reputation for being difficult in highly networked industries where word of mouth is a powerful currency.
To illuminate that further, let me turn to a tragedy raised in this place last February by my noble friend Lady Smith of Basildon—the now Leader of the House—while in opposition, during a very well received debate led by my noble friend Lord Bragg on the contribution of the arts to the UK economy and society. She referenced the work of the Mark Milsome Foundation, a campaign established following the tragic workplace death of this highly respected and experienced camera operator on a film set in 2017. At the inquest on Mark’s death, the coroner concluded that, on that set,
“the risk of Mr Milsome being harmed or fatally injured was not effectively recognised, assessed, communicated or managed”.
Despite these findings, no one has ever been held accountable, suggesting a gap or flaw in the law that needs to be filled or rectified, affording freelance employees the same safety rights, benefits and policies as others in employment.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Caine. She made some terribly important points; they are literally about matters of life and death.
I have added my name to Amendment 259, alongside the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, and the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty. I apologise to the noble Earl for not having also signed Amendment 287; I certainly would have done so, had I caught up with it sooner. I previously backed a similar amendment from the noble Earl to an earlier Bill under the previous Government.
I declare my position as beneficiary of the Authors’ Licensing and Collecting Society, with which the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, is associated. I published one book with the society last year, and I have another one coming out this year.
Amendment 259 is about unionisation and collective bargaining in the arts and cultural sector, and it calls for alternative, appropriate models for the sector. I hope the Labour Government see sense and come back in support of the amendment. They believe—I hope—in the values of collective bargaining and of workers being able to get together to fight for appropriate conditions, whether it is health and safety, pay or work security.
I declare another position—or, perhaps, a situation—in that, 20 years ago, I reviewed a lot of London fringe theatre on my own website. Speaking to some of the actors and the other creatives involved in those performances, I learned that the conditions under which they were employed, or hoped to get paid, were often very precarious. I very much doubt that that situation has improved.
The noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, spoke about the insecurity of Covid and what followed it. The Republic of Ireland saw that situation and took a step to deal with it: it introduced the universal basic income trial, which ran from 2022-24 and paid creative workers a weekly stipend of €325 for three years. We still have not had the formal impact assessment of that, but I have heard a great many anecdotal reports about the more stability and reduced stress for creative workers. Realised from anxiety, they had time and headspace to open up new possibilities and create trajectories. They spent time researching, experimenting and taking risks and really saw the benefits in their creative practice. What we are proposing here is not going as far as a universal basic income but is a collective bargaining approach that strengthens the position of creative workers within their sectors and organisations, particularly freelancers. This would surely be a positive step at least heading in that direction.
Finally, it might feel as if we are addressing something that has been an issue for a very long time. There is a very famous painting called the “Poor Poet”, done in three versions by the German painter Carl Spitzweg. It shows a garret room with a leaking roof. There is no fire or bed, only a mattress on the floor, and the poet is tucked underneath every bed covering because he cannot afford to heat his room. That has been a long-term stereotype, but it does not mean we have to continue that.
More practically, in the reality of Britain in 2025, many people cannot even manage to access conditions such as that. There is a real issue—and no one else has brought this up yet—about access to the creative sector being open to a wide variety of people from a wide variety of groups in our society, not just to people who can access the bank of mum and dad when things go a bit wrong and can afford to work as an unpaid intern for years. If we are going to have a creative sector that truly harnesses the talents of all our society, opens opportunities and—if I have to put it this way—is great for the economy, then surely all the amendments in the group, but particularly the amendments on collective bargaining and the freelance commissioner, would take us some steps down that road?
Lord Londesborough (CB)
My Lords, I address Amendment 287 on the creation of an office for a freelance commissioner in the name of my noble friends Lord Clancarty, Lord Freyberg and Lord Colville of Culross, who has managed to beat our limited motorway system but arrived just too late to speak, sadly.
I am somewhat conflicted about this thought-provoking amendment, in that I have argued at Second Reading and in Committee against the overreach of the Bill and its sheer complexity and burden on employers, especially for small and micro businesses. On the noble Baroness’s comment, I do not want to be seen to be adding baubles to the Christmas tree. However, I agree that year by year the arguments grow for the establishment of a freelance commissioner, partly because the number of freelancers is growing and will continue to do so. The current 2 million plus freelancers will easily rise to 3 million within the next 10 years in the UK alone as employers shed staff from payroll, weighed down by the combination of increased national insurance contributions, national minimum wages increasing much faster than the rate of inflation and all the new rules and regulations coming in this very Employment Rights Bill.
Just look at the recent and alarming drop reported last week by the ONS of 274,000 workers coming off payroll during the past 12 months. We do not yet have the data to track how many of them are transitioning to freelance or self-employment. Indeed, as my noble friends have pointed out, the data on this area of freelancing and self-employment is poor and not up to international standards, and that is a real problem when we are trying to assess exactly what their contribution is to the economy.
I am going to muddy the water slightly, but you could argue that there is a need for an independent commissioner for the self-employed. We have been talking about freelancers, but there are 4.2 million self-employed people, including freelancers, in the UK. Those numbers are going to increase given the impact of technology, digital communications, AI and, particularly, the practice of working from home. I accept that there are key differences between freelancers and many self-employed people, for example, sole traders or those running their own businesses or partnerships, perhaps with just one or two contractors, but freelancers, although independent and project-based, are also self-employed and are treated just the same way for tax purposes by HMRC.
I accept that freelancers and the self-employed are not as valued or appreciated by Governments of all parties as they should be. This was brutally exposed during the pandemic with furlough and other schemes. If we want to develop a proper entrepreneurial spirit and environment in this country, we should do much more to value and look after those who create their own jobs and face up to all the risks and jeopardy that that involves. That includes freelancers, not just in the creative industries, but in other sectors where they are prevalent, which are as diverse as construction, professional services and agriculture. The Government need to give Amendment 287 serious consideration and, while doing so, think through how the interests of all the self-employed, not just freelancers, should be represented.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Freyberg, Lord Clancarty and, particularly, Lord Clement-Jones, for their valuable contributions and amendments in this group and for the thoughtful way they have introduced them. I am very grateful for their tireless advocacy on behalf of the freelance workforce, who so often find themselves on the margins of employment policy. I will speak in particular to Amendments 301 and 302, tabled the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, which I was happy to sign.
Amendment 301 introduces a new clause which, for the first time in statute, provides a clear and much-needed definition of a freelancer. This definition acknowledges the reality of modern working life, where individuals are often engaged on short-term contracts, operating through their own companies or via intermediaries and managing their own tax and national insurance affairs. These individuals, who are distinct from employees or workers as defined under current legislation, are nonetheless a vital and growing component of our labour market, as the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, has just pointed out. The amendment does not seek to blur the lines between employment statuses, but rather to draw a necessary and clarifying distinction that enables policy and legislation to recognise freelancers in their own right. The inclusion of the provision for the Secretary of State to issue guidance ensures that the definition can evolve with working practices and case law, and that is both sensible and future-proofed.
Amendment 302 builds on this by creating a duty—a statutory obligation—for relevant government departments to have due regard to the freelancer workforce when shaping new policy. Too often freelancers are treated as an afterthought, and they fall between the cracks of legislation designed for binary employment categories. This amendment seeks to correct that omission. It ensures that the realities of freelance working are considered proactively in policy design, not reactively after the damage has been done.
Furthermore, the amendment ensures that the freelance commissioner, a role established to advocate for and advise on matters affecting freelancers, is appropriately consulted in the policy-making process. That is a modest yet essential safeguard to ensure that expertise is brought to bear when policies may significantly affect freelance professionals, particularly in sectors such as the creative industries, technology and media, where freelancing is not the exception but the norm.
These are thoughtful and proportionate amendments. They do not create undue bureaucracy, nor do they entrench rigid definitions. They offer clarity, fairness, and recognition to a workforce that contributes enormously to our economy and cultural life, yet is often unprotected and unheard in legislative terms. These proposals are not about privileging one form of work over another. They are about ensuring that our legal and regulatory frameworks reflect the diversity of modern work. I commend the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and his cosignatories on bringing these matters before the Committee, and I urge the Government to give serious consideration to these amendments as practical and principled improvements to the Bill.
I will take this opportunity to speak more broadly regarding the wider group of amendments concerning the impact of this legislation on freelancers and the cultural and creative sectors. Amendment 285 proposes a temporary waiver for small and independent cultural organisations in financial hardship. This is a pragmatic and compassionate measure. We all support robust employment protections, but a one-size-fits-all rollout risks devastating unintended consequences: closures, lay-offs or the collapse of small institutions that are already on the financial brink. The idea of a grace period and progressive enforcement is a proportionate way of balancing worker protections with organisational survival.
Lord Katz (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Freyberg and Lord Clement-Jones, and the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, for tabling their amendments, all concerning the creative and cultural sectors. I am pleased to be having this debate on how this important sector is being supported by the Government and how workers within the sector will benefit from the Bill. I pay tribute particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, for his excellent and long-standing work in this area. I think it is fair to say that he is a creative inspiration to us all in his endeavours to support this very important sector.
The Government share this passion and certainly understand the importance of this sector. I draw attention to the significant work that we are already doing to support it. These sectors—creative and cultural—are a vital source of growth. Creative industries are estimated to have contributed £124 billion in 2023, accounting for 5.2% of UK gross value added, and the cultural sector is estimated to have contributed some further £35 billion in the same year, accounting for 1.5% of UK GVA.
The creative industries and cultural sectors are a distinct part of the wider UK workforce, as the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, explained. They have a significantly higher proportion of self-employed individuals, reflecting the sector’s entrepreneurial and freelance nature. In the latest published data, as of 2023 there were 2.4 million filled jobs in the creative industries and 666,000 filled jobs in the cultural sector. Of these jobs, nearly half, 49.6% in the cultural sector, were self-employed, and 27.9% in the creative industries, compared with 14.5% of UK jobs overall. This flexibility not only drives innovation but supports the more project-driven nature of the creative industries. However, we also know that freelancers’ creative careers, despite offering a more flexible and autonomous way of working, are often precarious and come with lower job security; many speakers in this debate spoke to that fact. I highlight the contribution made by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, setting out the precarious nature of working in this sector.
I turn specifically to Amendment 259 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg. Through the Bill we are introducing the school support staff negotiating body and introducing a framework for negotiating bodies in the social care sector to help tackle recruitment and retention issues there. The Government recognise that other sectors, such as the arts and culture sector, may well benefit from more formal frameworks for collective bargaining, and we intend to consider other sectors in due course. In the meantime, we want to encourage collective bargaining at the local level in these sectors. It is the Government’s intention that we should learn the lessons from this process in the social care sector first, before considering where it may be appropriate to introduce similar frameworks in other sectors.
I am struck at this point by the contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough. As he said, while the focus of these amendments is to discuss the nature of freelancing in the creative and cultural sectors, freelancers are self-employed but of course there are self-employed workers in many other sectors beyond. It is not a simple thing to analyse, that is for sure.
Regarding Amendments 284 and 288, also in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, regarding impact assessments, as your Lordships’ Committee will be aware, we have already published a comprehensive set of impact assessments. This analysis is based on the best available evidence on the sectors likely to be affected by these measures, including the arts, entertainment and recreation industries. We recognise the importance of ensuring that the impacts of these policies on workers, businesses and the economy are considered, and that analysis is published outlining this. That is in section 17 of the summary impact assessment, which assesses the impact on all different sectors, including the creative industries. We already intend to publish further analysis, in the form of both an enactment impact assessment when the Bill secures Royal Assent and further assessments when we consult on proposed regulations to meet our better regulation requirements. We are also committed to consulting with businesses and workers ahead of setting out secondary legislation, including the sector mentioned in the amendment.
On Amendments 285 and 331 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, we recognise the importance of preserving and supporting the financial sustainability of cultural organisations, including small and independent cultural organisations. However, we want to avoid uncertainty or even unintended negative consequences for cultural workers. We welcome views on the ways that cultural organisations experiencing financial hardship can be supported, including the types of advice that they may require on employment practices. More generally, the Government will continue to work with the creative and cultural sector to understand how this legislation can work with it in its context, while strengthening legal protections for employers. But again, this must not lead to uncertainty or negative consequences for the workforce, which we believe staged implementation, for example, would create. I think the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, will know that both DBT and DCMS have been engaging with sector organisations, including UK Theatre, to have productive conversations to support this sector in understanding and adapting to the new legislation, while considering what additional support we could give to this sector in particular.
Finally, I address Amendments 286 and 287 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, and Amendments 301 and 302 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, regarding freelancers. Freelancers may benefit from the reforms to trade union legislation and improvements in the enforcement system, including the regulation of umbrella companies. We have also committed to additional measures to strengthen protections for the self-employed. The noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, rightly raised issues facing those who are self-employed, such as action to tackle late payments. We have already announced a package of measures to tackle late payments to small businesses and the self-employed, including a new fair payment code, upcoming legislation requiring large companies to include payment performance in their annual reports and an upcoming consultation on potential measures to go further. Other measures to strengthen protections for the self-employed include the right to a written contract, an extension of health and safety, and blacklisting protections.
On health and safety, my noble friend Lady Caine of Kentish Town raised the honourable campaigning work of the Mark Milsome Foundation, in a speech that showed both passion and insight in this area. It is essential that employers in the creative industries do not use—or rather, abuse—the multifarious employment statuses of those working in the sector to evade their responsibilities, particularly when it comes to health and safety. As the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, said, it can indeed be a matter of life and death.
I am pleased that my noble friend Lady Caine acknowledges that this Bill may not be the most appropriate vehicle for the changes that she wishes to secure and that secondary legislation or amendments to the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act would perhaps be more appropriate. However, I am happy to take this back to colleagues in DBT and DCMS.
As has been noted, the creative industries have a high proportion of freelance workers, who are crucial to the sector’s success. To respond to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and others, the sector is working to address the recommendations of the Good Work Review, a deep dive into the working practices in the creative industries, which highlighted freelancers’ job quality as a particular concern. My colleagues in the Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport are working with industry to understand government’s role in any solutions that are developed. I and my DCMS colleagues will be happy to continue discussing how best to support freelancers, and the creative industries more widely. It is with this in mind, and the Government’s unwavering support for the creative industries, performing arts and entertainment sectors, that I ask the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, to withdraw Amendment 259.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, the Minister has noticed the strength of feeling across the House in terms of support for some of the freelance amendments. I very much appreciate what the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, said earlier. However, across the Benches there is very strong support for further protection for freelancers. Will one of the options in the Good Work Review, which the Minister referred to, be the appointment of a freelance commissioner—with all the other aspects that I have mentioned in terms of definition and duties?
Lord Katz (Lab)
I was certainly happy to reflect that there was cross-party agreement on this. I am unable to recall the exact terms of the Good Work Review here, so I undertake to write to the noble Lord with some more detail if that is acceptable.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
Perhaps the Minister could add another bell or whistle to what he has just said. Will he undertake to meet those with a strong interest in the protection of freelancers on a cross-party basis, to have discussions, before Report?
Lord Katz (Lab)
I am always happy to meet with noble Lords on these important matters.
Lord Freyberg (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his very helpful answer and all noble Lords who have taken part in today’s very interesting and in-depth discussion that I think we have all valued and benefited from.
I will make a couple of observations. The noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, made a very powerful point about the lack of government representation from freelancers when he said there was not then and there is not now any clear channel between freelancers and government. I do agree with the points made by many noble Lords about this. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, talked about having a freelance commissioner for advocacy and driving change. We need more work on this, because it is not clear that freelancers are getting the type of direction that the Government need to give on this.
I was struck by the very powerful speech by the noble Baroness, Lady Caine, on the concerns about health and safety in the film industry. Again, a freelance commissioner would be able to look at this in more detail and drive that through. There does not seem to be the same powerful advocate without that, so I hope the Minister will consider how to strengthen that. The noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, made a powerful speech about the number of freelancers who are going to come into this area; therefore, not to have them represented in this Bill is an oversight.
When I was anticipating what the Minister would say, I had various things down: asking for a carve-out, asking for special treatment for one sector, phased implementation is a slippery slope, oversight already exists through Arts Council England and DCMS, there is not enough evidence to justify these changes and we already have a Minister for Culture. However, as others have rightly said, this is not about a carve-out or an exemption, it is about adaption. The creative workforce is structurally different, highly freelance, project-based and often dependent on public and charitable funding. Our amendments aim to ensure that employment rights can be applied fairly and effectively in this context.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
“Impact on industrial action (1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the day on which this Act is passed, publish an independent assessment of the impact of this Act on the number of working days lost to strike action.(2) The assessment must include data comparing the number of working days lost to strike action in the 12 months following the passing of this Act with the 12 months prior.(3) The Secretary of State must lay a copy of the assessment before Parliament.”
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, my Amendment 262 concerns an issue of considerable importance, not merely for those involved directly in industrial relations but for the health of our broader economy, the stability of our public services and the legitimacy of this legislation. The amendment would require the Government to commission and publish, within 12 months of Royal Assent, an independent assessment of the impact of this Act on the number of working days lost to strike action, specifically comparing the 12 months following its enactment with the 12 months preceding it. That report would then have to be laid before Parliament. This amendment is modest in scope. It does not seek to obstruct the Bill or alter its provisions. It merely seeks transparency, accountability and, above all, vital evidence-based analysis in due course.
There is a striking—if I may use that word without inflaming the debate—absence of hard data or persuasive analysis in support of the central justification for these changes, namely that repealing certain elements of the Trade Union Act 2016 will result in better industrial relations. Indeed, the Government’s own impact assessment acknowledges that there could be a benefit
“if Trade Union reforms lead to better industrial relations”.
I emphasise “if”. Hope is not a good substitute for policy. Nor should legislation of this consequence be built on assumptions rather than analysis. I will therefore structure my remarks around three core questions which the Government have failed to answer convincingly and which this amendment would help to address.
If we are to repeal elements of the 2016 Act, we must first understand what standard the Government are using to declare that Act a failure, or at the very least to assert that it is no longer fit for purpose. The Trade Union Act 2016 introduced significant changes: minimum turnout thresholds for strike ballots; requirements for information on ballot papers; limits on picketing; and restrictions on facility time in the public sector. It was controversial, certainly, but it was also justified by the Government of the time as necessary to ensure that industrial action had a strong democratic legitimacy, and that the wider public were protected from excessive disruption.
Now we are told that these measures must be rolled back, but we have at no stage been told what objective, or even subjective, measure of success or failure is being applied. Are we to believe that the 2016 Act failed because it did not eliminate all industrial action, because it was unpopular with some stakeholders or because it placed an administrative burden on unions—or, more worryingly, is it being repealed simply as a matter of political preference? To look at some figures, according to the Office for National Statistics, the number of working days lost to strike action was at a historic low throughout the period following the 2016 Act until a sharp rise in 2022-23, partly driven by inflation, the consequential erosion of real-terms pay and broader discontent in the traditional public sector.
Are we being told the legislation was ineffective because strikes still happened in 2022? If so, that ignores the very different macroeconomic context we now face. Or is the claim simply that industrial relations will somehow improve if these legal constraints are lifted? In any of those cases we must ask: compared with what? Compared with the pre-2016 environment? Compared with our European neighbours? Or compared with a model of workplace consensus that may not exist in reality? Without a baseline for comparison, the Government’s argument is essentially unfalsifiable and unjustifiable.
Let us assume for the sake of argument that the Government believe that these changes will lead to more equitable bargaining, greater union engagement and ultimately improved relations between employers and workers. Even if that were true, we must still ask at what cost. If these reforms lead to a rise in industrial action, that will have implications not only for the affected sectors but for the public at large. Trains will be cancelled, schools will be closed, hospital appointments will be postponed, bin collections will be missed and courts will be adjourned. These are not abstract costs, so it is extraordinary to repeal a major piece of industrial relations legislation without offering any quantification of the risks of increased disruption and without explaining how those risks will be mitigated.
The impact assessment leans heavily on the idea that increased union involvement could lead to improved communication and better outcomes, and perhaps it could. But the fact remains that the cost of getting this wrong will be borne not by policymakers but by the public. That is why this amendment is so crucial. It simply asks the Government to return to Parliament within a year and tell us whether this has worked. Has industrial action decreased or increased? Are we seeing the promised harmony or the feared escalation? If it is the latter, we as legislators have a responsibility to know that and to act accordingly.
Perhaps the most fundamental question of all is: what actual, empirical, verifiable evidence do the Government have to support their central claim? We have not been given a retrospective analysis of the Trade Union Act 2016 and its impact. We have not been provided with consultation data that robustly supports repeal. We have not seen sector-by-sector breakdowns of how these measures will improve the industrial landscape. We have not even seen clear articulation of the problem the Bill is trying to solve. Indeed, the rationale appears to be more ideological than evidential. It seems to be based on the belief that loosening legal constraints will somehow foster good will and reduce conflict. All the academic research and literature on industrial relations remind us that legal frameworks matter, that institutions shape behaviour, and that rules, when clear, consistent and fairly applied, help prevent conflict and not exacerbate it.
If the Government are so confident in their position, why not test it? Why not commit to measuring its effect? Why not, a year on, lay before this House and the other place an honest assessment of whether their theory of change has delivered the desired result? If the evidence proves them right, they will be vindicated. If not, Parliament should be empowered to revisit the legislation. There is, after all, considerable flexibility inherent in legislation so riddled with Henry VIII powers. I look forward to the Minister’s reply and I beg to move.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, I rise to support Amendment 262 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, and others, because I want to talk about a simple economic truth. One of the provisions in the Bill will reduce the thresholds at which industrial action may be called or authorised. The truth is that when you reduce the threshold, the likelihood of industrial action does not grow linearly; it grows exponentially. The amendment is needed because the Bill, sadly, will provide the world with a real-life experiment that will inform political and economic science of that simple truth.
It could be worse than that. My experience comes from local government and my relationship with the National Joint Council. Local government employs 1.8 million local government workers. There are three principal unions: Unite, UNISON and GMB. Within the cohort of local government workers, I have negotiated with the craft workers, the Salisbury workers and the coroners. There is a red book, a green book and a blue book; there is even a gold book covering senior fire officers and police officers. There are 136 different activities that local authorities do and, of course, there are 350 principal councils. I have engaged with all this complexity over about 10 years sitting on the National Joint Council, the device through which the employers engage with the unions. I have sat alongside the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, on that body for many years, and now we both find ourselves in here.
As part of the gang of four, the top four local government councillors engaged in these important negotiations, I have learned a lot of things. There is less beer, there are fewer sandwiches and there are palatial premises built by one of the unions in Euston. It has not been easy work, but we have had a series of national agreements engaging on a respectful basis. It has been valuable work. The important point is that there have been powerful incentives to avoid industrial action. The bar has not been impossible, but it has been a high bar against which strike action must be called. It has sort of worked, because there has been an equilibrium between the employer and the employees across 1.8 million unionised workers —just under a third of them all—in this country.
That equilibrium has meant that when there is a strike, it is serious. When people down tools, it is in the news. The Birmingham bin strike is a case in point: there is a strike, and it is serious. My anxiety about so many of the provisions in the Bill is that it is going to dissolve the powerful incentives to avoid industrial action and instead, arithmetically and structurally, put in the provisions where it is encouraged. The Bill sets the wrong balance, because we are not talking about simple organisations with single unions and small workforces in local government. We are talking about a very complex landscape. If you reduce the thresholds, people are more likely to strike because a minority, as little as 10%, of workers could call a strike. When 10% hold the 90% over a barrel, that is clearly not in the interests of the public; it is not in the interests of the workers; and I do not believe that in the long term it is in the interests of the unions.
Amendment 262 calls for a robust assessment of the effect of the Bill on days lost to industrial action. Not only is that the right thing to do but we would do a service, because it would demonstrate once and for all that simple efficiency of labour relations: if you reduce the threshold to call industrial action, the number of days lost to strikes will go up geometrically. I regret that we are going to do a service to political and economic science, but if that is the way it is, Amendment 262 is the way to achieve it.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Sharpe’s amendment to ask for an impact assessment that details the number of days lost to strikes in the 12 months since the Act was passed and in the previous 12 months. He spoke about the repeal of elements of the 2016 Act and about the ONS statistics.
Part of the reason why we need an impact assessment on the number of days lost to strikes is because, as my noble friend said, we have no evidence. This Bill, in particular aspects of Part 4, is likely to increase the number of strike days. I say that because the main problem with many of these clauses is that they undermine the balance between the employer and the employee, which my noble friend Lord Fuller spoke about as both a public sector and private sector employer. They remove the arrangements on a number of accounts which allow for a balance to be struck between the interests of employer and employee, and for agreement to be reached.
The clauses also remove the inducements and encouragements to avoid industrial action. We spoke earlier about Clause 73, on protection against detriment for taking industrial action: new Section 236A gives workers the right not to be subject to detriment as a result of official and protected industrial action and stipulates that an employer may not take action, and may not refrain from an action, to prevent the employee engaging in legitimate industrial or protected action. Yet excluding the employer’s ability to give inducements to workers for not taking protected industrial action where others do, is in fact prohibiting actions by the employer to hold back or to encourage workers not to take such action. One example might be to offer a bonus or withhold some extra benefit.
There are very good reasons to avoid strikes, not least for the good of the whole economy and the good of this country. Employers and employees should be given a level playing field, and many of the measures taken by the previous Government since 2016 and before then, all of which are in the 1992 Act, allow for that level balance to be struck between both parties. But many of these measures will encourage industrial action, which is not to the good of workers, employers or to the country at large. An impact assessment would at least provide the evidence that the country so badly needs if we are to start putting pressure on the Government to restore the balance in this delicate arrangement between both parties.
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, and the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, for their contributions. I will be brief; I do not want to stand between noble Lords and their dinner break.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, for his Amendment 262. We have already debated impact assessments at great length and I will not repeat the same arguments. Any industrial action is regrettable and all parties have a duty to seek a resolution to such disputes. Failure to do so is basically a lack of management and leadership by all. We have also debated the repeal of the 2016 Act in previous debates. I will not mention that either. Furthermore, it is a manifesto commitment.
Despite its good intentions, the amendment would impose a review procedure that in effect repeats what the Government already intend to do. We recognise the importance of ensuring that the impacts of these policies on workers, business and the economy are considered, and that analysis assessing these impacts is published. Our impact assessment also outlines a plan for monitoring and evaluating the impact of the Bill and subsequent secondary legislation.
As noble Lords will see from the impact assessment, our Employment Rights Bill could have a positive direct impact on economic growth, helping to support the Government’s mission for growth and ensuring that we raise living standards across the country and create opportunities for all. The Bill is expected to benefit people in some of the most deprived areas of the country by saving them up to £600 in lost income from the hidden costs of insecure work.
To conclude, I reassure your Lordships that we already have robust plans in place to assess and review the Bill’s impacts, including on industrial action. My commitment in an earlier debate to meet noble Lords to discuss the impact assessment further still stands. I therefore ask the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, to withdraw Amendment 262.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Leong, for his answer, but I am, of course, disappointed. I must say to him that of course he could not repeat the argument about the impact assessment because it is manifestly inadequate and overreliant on the word “could”, which he just used again.
So it is with a sense of frustration that I close this debate on Amendment 262 because, let us be blunt, the Regulatory Policy Committee has already deemed the Government’s own analysis inadequate. It found that the assessment underpinning this Bill failed to consider important variables, lacked robust modelling of strike-related costs and omitted any real evaluation of how the repeal of the 2016 Act provisions might drive up the number of working days lost to industrial action. That is criticism born not of political bias but of technical expert judgment, but the Government persist in asserting that an independent stocktake of actual strike days would be superfluous.
During the Bill’s passage, no fewer than 160 government amendments were tabled on Report, some of the most consequential of which would fundamentally alter the trade union landscape: changes to ballot thresholds, as my noble friend Lord Fuller explained; adjustments to picketing rules; and alterations to facility time arrangements. Many came late, with scant time for meaningful consultation and no accompanying update to the impact assessment. In effect, we are being asked to sign off on a statute the final shape of which was revealed only in piecemeal fashion and for which no comprehensive evaluation has ever been produced. There is more flesh on the skeleton now, but it still makes for a pretty unsavoury sight.
The consequences of this are already evident. Businesses stand in limbo. They are unsure how to prepare—again, the lack of an implementation plan. HR directors, legal advisers and finance teams are all left guessing which rules will apply. If the Government can point to a single one who is not, could they please say so, because we have spoken to very many and cannot find a single one who is not left guessing? They require clarity, not uncertainty. They need to know, for instance, whether a union ballot will again require a 50% turnout, or whether the conduct of pickets will be governed by new or old prescriptions. In their absence, investment decisions are deferred, retention and, especially, recruitment strategies are on hold and the workforce, unsure of its rights and obligations, faces unnecessary anxiety.
To deny acceptance of this amendment is to deny the very notion that policy should be tested against outcomes and treats legislation as unchallengeable, rather than a living instrument whose impacts must be monitored, and it tells employers, workers and the public alike that we legislate in the dark. So I regret deeply that the Government have chosen to reject the amendment. Doing so signals a reluctance to subject themselves to the discipline of evidence, shirks the responsibility to measure the real-world consequences of their own handiwork, and turns a blind eye to the limbo in which businesses and the public languish. That is not acceptable. If the Government’s reforms truly will deliver better industrial relations, they should welcome the chance to prove it. If Ministers are as confident as they claim to be, let them fast-track the assessment. Let them demonstrate that strike days are falling, that workplaces are more harmonious and that public services are protected. For now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Katz (Lab)
My Lords, I beg to move that the House resumes. We will then move on to consider two Foreign Office Statements taken in the other place. In recognition that the Statements have been combined, the usual channels have agreed that the usual time for consideration be extended by 20 minutes, with 40 minutes for Back-Bench questions in total. We will therefore not return to the Employment Rights Bill before 8.38 pm.
Employment Rights Bill
Monday 16th June 2025
(9 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Employment Rights Act 2025 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 81-IX(Corrected)(b) Amendments for Committee (Supplementary to the Corrected Ninth Marshalled List) - (16 Jun 2025)
Lord Hunt of Wirral
“Consultation on trade union legislation(1) The Secretary of State must initiate a consultation on the effects of the provisions in Part 4 of this Act on the operation of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. (2) The Secretary of State must lay before each House of Parliament, no sooner than eighteen weeks after the initiation referred to in subsection (1), a report on—(a) the outcome of that consultation, and(b) the Government’s proposals for changes to the legislation referred to in subsection (1).”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to undertake a consultation on the operation of trade union legislation.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, Amendments 263 and 330 standing in my name require the Secretary of State to conduct a consultation on the effects of the provisions in Part 4 on the operation of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 and to report on the outcome and any proposed changes. It is a modest proposal, even a restrained one, but, make no mistake, it is a necessary amendment and a crucial one.
What we have before us in Part 4 is not the result of careful planning, measured engagement or evidence-based policy. No, what we have instead is a so far unconsulted set of sweeping reforms to trade union law inserted on Report in the other place with little scrutiny and even less transparency. I believe it is extraordinary that provisions of such weight, which could dramatically alter the balance of industrial relations right across the country, should arrive in this House having not been through a proper public consultation. The provisions would allow the Secretary of State to rewrite fundamental aspects of how trade unions operate, how they are recognised, how they interact with businesses and how ballots are conducted. This is not a footnote to the Bill. This is, I believe, a redrawing of the boundaries of employment law and industrial relations. It has been done without engaging employers, without informing the HR community and without giving those who will be most directly affected any chance to prepare.
We must ask ourselves who, precisely, was consulted. It certainly was not business. It was not those employers, large and small, who will be forced to navigate the implications of this legislation. We are left to presume that only the trade unions were consulted, or at least advised, because the changes serve their interests almost exclusively. They have access to workplaces in ever-broadening circumstances. There is the weakening of independent oversight by stripping powers from the certification officer; the dilution, or in some cases outright removal, of long-standing ballot thresholds that were introduced to protect the legitimacy of industrial action; and the potential for significant changes to trade union recognition processes that could alter the employer-union relationship fundamentally—all to be done by secondary legislation.
That point cannot be emphasised enough. These changes are not in the Bill. They are hidden in the detail that is to be brought forward later through regulations, through statutory instruments, through mechanisms that allow for no amendment and only limited debate. That is no way to legislate on matters as fundamental as the recognition of trade unions or the conditions for lawful industrial action. These are not administrative details. These are foundational questions of how workers and employers interact under the law. They deserve full, open, transparent scrutiny. They deserve proper consultation.
Perhaps most galling of all is that even when the Government speak of consultation, they do so with inconsistency and confusion. I draw your Lordships’ attention to two statements by the Minister for Employment Rights in the other place, Mr Justin Madders. On 7 May he stated unequivocally:
“No decision has yet been made by the Government as to whether or when to exercise this power. Therefore, there is no planned timetable for consulting on it at present”.
No decision, no timetable, no consultation—yet less than a month later, on 3 June, the same Minister declared:
“The Government will consider what criteria to assess whether to lower the recognition threshold in due course, including through the public consultation process”.
We go from no consultation to a planned consultation in the space of four weeks.
This is not just a contradiction. It is, sadly, becoming a symptom of a Government who are making policy on the hoof and who are unable or unwilling to provide clarity on matters of legal and constitutional significance. Let us talk plainly about what that power is. It is the power to reduce the threshold for trade union recognition to just 2%. No justification is offered for that number. There is no White Paper, no consultation document, no cost-benefit analysis, no report from ACAS, no statement from employer organisations or trade bodies, not a single name that the Government can point to that supports the reduction of that recognition threshold to just 2%.
Yet here we are, with Ministers potentially claiming this power to change that threshold by statutory instrument, out of reach of substantive parliamentary control. Why is it 2% and not 20% or 50%? If the Government believe that a change is needed, surely a change should be in the Bill and the rationale should be available to all stakeholders, including this House. If the Government are not prepared to provide that rationale, surely we are entitled to suspect that it has not been thought through.
How will employers respond to these changes? What of the small businesses, the charities, the start-ups, the growing firms that have never had to deal with trade union recognition processes before? They are not anti-trade union. They are simply unprepared, yet under these proposals they may soon be required to accommodate access, to facilitate recognition and to engage in statutory processes for which they have no guidance, no support and no warning. These employers are being thrown into an environment of legal uncertainty, an environment shaped not by consultation or consensus but by expediency. It is also abundantly clear that the Government have shown little interest in listening when they have, in the past, consulted.
On those parts of the Bill where consultation has occurred, however limited, the views of employers and professionals have largely been ignored. We are hearing consistently that business voices are being drowned out and that legitimate concerns about workability, proportionality and unintended consequences are being brushed aside. What then is the purpose of consultation, if it is treated as a procedural formality rather than a genuine dialogue?
Let me repeat again for emphasis: on trade union recognition itself, there has been no consultation. It was confirmed in the other place. To move forward with such a major change in industrial relations law without even the courtesy of asking stakeholders their views is frankly an abdication of responsible governance.
I do not stand here as someone hostile to trade unions: far from it. I recognise their historic role and their ongoing contributions to workplace fairness and safety. But fairness has to go both ways. Changes of this scale must be fair, transparent and built on consensus, not stealthily inserted into a Bill and then pushed forward by ministerial decree. That is why the amendment matters. It seeks only to do what the Government should have done in the first place. It seeks to restore process and balance where neither is currently present. I urge your Lordships to support it, not out of ideology or political interest but out of principle, out of a shared commitment to deliberative democracy and out of basic respect for all those who will live and work under the laws we make in the House. I beg to move.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, the reason I support the amendment is that it links making sure we get the consultations done and then not proceeding with the legislation until that has been printed. This goes to the heart of trying to understand, in effect, the detail of the Bill and how it really will impact jobs, because that is what this is about; how we will not only help workers but make sure they have jobs to still be in. That continues to be the underlying concern, which is why this perfectly formed group of amendments makes sure that at least this House knows full well what the expectation is that employers have, and the risks and opportunities that are highlighted, before it makes the final decision on when this becomes legislation.
Baroness Verma (Con)
My Lords, I just want to intervene very briefly as well. I have raised numerous times that I worry that small and medium-sized businesses have been completely left out of the debate. I spend all my time speaking to small and medium-sized businesses, and most of them are very unaware and quite nervous when they get to hear that a lot of legislation is coming their way, and they are certainly not prepared for it.
My grandfather, Mr Ujagar Singh, was one of the founders of the Indian Workers’ Association, and he created that with others to ensure that Indian workers had rights in the 1930s. So I understand it when we are standing up for workers’ rights, because at that time many Indian workers were not even protected by the unions that were here at the time. I am always conflicted, because I want to always make sure that we always have the right laws in place for the workforce. But, at the same time, I have been in business for over four decades, I talk to small businesses all the time, and the one thing that makes me incredibly worried and nervous is the absolute lack of consultation that has gone on with this enormous Bill that will actually destroy jobs, because those small businesses will just close up and shut shop.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
My Lords, likewise, I have spent the last 40 years advising SME businesses—not always with success, but I do not have a bad track record. Therefore, I support my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral’s very appropriate and wise amendment. I know that he too has spent many years advising SME companies from a legal perspective, so he, like me, has a relationship and dialogue with them.
I can tell your Lordships that every single SME company that I have spoken to has honestly no idea of what is in Part 4: they have not tuned in to it or focused on it. They have their own worries—business rates, NICs, trade, oil, energy, you name it—so this is not on their radar. We have received representations from a galaxy of their representatives, such as the British Retail Consortium, the Institute of Directors, the CBI even, the family small businesses association, the British Chambers of Commerce—the list goes on—all of which say that there has been no dialogue and no opportunity to make representations to government.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Leong) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who contributed. I will pick up the points that the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, and the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, made about SMEs. Last Wednesday, I gave a speech at an event on the Commons Terrace to a group of SMEs. Most of them were B Corp companies. I think there were about 2,000 of them. I spoke to them about what we are doing with this Bill. I must say, the atmosphere in the room was actually very supportive. Every one of them said that they welcomed the Bill. In fact, some of them said they would do more than what the Bill is doing. So what the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, said about the Government not talking to SMEs is basically not true. We are in constant, regular conversations, whether it is me, Minister Jones or the Secretary of State; we have meetings, including with officials, with all kinds and sizes of business on a daily basis.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, for his amendments, which were spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. The Bill provides that a number of clauses related to the repeal of the Trade Union Act 2016 will commence two months after Royal Assent. This includes clauses related to the notice and mandate period for industrial action, trade union political funds and simplification of industrial action notices, which the Government consulted publicly on from October to December last year. We have been clear about our intention to repeal the great majority of the Trade Union Act 2016—it was a manifesto commitment—which places unnecessary red tape on trade union activity that works against their core role of negotiation and dispute resolution.
More generally, the Bill provides for a number of provisions in Part 4 to come into force on or two months after Royal Assent, while other provisions can be commenced via regulations. These amendments would frustrate those intentions by allowing no part of Part 4, covering all of the provisions regarding trade unions and industrial action, to commence until a report following consultation on the effects of the provisions in Part 4 has been published. The further consultation suggested is not required, given that the Government regularly engaged with business, employers, members of the public and unions in advance of introducing the Bill.
The plan to make work pay was established in collaboration with businesses, trade unions and business organisations, and the Government continue to undertake comprehensive engagement. Furthermore, we have been continuing to provide many opportunities for everybody to input into the development of the Bill. For example, we ran a public consultation with all stakeholders—unions represented only 16% of the respondents on specific trade union-related measures in Part 4—from October to December last year. That was open to all to enable the consideration of their views. The Bill will, of course, continue to be subject to parliamentary scrutiny in the usual way, and we will also be conducting further public consultation.
Baroness Verma (Con)
Can the Minister tell me what percentage of the consultation was among BME businesses?
Lord Leong (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for her question. I do not have the figure, but I will find it out and write to her.
The Bill will, of course, continue to be subject to parliamentary scrutiny in the usual way. We will also be conducting further public consultation on certain parts of Part 4 where there is detail to be set out in secondary legislation or codes of practice. Further consultation of the kind envisaged by these amendments before Part 4 can come into force is therefore not required.
These amendments run counter to the Government’s manifesto commitments, as I said earlier. They seek to delay the commencement of essential parts of the Employment Rights Bill with no valid justification and would hinder the delivery of improved workers’ rights. I therefore ask the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
Will the Minister clarify something? In relation to the jolly reception he went to on the Terrace where the delegates were rapturously applauding the introduction of the Bill—in fact, going further—did he say that they were all from B Corp companies, with all the ramifications that brings?
Lord Leong (Lab)
I would not say all, but most of them were members of B Corporations.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
Further to that point, will the Minister clarify whether he is talking about medium-sized companies, which might just about cope with the bureaucracy of being a B Corp, or about the vast majority of businesses in this country, which are small and micro companies? There is a big difference between companies with fewer than 50 employees, or fewer than 10 in the case of microcompanies, and those that run up to 250 employees. The issues are quite different.
Lord Leong (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for her question. I am very clear about micro-businesses, medium-sized businesses and small businesses. At the event I attended, we had everybody. Not all were B Corps. We had owner-run businesses, businesses with just one or two employees and medium-sized businesses as well.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, I am disappointed that the Minister does not wish to engage in responding positively to this amendment. My noble friend Lady Coffey put it very much in context, and my noble friend Lady Verma stressed again the complexity of what we are talking about so far as small and medium-sized enterprises are concerned. My noble friends Lord Leigh of Hurley and Lady Noakes further put questions to the Minister, to which I do not think he has responded positively.
I say once again that I cannot see why the Government cannot accept this amendment. On trade union recognition, for instance, there has been no consultation at all. Yet this is a major change. It is the “etc” in Part 4 that I get worried about. Part 4 is described as:
“Trade unions and industrial action, etc”.
There is so much here that has not been consulted on. I agree with the Minister that there has been some consultation, but have the Government really listened to the results of that consultation? Why have they not consulted more widely, particularly on trade union recognition? I think this is an aspect to which we will have to return on Report. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
“(3A) A person may not be appointed as an enforcement officer under this section unless they—(a) possess professional qualifications relevant to the enforcement of labour market legislation;(b) have undergone prescribed training in the exercise of statutory powers, including rights of entry, inspection, and seizure.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that enforcement officers possess appropriate professional qualifications, training, and suitability.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I will speak to Amendments 263ZA, 263ZB, 263B, 263C and 271ZA in my name. I will also briefly refer to Amendments 268 and 271 tabled by my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond who sends apologies that he cannot be here this evening.
Amendments 263ZA and 263ZB go to the heart of what it means to enforce employment and labour rights in a manner that is consistent with the values of competence, fairness and democratic accountability. They correct a notable deficiency in the current drafting of the Bill and help to align the enforcement regime with the expectation of the workers it is meant to protect and the legal and moral standards of the state that commissions that protection. The role of an enforcement officer is not merely administrative. It is a position of public authority. It carries with it the power to enter workplaces, examine records and question individuals and in some circumstances to impose sanctions or refer matters for prosecution. These are not trivial tasks. They are functions which, if carried out poorly, inconsistently or abusively, can cause serious harm, not only to employers but to vulnerable workers who may already be in a precarious or marginalised position.
Under the clauses currently drafted, there is no explicit requirement for enforcement officers wielding these powers to possess any formal qualifications or specific training. That silence is troubling and perplexing. We would not allow an environmental health inspector to carry out food safety inspections without the requisite public health training, we would not permit a planning enforcement officer to issue legal notices without understanding the statutory framework in which they operate, yet here we are contemplating giving substantial and often intrusive powers to individuals without requiring that they meet even a basic threshold of professional competence. This amendment seeks to address that omission in a way that is clear, proportionate and entirely consistent with how enforcement is handled in other regulatory spheres. It is not enough to presume that competence will arise through experience alone or that the Secretary of State will voluntarily set high standards through policy or guidance. Experience in other areas has shown that when qualification and training requirements are not embedded in statute, they become vulnerable to erosion, particularly when budgets are tight or political pressures arise.
The second amendment proposing new subsection (4A) is of equal importance. It would require the Secretary of State to ensure that enforcement officers maintain records of all enforcement actions, that they provide written notice to the persons affected by those actions explaining the reasons for the intervention and that they submit activity reports to an independent oversight body. Again, this is not a matter of administrative detail but a fundamental principle. Enforcement that is opaque is enforcement that is liable to error, inconsistency and, in the worst cases, abuse. The powers under this part of the Bill are extensive and potentially disruptive. They can lead to business interruptions, reputational damage and personal distress. For these reasons, it is only right that enforcement activity be recorded, explained and subject to independent scrutiny.
The requirement to maintain accurate records of enforcement action is essential not only for the protection of those being investigated, but for the proper functioning of the enforcement system itself. Without such records there can be no effective auditing of performance, no analysis of systemic trends and no evidentiary basis for defending an action should it be challenged in the employment tribunal or the courts. Similarly, the obligation to provide written notice to those affected by enforcement actions is a basic requirement of procedural fairness. It ensures that individuals and businesses understand why a given action was taken and gives them the opportunity to challenge it if they believe it to be unjustified or disproportionate. It is a protection against not only state overreach, but the perception of arbitrary or unfair behaviour by agents of the state. Perhaps most importantly, the requirement for regular reporting to an independent oversight body injects an essential layer of democratic accountability into what is otherwise a closed executive process.
The oversight body would not be tasked with micromanaging individual cases. Rather, its function would be to ensure that the enforcement regime as a whole operated in a manner consistent with the rule of law, with proportionality and with respect for the rights of those subject to state power. The amendments would protect businesses from inconsistent or poorly executed interventions, and they would protect the integrity of the enforcement regime itself from reputational damage and legal challenge.
Lord Carter of Haslemere (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 263A and 279ZZA, which in content are quite closely connected with the amendments that the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, has been discussing. It was gracious of the Minister to meet me to discuss my amendments. This is how the legislative process should ideally work, with give and take on both sides, and I am looking forward to the “give” bit of that from the Government.
My Amendment 263A seeks to ensure that the Secretary of State cannot direct enforcement officers in how and when they exercise their powers. As the Bill stands, enforcement officers will have no separate legal identity from that of the Secretary of State. They will simply be part of a so-called fair work agency that will have no independent legal status. This is why the fair work agency is not mentioned in the Bill, which refers only to the Secretary of State and his or her enforcement officers. Legally, the so-called fair work agency is the Secretary of State.
Because enforcement officers will, for legal purposes, be the Secretary of State, Ministers and their advisers would, but for my amendment, be able to direct the way they exercise their enforcement powers. As belt and braces, Clause 87(6) confirms this where it provides that an enforcement officer can exercise his or her powers only “to the extent specified” in their appointment by the Secretary of State.
So what are those enforcement powers? Under Clause 93, enforcement officers will be able, at the bidding of Ministers, to require a person
“to attend at a specified time and place and to provide information by answering questions”
or providing documents. Under Clause 94, they will also be able, at the bidding of Ministers, to
“enter any premises, and … inspect or examine … or … seize”
documents and retain them for as long as necessary, as well as examine computers. No warrant of a court generally seems to be necessary to enter business premises; a warrant will be required only to enter a dwelling, a place where people live.
Let us be clear, Ministers will acquire all the powers of the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority, which is being abolished. These powers include investigating possible labour market abuse and breaches of modern slavery legislation, HMRC’s powers to investigate compliance with the national minimum wage and the powers of the director of labour market enforcement. The full list of legislative powers transferring to the Secretary of State is set out in Schedule 7, paragraph 35 of which confers an extraordinarily wide Henry VIII power on the Secretary of State to add, by regulations, any enactment that affects the rights of employees and trade unions and the duties of employers.
This is not all. Clause 98 allows enforcement officers—let us remember that that is the Secretary of State—to be granted certain police powers under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, including to search, arrest and interview suspects in relation to labour market offences. The Bill before us would transfer all this to the Secretary of State. It is a startling acquisition of intrusive new powers by the Executive. Effectively, the Secretary of State will, through his or her enforcement officers, have his or her own employment rights police force to direct operationally in whatever way he or she chooses. This is in contrast, for example, to our regular police forces and the National Crime Agency, which are both operationally independent of the Home Secretary. It is unlike HMRC, which is a non-ministerial department, precisely to ensure that it operates at arm’s length, with complete operational independence from Ministers to ensure that the administration of the tax system is fair and impartial. It is also unlike the soon to be abolished Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority, the day-to-day operational activities of which are, as a non-departmental public body and not part of the Crown, currently independent from government.
In its report on the Bill of 4 April 2025, the Constitution Committee said:
“Powers to enter and search premises and to seize property represent a significant interference with individual liberty. They are ordinarily vested only in recognised legal officials who typically operate independently of, or at least at arm’s length from, the government. Given the range of enforcement powers potentially exercisable under the Bill on behalf of the Secretary of State, we are concerned that the Government has not provided sufficient reassurances about the safeguards for this regime”.
This is the point of my Amendment 263A. It is imperative that the Bill makes crystal clear that enforcement officers appointed by the Secretary of State enjoy complete operational independence from Ministers and their advisers in the way they carry out their wide-ranging and draconian powers. If it does not, it is not impossible to imagine an unscrupulous Secretary of State requiring them to operate in a way that is not in the public interest and might even constitute an abuse of power, to target an unfriendly media organisation for political purposes or for some other wholly inappropriate purpose—who knows?
To quote the great Master of the Rolls, Lord Denning, in the iconic constitutional case of R v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, ex parte Blackburn, establishing the operational independence of the police, the commissioner of police
“is not the servant of anyone, save of the law itself. No Minister of the Crown can tell him that he must, or must not, keep observation on this place or that; or that he must, or must not, prosecute this man or that one … The responsibility for law enforcement lies on him. He is answerable to the law and to the law alone”.
This analogy is not perfect, but the principle is the same: it is the importance of operational independence from Ministers by those exercising investigatory and enforcement powers.
My second amendment in this group, Amendment 279ZZA, seeks to ensure that exactly the same inspection, complaints, misconduct, governance and accountability arrangements as currently apply to the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority apply to enforcement officers when they are exercising their extensive powers of oversight, inspection, training and accountability, and complaints procedures. Some of the amendments to which the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, has spoken are getting at the same thing by a different route.
This is all the more necessary given that the powers of the independent Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority, which is a non-departmental public body and therefore a non-Crown body, are passing to the Secretary of State. The Minister may say that the Secretary of State is sufficiently accountable for enforcement officers because of the requirement for an annual report to be laid before Parliament, detailing the extent to which enforcement functions are being exercised in accordance with the labour market enforcement strategy. However, that is akin to marking your own homework.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, the amendments just spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Carter of Haslemere, are clearly very important. I hope the Government will take them extremely seriously. I have three amendments in this rather strange group, which seems to be the dustbin for amendments broadly about the fair work agency but which have not found their way into a separate group through the degrouping process.
My Amendment 269 calls for some transparency about the advisory board which Clause 90 requires the Secretary of State to set up in connection with their enforcement functions. Under Clause 90, the Secretary of State decides on what matters the board should provide advice, but there are no provisions about what happens to that advice. The Secretary of State can ignore it and no one, importantly including Parliament, will be any the wiser. My amendment is modest, requiring a report setting out the advice given to the Secretary of State at least once a year. Importantly, that report would be laid before Parliament, which would be an additional tool allowing it to hold the Secretary of State accountable for the discharge of the huge new powers under the Bill. I am sure that the Minister supports effective parliamentary accountability, so if this amendment does not find favour, I invite her to set out how the Secretary of State will be held accountable by Parliament in relation to the enforcement functions.
My Amendments 270 and 279 return to one of our recurring themes on this Bill: its effect on small businesses. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, for adding his name to the amendments. Amendment 270 is directed at the labour market enforcement strategy that the Secretary of State is required to produce under Clause 91. My amendment merely requires a separate analysis of, and a strategy for, enforcement for small and micro businesses—that is, those with fewer than 50 employees. Enforcement really should not be one size fits all. What is reasonable to expect from a large corporation with a well-funded HR function is not the same as can reasonably be expected from a business with 10 employees.
I am not seeking to say that small businesses should not comply with employment legislation; I am trying to ensure that the circumstances and needs of smaller enterprises will be taken into account in the enforcement strategy. For example, the impact of heavy-handed use of the entry and seizure powers would be drastically different for a well-resourced organisation compared with a small organisation. In a small business, the burden of dealing with enforcement activity would almost certainly end up at the door of the business owner, who would inevitably then be distracted from running the business.
We have to remember that small and micro businesses account for the vast majority of businesses in the UK and are the backbone of the UK economy. We all in your Lordships’ House want to see growth in the economy, but—as the Minister will be aware—growth does not come from what Governments do, it comes from what businesses of all shapes and sizes do. Therefore, imposing onerous enforcement mechanisms and powers could threaten the ability of small businesses to operate and play their part in the success of our economy.
We need small businesses to thrive because they employ nearly half the private sector workforce in our country, and because small businesses are where large, successful businesses start; without the success of small businesses, we will not have businesses that grow to be large ones in due course. So my point is that enforcement needs to be sensitive to the circumstances of small businesses; that is all my amendment is seeking to achieve. I hope that the Minister can support that.
My final amendment, Amendment 279, is inspired by the same concerns about the impact of the new powers on small and micro businesses. Clause 141 creates a new set of offences for officers of corporate bodies and makes those officers personally liable for prosecution if they have consented to whatever action has broken the law or been negligent.
Again, we have to look at how this is likely to impact on small businesses. They are often family affairs. The directors are often the main entrepreneur, together with the entrepreneur’s spouse and maybe some representatives of the adjacent generations; outside directors are not common at the small end of the spectrum. Under this Bill, a small company will already be liable to be prosecuted for the full range of offences set out in the Bill. So what is gained in public policy terms by allowing the enforcement authorities to proceed against individuals as well in such cases?
Let us say that the directors include the business leader’s husband and business leader’s father, who founded the business. Such companies operate on informal lines, unlike the large corporations, which have legal teams and all sorts of compliance functions with adequate forms of documentation. It would be too easy for enforcement to be aimed at individuals just because they were directors of very small companies that did not see the need for highly formalised decision-making processes. That is not how small businesses actually operate in practice. They would probably be very soft targets for enforcement teams, especially those trying to earn their spurs by securing some convictions. My contention is that we should not let that happen.
My amendment takes small and micro businesses out of the scope of Clause 141 entirely. If the Government do not like that—and I suspect they will not like it—can the Minister explain what protections will be built into enforcement to ensure that prosecutions are aimed at the most egregious behaviour rather than at the most convenient targets?
Lord Londesborough (CB)
My Lords, I rise to speak to two amendments in this group, 270 and 279, which are both under the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes. I support and have added my name to both of them. I will start with Amendment 270, which addresses Clause 91 and calls—quite reasonably, in my view—for separate analysis and proposals for a labour market enforcement strategy for small and micro businesses.
As the noble Baroness pointed out, here we have another section of the Bill where the one-size-fits-all approach will be very difficult to enforce without running the risks and incurring the costs of applying the proverbial sledgehammer to crack nuts—the nuts in this case being the small and micro businesses with fewer than 50 staff.
Given the huge scope of this Bill, which has approaching 200 clauses, small businesses are very likely to have much higher levels of non-compliance—much of it inadvertent—compared with their medium-sized and larger counterparts. This is for two principal reasons. First, they simply do not have the in-house HR compliance or legal resource to cover all this legislation, and very often it will fall on the business owner or manager to keep up, while he or she struggles with all the other challenges of trying to run a business profitably and sustainably in the face of all sorts of macroeconomic and microeconomic headwinds.
Secondly, there are the disproportionate costs associated with being fully compliant that fall on small and micro enterprises. They simply do not have the budget or cashflow to spend on external advisers and employment lawyers who can advise them on how to navigate all the new clauses and conditions that run across the hundreds of pages of this Bill. As we have heard, a visit to a small or micro business from an enforcement officer, however well trained they are, will have a far greater and more unsettling impact on the owner and their staff than a visit to a medium-sized or large business.
As the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, pointed out, I note that the Government appear not to be planning to provide any material assistance to SMBs to help them understand and comply—or are they? I throw that question to the Minister. As we know, the impact assessment for the Bill rather shrugs its shoulders by admitting that SMBs will be disproportionately hit, in terms of costs and their time, and they are apparently just expected to suck it up. As the noble Baroness said, this is not to argue against an enforcement strategy per se, but it needs to be tailored and proportionate to the size of the business, specifically for micro and small companies.
On Amendment 279, it is for very similar reasons that I support this exemption for officers of micro and small businesses from the extension of liability in Clause 141. I support an exemption because these businesses typically do not have boards of directors or advisory groups, or non-exec chairs or governors; they tend to be managed by one or two principals who hold responsibility for pretty much everything to keep the business going, including finance, sales, marketing, customer engagement, product or service development, not to mention general HR which, as we all know, is going to get more far more complicated.
Finally, speaking from my own lived experience as an adviser to several small companies, and having run an SME myself for nearly 30 years, I say that we really must guard against deterring business owners and entrepreneurs from starting up and scaling businesses, and specifically from creating new jobs, often at high risk, without threatening them or, indeed, their officers with excessive and menacing levels of extended liability. I say this, mindful of the fact that the ONS reported last week that we had lost 109,000 payroll jobs in the space of one single month. It is not a great time to be spreading fear and uncertainty.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, jumping to Clause 92, I shall start by addressing Amendment 271ZZB in my name. It refers to the annual report that the Secretary of State would be expected to make on the extent to which they have undertaken the enforcement functions. I have a particular problem with suggesting that it is acceptable to have in primary legislation:
“As soon as reasonably practicable after the end of each financial year”.
There have been plenty of other reports which say that things will not fit the grid slot, or that all these other things that get in the way. We get promised a child poverty strategy, then we discover it will arrive probably about seven months after originally planned. Those sorts of things are the reason I have simply suggested that this should be done within three months. I have seen that happen for other things, such as the Environment Act, where a specific timing is put on reports. To me, this is no different in that regard, so something as sloppy as that should not be left in the Bill.
Clearly, we are now on to Part 5, a really chunky part of the Bill that deserves detailed consideration. The previous Administration started this idea of bringing together the different enforcement bodies, and I think everybody is united on this. It is noteworthy that the Labour Government, in the variety of papers they have put out, say that they are going far further than any of that. That is why this needs careful consideration.
In this Bill, not only do we see significant changes in employment rights and in the scope of what is here, but, as has been pointed out, this is also a radical change in who gets to do it. As the noble Lord, Lord Carter of Haslemere, pointed out, I would be interested to find anywhere else within government—perhaps the Civil Nuclear Police and the Armed Forces—that would have this level of direct control by the Secretary of State.
That said, I will explain why I have some sympathy with the Government in how they are going about this. I am also very struck by Amendment 269, tabled by my noble friend Lady Noakes. Setting out the advice the board has given to the Secretary of State would not be unprecedented, because this is exactly what the Office for Environmental Protection does on matters involving environmental legislation. By the way, Ministers are not expected to ask—nor do they have to ask—the OEP for advice, but they can. However, the OEP can and does publish the advice that it gives, solicited or not. That open transparency, to which my noble friend Lady Noakes referred, in how these powers are being used would be welcome to give confidence in this new body. We will be debating, perhaps on Wednesday rather than today, why I think some of this is so novel. It certainly merits all that scrutiny.
More broadly, I completely understand what the noble Lord, Lord Carter of Haslemere, is saying about the extent of the powers being given. I have some sympathy and, in another group, I talk about these enforcement officers—who used to be known as labour market offence officers—and combining all these different agencies and how that comes together. For example, the Environment Agency is a regulator that has powers to investigate criminal offences. It started an investigation on 18 November 2021, and at no point would it ever brief Ministers on the progress or intimate details of that investigation. To this date, it still has not brought any charges. We recognise that the public expect somewhat more of Ministers nowadays, powers having been set out, and that it is possible for all these things to happen. If Ministers are then, effectively, locked out from what is going on in terms of this operational independence, I can understand why they are keen to have a closer relationship with what is going on.
I will explain this in more detail in the other group, but having it as an executive agency with this advisory board provides an element of scrutiny but not the independent oversight, which is why the framework to which the noble Lord, Lord Carter, refers is important in trying to get this balance in whether people are behaving themselves in applying the law. I am not suggesting that any civil servant or any enforcement officer would necessarily want to go rogue, but they would have that extra oversight, with such significant powers. Let us be candid: a Secretary of State does not have the time to go through every single assessment of every operation that would be expected under the widened scope of legislation that this new agency will be enforcing.
I have some sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Carter, who wants to see a pretty tight grip on what is going on, but I understand why the Government have set it out in the way that they have. Nevertheless, as my noble friends on the Front Bench pointed out, that aspect of oversight is important. As has been explained, considering how small businesses will handle this gets us into pretty tricky stuff.
By the way, I fully supported the development of the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority. That is where a lot of the powers that may seem pretty tough in this Bill originated. How can I put it? Some people, whether in aspects of modern slavery or otherwise, can be pretty tough employers. I understand why some of what is, in effect, emergency access to offices and documents is needed: to make sure we tackle the abuse of workers. Overall, however, this is going to be a sensitive area. I encourage the Government to be as open and transparent as possible, and to consider not only the level of scrutiny but also the transparency in terms of reports—which would be, I am sure, welcomed by the Government and, candidly, by people relying on these agencies to do this work for them in the future.
Lord Stoneham of Droxford (LD)
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Goddard is disappointed that he is unable to speak on this group this evening. Given the multiple groups of amendments concerning the fair work agency, we will restrict our comments to this group. The Department for Business and Trade has set out the rationale for the fair work agency, suggesting the current system of employment rights enforcement is fragmented and inefficient. We agree. This fragmentation causes confusion for both workers and employers and leaves many breaches, such as underpayments, unchallenged. The Bill aims to establish the fair work agency and will consolidate existing bodies responsible for enforcement, abolishing those authorities and transferring their functions.
However, there remains some uncertainty about the agency’s precise scope and responsibilities, how it will relate to existing organisations, the level of funding it will receive, how it will access and use data, and the mechanisms for compliance and oversight. Although the Bill includes data-sharing provisions and the Minister has highlighted further detail, these issues will be key in determining the agency's effectiveness.
On powers and oversight, many enforcement powers currently held by other bodies will be transferred to the fair work agency, including powers of entry. New powers, particularly in relation to HMRC, will also be introduced. Oversight of these powers is planned to be provided through independent policing standards authorities, but it is important that the limits to these powers are clear and that they are exercised proportionately.
Regarding resourcing, it is understood that around £600 million is currently allocated across the authorities being restructured into the new agency. I am sure that discussions with the Treasury on the appropriate level of funding are ongoing, but is the Minister confident that this figure will provide the resources needed to meet the scale of the agency’s mission?
Bringing enforcement functions together in the fair work agency should improve the Government’s ability to tackle labour market abuses, including serious issues such as modern slavery. It is also acknowledged that previously, fragmented responsibilities caused confusion, duplication and ineffective enforcement, so this consolidation aims to provide a clearer, stronger enforcement framework.
I will not speak at length on the amendments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, but what he said was very wise. He raised important questions about the advisory board’s composition and enforcement powers which deserve further consideration by the Minister and the Government. Given the wide-ranging powers the agency will have—from workplace inspections to civil penalties and criminal enforcement orders—it is only right that Parliament has a clear opportunity to scrutinise how these powers will be used in practice.
Before the agency becomes operational, there should be clarity around its remit, resourcing and relationship with other enforcement bodies, and around the structures of accountability that will apply. This is particularly important for small and medium-sized businesses, which often lack the internal capacity to navigate complex regulatory frameworks. Advance scrutiny and a clear published framework would offer reassurance to both workers and employers that the agency’s approach will be proportionate and well targeted. We would welcome the Minister’s further explanation of how the Government intend to maintain transparency and accountability, to ensure balanced representation on the advisory board, and to keep Parliament informed throughout the phased implementation of the fair work agency.
Finally, I seek clarity on the Government’s timeline for the agency’s full implementation and how they plan to keep Parliament updated on progress. These are significant institutional changes and deserve close attention. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Information and Technology (Baroness Jones of Whitchurch) (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have tabled amendments in this group, all of which pertain to the governance of the fair work agency and its relationship with government. While I appreciate and respect the spirit in which they have been made, I must set out why the Government do not believe they are necessary or appropriate.
Amendment 263ZA in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, has good intentions; however, in practice, it introduces unnecessary rigidity into a system that already works effectively. Currently, enforcement officers undergo extensive training; for example, HMRC officers complete an 18-month programme that equips them with the skills and knowledge they need. This is a robust and proven process. There is no evidence that adding a legislative requirement for qualifications would improve outcomes. Moreover, this amendment would reduce flexibility. It would impose a legal burden that could hinder recruitment, especially when enforcement needs evolve rapidly. Finally, it is important to note that Clause 87(6) already gives the Secretary of State the power to specify which powers an officer may exercise in the appointment. This ensures appropriate oversight and safeguards without the need for additional legislation.
Similarly, Amendment 263ZB, also tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, is, in practice, unnecessary and creates duplication. The powers granted under the Bill already require enforcement officers to provide written notices such as a notice of underpayment. These are not optional; they are embedded in the operational framework. Moreover, current enforcement bodies such as the Employment Agency Standards Inspectorate already maintain detailed records of inspections. Officers also operate with a strong emphasis on consent and co-operation, often arranging visits in advance and documenting their findings thoroughly. Introducing a statutory requirement for additional reporting and oversight risks creating administrative burdens without adding meaningful value. It could divert resources away from enforcement and into bureaucracy. This amendment seeks to legislate what is already standard practice; it is not needed in the Bill, and I urge noble Lords to reject it.
Turning to Amendment 263C, the Bill already provides limitations on what powers officers can exercise through letters of appointment. I appreciate the noble Lord’s desire to ensure that enforcement officers exercise powers in a way that minimises disruption and harm to individuals and businesses, particularly as they will be extensive powers. This includes their powers to enter premises to determine whether there has been non-compliance. However, while these powers are by nature disruptive, they will be required to be exercised proportionately and reasonably, and, where possible, officers will carry out their duties on a consensual basis. In practice, this means officers will correspond with a business in advance to arrange a reasonable time and date before they visit, and they will also generally enter during business hours.
It is also worth noting that we are setting up the fair work agency as an executive agency of the Department for Business and Trade. Enforcement officers will therefore be civil servants who are subject to the usual standards of public life and will be required to operate in line with the Civil Service Code. The fair work agency will take a balanced approach to carrying out its role. This is in everyone’s interests.
Baroness Verma (Con)
I want to ask the Minister a question. It may be that I have missed the answer, although I have tried really hard to listen to every word that she has said. If a business wants to appeal against a decision by an enforcement officer, where does it seek that appeal?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
I did cover that, but now I have forgotten what my answer was. I will write to the noble Baroness, but I think it was in my earlier contribution.
I reiterate on the small business question that businesses that comply with their obligations should not see any increased burden from enforcement activity. The fair work agency will target only the minority of employers engaged in illegal practices, so including specific carve-outs could create loopholes that bad actors might exploit. In fact, businesses of all sizes stand to benefit from a fairer labour market where exploitative practices are actively addressed as this will create a level playing field for all.
Let us not forget that we are creating the fair work agency to deliver an upgrade to the enforcement of workers’ rights. If we created a carve-out for businesses based purely on size, we would be creating a two-tier system for enforcement. This is unfair for workers and businesses.
Amendment 268 risks compromising the balanced representation of the advisory board. The current drafting has been carefully chosen to reflect the social partnership model that has served the Low Pay Commission and ACAS well for many years. The noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, asked on behalf of his noble friend Lord Holmes whether representatives of labour market standards would be on the advisory board. The Secretary of State will appoint individuals if they are considered to be independent experts. That recruitment and selection process will include a thorough assessment of the applicant’s qualifications, experience and potential conflicts of interest.
Vulnerable workers have been waiting for the fair work agency for years. It will deliver the worker protection enforcement authority that was proposed in the Liberal Democrat 2024 manifesto and the single enforcement body that was the policy of successive Conservative-led Administrations. It now forms a key plank of the plan to make work pay, a key manifesto pledge upon which this Government was elected. Bringing together the fragmented labour market enforcement landscape has been a policy aim for successive Governments. We cannot let this critical policy be delayed any more. I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw Amendment 263ZA.
Lord Carter of Haslemere (CB)
I am very grateful for what the Minister said in response to my amendments. I think she said that the framework document will state that enforcement officers will have complete operational independence from Ministers, which is reassuring to know. Presumably, therefore, it would be possible for the terms of appointment of enforcement officers under Clause 87(6) to state the same thing. Clause 87(6) states that:
“A person appointed under this section may exercise any powers of an enforcement officer to the extent specified in the appointment”.
There is another perfect place in which to reassert that they are operationally independent of the Secretary of State.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
I said earlier in my contribution that the letters of appointment made to these people will spell out their duties. Obviously, their relationship to the Secretary of State will be spelled out in the letter of appointment. I have said several times now that they will be operationally independent, so that could be a key message in those letters of appointment.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I am very grateful to the Minister for her extensive answer and to my noble friends Lady Noakes and Lady Coffey, the noble Lords, Lord Carter of Haslemere, Lord Londesborough and Lord Stoneham, for their contributions to this short but very interesting debate.
As we come to the end of our discussion on these amendments to the Employment Rights Bill, I express my thanks to noble Lords who have contributed with such clarity and conviction and my disappointment with the Government’s response. Amendment 269, tabled by my noble friend Lady Noakes, fits very neatly with the requirement on the Secretary of State to produce annual reports under Clause 92. The Secretary of State has a duty to consult the advisory board, so I simply cannot understand why the Government would reject the idea of just combining the two and getting on with it. Equally, I do not understand why they would not want to take the suggestions of my noble friend Lady Coffey to tighten up the requirement. Nothing under those terms for the advisory board or the reports that need to be produced by the Secretary of State require a great deal of external information.
We have tabled amendments that are measured, constructive and rooted in principle. We have not sought to gut the Bill or to frustrate its aim of enforcing fair and lawful treatment in the labour market. On the contrary, we have sought to strengthen it and to ensure that the powers that it grants are effective and accountable, that enforcement is robust and fair and that ordinary businesses, especially small and micro enterprises, are not crushed under the weight of uncertainty, disproportionate penalties or faceless bureaucracy.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, made excellent points about accountability. Enforcement is about not just force but legitimacy. It is about trust, and trust is only sustained when those who wield power are subject to oversight, transparency and to reasonable limits. That is not red tape. It is just a democratic principle. That is why we ask for qualifications and training to be made a prerequisite for enforcement officers, an obvious step given the serious powers that they will be entrusted with.
The Minister rejected my amendment introducing that notion, saying that it was not necessary because of Clause 87(6), just referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Carter. I note that Clause 87(3) says:
“In this Part ‘enforcement officer’ means a person appointed by the Secretary of State under this section”—
note that it says, “a person”, not necessarily “a qualified person”—whereas Clause 87(6), on which the Minister replied, says:
“A person appointed under this section may exercise any powers of an enforcement officer to the extent specified in the appointment”.
As the noble Lord, Lord Carter, informed us, there is no notion in there of independence, skills or anything else. That argument as to why our amendment is not necessary falls based on what is in the Bill.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
Just before we move on, I wanted to clarify to the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, that I have now found the note in my speaking notes. I confirm that I did say that the fair work agency will have a clear and transparent complaints procedure modelled on the procedures of the current bodies, including the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority.
Lord Davies of Brixton
“Pensions Act 2004
26A Section 259 of the Pensions Act 2004 (Consultation by employers: occupational pension schemes).” Member's explanatory statement
This amendment, together with another amendment to Schedule 7, seeks to include employer obligations to their employees relating to pensions within the scope of legislation subject to enforcement under Part 5.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
My Lords, it is a real pleasure to come on to the subject of pensions at 10.30 pm. However, I know not to try the patience of my noble friends or even the noble Opposition. In truth, the amendment, although it comes up here and refers to enforcement and the fair work agency, is really about the place of pensions within the Bill. My contention is that pensions are not given adequate consideration, and I am using this as a mechanism to press my noble friend the Minister to expand on how the legislation will reflect on pensions.
Of course, we get the Bill. One wonders how legislators coped before the introduction of “word search”, because there are 300 pages, 157 clauses and 12 schedules; and a use of word search tells us that “pension” appears 19 times in such a massive piece of legislation, and quite a few of those are where it forms part of “suspension”. The Bill fails to give any serious consideration, as far as I can see, to the place of pensions as an important element in the terms and conditions of employment.
That is where I started from. I looked at particular ways that pensions should be addressed in the Bill. The amendments we are considering now—Amendments 264, 265 and 324—are tabled as a sample to press my noble friend to explain.
Amendments 264 and 265 relate to Schedule 7 and enforcement of labour legislation. There is labour legislation on pensions: there are obligations on employers to consult trade unions in certain circumstances—that is covered by Amendment 264. Amendment 265 in effect applies to automatic enrolment, where it is an inherent part of the labour contract that people have that pension. Enforcement agents are going into companies. If they are going in, it seems a wasted opportunity if they do not check for compliance on these particular issues as well as the other issues specified in the Bill. At heart, my amendments are a request for my noble friend to explain whether these issues and pensions more generally should not be included throughout the Bill.
My Amendment 324 appears very late on; it has been promoted from the “miscellaneous and general” part of the Bill. It seeks a definition of “remuneration”, which appears 75 times in the Bill but is not defined anywhere. It could well be defined by other legislation and judgments in the courts, but there seems to be a total lack of consistency. I could point to particular judgments and international standards where remuneration is defined in one way or another, but there is no overall consistency. Yet remuneration is clearly a crucial part of the Bill and there is a lack of clarity about what it means. I really hope that it is obvious; I am raising the issue only because I want the Bill to include pensions. You cannot understand someone’s remuneration if you do not know what pension they are being offered; it is part and parcel of the package. To look at some elements but not pensions seems wrong.
I urge my noble friend to make a positive response that the Bill will be looked at in detail again for places where pensions should have their proper role. I beg to move.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
I always have tremendous respect for the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, in particular his knowledge of pensions, because he, like me, is an actuary. Whereas he is a true actuary, I am just an honorary fellow of the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries, so I always respect his views.
I am not sure there is very much I can say in intervening between him, his Secretary of State and the Minister. All I will say is that his amendments represent a shift from a consultative culture to a more legalistic and punitive model. That would be a shift at great cost. Like him, I believe that people are entitled to proper pensions and proper security. Like him, I fought on many occasions to ensure that that is an enforceable right.
I do not want to anticipate what the Minister will say, but we have to consider the employer’s perspective. We all want to see businesses offer generous, flexible benefit schemes—things such as pension contributions, healthcare and travel allowances—but if those are brought into tight regulatory definitions and packages, and enforcement frameworks, I worry that some employers might feel discouraged from offering them at all. I await the response of the Minister.
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for his contribution, and my noble friend Lord Davies of Brixton for tabling Amendments 264, 265 and 324.
I respect my noble friend’s concern for upholding rights relating to pensions. The power in Part 2 of Schedule 7 would allow us to extend the fair work agency’s remit to cover enforcement of pensions legislation in the future, but it would not be appropriate to make this expansion to the fair work agency’s remit at this time. Changing how pensions are enforced would be a significant undertaking, requiring careful consideration, consultation and planning, not least regarding how the fair work agency would interact with the current Pensions Regulator. Therefore, I must respectfully resist these amendments.
Amendment 324, also in the name of my noble friend Lord Davies of Brixton, seeks to ensure that pension arrangements are covered by the definition of remuneration. While I understand my noble friend’s concern here, this amendment is not necessary and its introduction would have far-reaching implications across the Bill. While pension arrangements are already covered by some of the provisions in the Bill, it brings forward issues around sectoral collective arrangements, which I am sure my noble friend would not want to frustrate. So while I appreciate the intentions of my noble friend Lord Davies of Brixton, I respectfully ask him to withdraw Amendment 264.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
I thank my noble friend the Minister for his remarks. I am unpersuaded but, at this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Coffey
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to probe the scope of enforcement actions.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, we are now considering Schedule 7, which is the scope of the legislation that the enforcement officers will be considering in applying their powers and the prosecution for offences. I picked out one of the Acts that this is looking to. I will be happy to hear from the Minister, but I am interested that this is now extending into fraud.
We have gangmasters, working time, holiday pay, the question of whether the employer is keeping details of annual leave, and so on and so forth. I wonder at what point we will end up relying on this agency, which we have already heard has probably unique powers for any Secretary of State. Where is the balance between this agency and the organisation—a non-ministerial department—that we would expect to start prosecuting criminal offences in areas such as fraud, the Crown Prosecution Service? I am trying to get a sense of where this stops. I think that is also the purpose of my noble friend’s Amendment 266. We are getting into trying to work out where on earth we will be turning to. There is a combination here of investigation and being able to get lots of information, but why is the Crown Prosecution Service not involved?
I appreciate that the hour is late, but time was not given at the other end to consider the detail of this legislation. That has increasingly become the role of this House. I am concerned specifically about the Fraud Act, but there needs to be a wider conversation—I am thinking particularly of paragraph 35 of Schedule 7 —to work out at what point we hand over to the police or to the Crown Prosecution Service to investigate potential crimes.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
I advise the Committee that if this amendment were agreed to, it would not be possible for me to call Amendment 264A for reason of pre-emption.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Coffey for her amendment in this group and for her introduction. I will speak to Amendments 266 and 267 in my name. These amendments are not presented in opposition to the spirit or general objectives of the Bill. Indeed, we fully support the aims of enforcing employment rights and ensuring that bad employers do not undercut fair ones. These amendments respond to a real and serious concern about the breadth of the power that the Bill currently gives to Ministers—a power that, if left unchecked, would allow a future Government to expand the remit of the fair work agency with far-reaching consequences but only the most minimal parliamentary oversight.
Paragraph 35 of Schedule 7 allows the Secretary of State to add to the list of enactments that fall under the enforcement remit of the fair work agency by way of regulations. That list, set out in Part 1 of Schedule 7, includes a range of statutory rights covering pay, working time, sick pay and protections against exploitation. The current drafting allows for the addition of any enactment that relates to employees, workers, employers or trade unions. That is an extraordinarily broad formulation. It would allow the Secretary of State to bring into the fair work agency’s scope virtually any area of employment or labour law, potentially even those governing union recognition, industrial action or collective bargaining, by secondary legislation and with no meaningful boundary in statute.
Amendment 266 seeks to address this by narrowing the scope of this delegated power. It would limit the types of enactments that can be added to those that relate to hours, pay or holidays. These are, after all, the core minimum terms and conditions of the employment relationship. They are well understood, capable of objective enforcement and already subject to statutory minima in other parts of the Bill. They also reflect the matters over which the recognised trade unions typically have statutory bargaining rights. There is, therefore, a clear and principled rationale for limiting the fair work agency’s enforcement jurisdiction to these domains.
We put forward this amendment on the grounds that it is both reasonable and proportionate. It would still allow Ministers to respond to emerging issues in labour markets, such as new forms of pay abuse or evasion of working time rules. It would, however, prevent this power being used to draw the FWA into controversial or contested areas of employment law, or into territory where individual enforcement through tribunals is more appropriate than systemic enforcement by a regulator. It would preserve the coherence of the agency’s function and protect against mission creep over time.
We anticipate that Ministers will argue that this amendment is too prescriptive and does not allow sufficient flexibility to bring in related rights that may not neatly fall into the categories of pay, hours or holidays, but that are none the less important for fair work—for example, information rights, certain protections from detriment or emerging contractual abuses not yet addressed by current law. The Government may say that drawing such hard lines in primary legislation is undesirable and that a degree of discretion is necessary for effective future-proofing.
If the Government do not accept Amendment 266 on the grounds that it is too narrow, it follows that the strength of Amendment 267 becomes even more essential. This amendment would require that any regulations made under paragraph 35 be subject not merely to the affirmative resolution procedure but to the super-affirmative resolution procedure, which I know the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, is fond of, as defined in Section 18 of the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006.
The super-affirmative procedure is not some theoretical or obscure mechanism. It exists precisely for circumstances such as this, where Parliament grants the Executive a broad power to amend the application of primary legislation by secondary means. The procedure ensures that Parliament is properly consulted, that draft regulations are subject to scrutiny before they are laid and that there is an opportunity for representations to be made, considered and reflected in the final statutory instrument.
The two amendments offer a choice. If the Government agree with us that the power to amend Schedule 7 should be tightly confined, they can accept Amendment 266. If they prefer to retain flexibility, they must accept that that comes with the responsibility of subjecting that power to a higher standard of parliamentary scrutiny, in which case Amendment 267 is the minimum safeguard necessary. What would be constitutionally unacceptable is for the Government to reject both amendments, leaving in place a broad and undefined power exercisable by ordinary affirmative resolution. That would be to hand the Executive a blank cheque over the shape and scope of labour-market enforcement in this country, without adequate safeguards in place.
To conclude, I urge the Government to consider carefully the implications of paragraph 35 as currently drafted. It is not enough to say that Ministers do not intend to use this power in a wide-ranging or politically contentious way. We are legislating not just for the current Secretary of State but for future ones, too. If the Government want discretion, Parliament must have oversight, and if they want latitude, we must have safeguards. The amendments give the Government the opportunity to make a choice: define the limits of this power clearly or accept the heightened scrutiny that wide powers properly demand.
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, for tabling Amendment 264ZA, which concerns the fair work agency’s remit. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, for Amendments 266 and 267, which seek to alter the delegated powers in Part 2 of Schedule 7.
Amendment 264ZA would seriously restrict the fair work agency’s ability to tackle labour exploitation of a more serious nature where the threshold does not meet the requirement under the Modern Slavery Act. There are no other enforcement provisions in the Bill that would cover this scenario. Currently, a number of Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority investigations have to be abandoned when the modern slavery threshold is not met. Since 2023, 104 cases have been dropped. That is bad for labour abuse victims and for taxpayers.
We are adding elements of the Fraud Act to the fair work agency’s remit precisely to address this issue. It will allow the fair work agency to investigate cases of financial fraud by abuse of position. That has specifically been included within the Bill following extensive discussions with stakeholders, including the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority and the Home Office. Removing the Fraud Act offences from the fair work agency’s scope would truly limit the agency’s effectiveness, and I must therefore respectfully resist this amendment.
Amendment 266, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, would drastically narrow the scope of the power. This would undermine the very purpose of the fair work agency, which is to simplify and consolidate the enforcement of labour market legislation. The fair work agency will be greater than the sum of its parts as its remit is further expanded. This will relieve pressure on a struggling employment tribunal system, which I have heard many times from noble Lords across the aisle.
The power to expand the fair work agency’s remit has appropriate safeguards and limitations. Any expansion of its scope will be informed by the advice from the agency’s tripartite advisory board, and with consideration of the overall enforcement strategy. Furthermore, any changes to the remit will be through affirmative-resolution regulations that will be laid before Parliament and, where relevant, will require the consent of the relevant Northern Ireland department. This power is crucial to the long-term flexibility of the fair work agency. By enabling the remit to expand over time, it can respond to developments in the labour market. If we were to restrict the power to such a narrow range of issues, we would be tying our own hands.
Amendment 267, also in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, would require that a super-affirmative resolution procedure be used when the Secretary of State exercises the delegated power in Part 2 of Schedule 7. In my almost three years in this House when the party opposite was in government, I never heard them bring any super-affirmative resolution in any of the Bills they brought before this House, so I do not understand the sudden change of heart.
This amendment is unnecessary. The Bill provides for appropriate parliamentary scrutiny as use of this power will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. I also highlight that the recent report by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee did not raise any concern with this power as currently drafted. The additional scrutiny this amendment calls for would place unneeded burdens on parliamentary time, which is currently stretched. With this point in mind, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw Amendment 264ZA.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
I thank the Minister for that comprehensive response to my amendment. To be candid, if that had been in the Bill’s Explanatory Notes, it might have made life easier. As the Minister knows, the creation of this fair work agency, with the novel powers it is going to have, is one of the reasons why my noble friends on the Front Bench have been pushing for the super-affirmative procedure. We will briefly get into a bit more discussion about the advisory board, but it is those elements—recognising the novel powers—that we are concerned about. With that, I withdraw my amendment.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the definition of “worker” being inserted into Part 5 by my amendment of clause 148 at page 147, line 9.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I beg to move Government Amendment 264A, and will speak to Government Amendments 265A, 271A, 272A, 273M, 273P, 273S, 279A, 279B, 279C, 279D, 279E, 279F and 279G. I thank all noble Lords who attended the all-Peers briefing on these amendments that I gave on 8 May. As was explained at that time, the amendments aim to make the creation of the fair work agency effective, including by ensuring a smooth transition from the current arrangements, and they are not new policy.
Without the correct information-sharing gateways, the fair work agency will not be able to do its job; Clause 132 is vital to making sure that it can. Government Amendment 273M makes a minor drafting change to Clause 132(3). Specifically, it clarifies that information obtained by the fair work agency in connection with an enforcement or civil proceedings function under Part 5 of the Bill can be used for other functions under Part 5. This change ensures that the benefits of bringing together responsibility for enforcing a range of rights are fully realised.
Government Amendment 273P adds the Security Industry Authority to the list of persons in Schedule 9. This will enable the fair work agency enforcement officers to disclose information obtained under the enforcement functions in Part 5 of the Bill with the Security Industry Authority, where that information relates to its statutory functions. Any disclosure will be subject to other restrictions in the Bill and existing safeguards. For example, a disclosure will not be authorised under Clause 132 if it would constitute a breach of data protection legislation or is otherwise prohibited by certain provisions of the Investigatory Powers Act 2016.
Government Amendment 279A clarifies that the information captured by the definition of “HMRC information” in Clause 134 will be subject to appropriate safeguards regarding onward disclosure where specified conditions are met. This will ensure that there will be continuity as we set up the fair work agency and that all information is handled with the appropriate sensitivities.
Government Amendment 271A is a minor technical amendment to Clause 111. It sets out that where a liable party has failed to comply with the requirement in a notice of underpayment to repay arrears to an individual, the fair work agency can make an application to court for an order. Sub-paragraph (6) defines “a court” for the purposes of this section. This amendment clarifies that summary sheriffs can also have jurisdiction to hear these applications in Scotland.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister not only for her speech but for the briefing she held for all Peers to explain the background to these amendments. We fully appreciate that from time to time, there may be technical issues with legislation that necessitate amendments being brought at a later stage. Such occurrences are of course all part of the legislative process. In this instance, however, it is disappointing that these matters were not addressed and dealt with from the outset.
Ideally, these amendments should have been tabled and thoroughly considered in the other place. Instead, we have seen the Government bring forward a number of policy-related amendments at a relatively late stage—amendments which, regrettably, received limited scrutiny in the Commons. I do not believe that this approach lends itself to the transparency and rigorous examination that effective lawmaking demands. We sincerely hope that in future, the Government will engage with the legislative process in a more considered and structured manner. Proper scrutiny at all stages is not just a formality; it is essential in ensuring that the laws we pass are sound, effective and in the public interest.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that in good legislative processes it is not ideal to have technical amendments at this stage. However, it is better to identify them now rather than later in the process, and we have bent over backwards to engage Peers to explain why they are necessary. In a previous role on the Opposition Benches, I spent a lot of time in secondary legislation sessions correcting technical issues that should have been identified in primary legislation by the previous Government, but that debate may be for another day. In the meantime, of course we aspire to better legislative processes in future, and I agree with the noble Lord. I beg to move.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the definition of “worker” being inserted into Part 5 by my amendment of clause 148 at page 147, line 9.
Baroness Coffey
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I will also speak to Amendments 267ZA, 267AA and 267AB in my name in this group. Schedule 7 tries to bring together a whole bunch of legislation in a meaningful and sensible way so that it can handily be used in future. I could have extended some of these amendments, but I decided to focus Amendment 266A on paragraph 35(5)(b) of Schedule 7, which relates to Clause 89 on the delegation of functions. I could have considered a whole number of these, because this is a classic Henry VIII clause—put something in primary, shove something through regulations and, hey presto, a whole Act can change before our very eyes. In particular, Clause 89(6), which I address in Amendment 267AB, stood out to me.
My concern is that we start off with this agency, the enforcement officers and all these different things, but Clause 89(1) says:
“The Secretary of State may make arrangements with a public authority”.
I do not think “a public authority” is defined anywhere else in legislation at all. This is the first time I have seen it defined, as
“a person certain of whose functions are functions of a public nature”.
That could be a whole bunch of people. What does it really mean? Are they seeking to act in the public interest, or in a different way?
The Explanatory Notes do say what they are, but, as the Minister and the Committee will know, they are not part of legislation. One of the reasons for bringing this out is to try to understand from the Minister precisely what it means. The consequence of these bits of the legislation is that, by statutory instrument, this novel area that we are getting into could be changed very quickly, away from what might have seemed a sensible agency, though I appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord Carter of Haslemere, would rather have operational independence.
This is why I have peppered through my amendments in this group the very specific point that it should be a public authority that has civil servants in it and is not a non-ministerial department. I think that there are about 24 non-ministerial departments. Perhaps really only two—the Supreme Court and the Crown Prosecution Service—should be non-ministerial, recognising the accountability that, understandably, Parliament and the public expect.
The difference of a non-ministerial department is that it is accountable to Parliament. The device to do that is principally through the Select Committee in the House of Commons, perhaps the Public Accounts Committee, not so much in the House of Lords. Therefore, significant parts of the work being done are left to an occasional accountability meeting, whereas if civil servants are not in a non-ministerial department, the Secretary of State is directly responsible and can be held to account by Parliament and can hold those civil servants to account. I am therefore very nervous about how easy it will become to change Clause 89(6) and what that then means. It would be better for the Government to have more in the Bill about what it is.
As we are starting to get into Part 5, could it be that the public authority starts to become not-for-profit groups of solicitors who start to have these enforcement functions? Could arms of trade unions suddenly start enforcing and be able do all these different elements and to take employers to court so this starts to spread? The reason for my amendments is to try to get better legislation about what this is supposed to be. I am desperately trying to make sure that the only people to whom these things can be delegated will be civil servants who honour what the Government have set out in Part 5 and that the variety of enforcement officers and the fair work agency will be directly accountable and have the executive powers of the Secretary of State. That can be done only if people are civil servants and they are not in a non-ministerial department. I beg to move.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Coffey for her amendments that comprise this group, and I speak in support of them. They bring much needed clarity and constitutional discipline to the question of to whom the Secretary of State may delegate important public functions.
Clause 89, as drafted, grants the Secretary of State, as my noble friend has explained, broad discretion to delegate enforcement and other key responsibilities to a public authority. However, the current definition of that term is overly expansive. It could include not only departments under direct ministerial control, but also non-ministerial departments and other bodies with a degree of operational independence from the Government, which raises fundamental issues of accountability.
If enforcement powers, which could be potentially intrusive and far-reaching, are to be delegated, they should be exercised by those within the direct chain of ministerial responsibility. They are civil servants who operate under the authority of Ministers and who are, in turn, accountable to Parliament. Amendment 267ZA, therefore, rightly confines the scope of Clause 89 to public authorities that are comprised of civil servants and are not non-ministerial departments. That would ensure such functions are not handed to bodies that lack clear ministerial oversight or democratic accountability.
Amendment 267AA serves as a necessary consequential safeguard because it ensures that any legal substitution of the Secretary of State with another authority in the eyes of the statute is similarly limited to such core public bodies. Without this clarification, we risk a situation where statutory references to ministerial powers are extended, potentially without scrutiny, to entities with a more ambiguous constitutional status. This is not about casting aspersions on the competence or integrity of non-ministerial departments. Many do good work, but they are deliberately designed to operate at arm's length from Ministers. They should not be the recipients of powers that the public rightly expects to be exercised under ministerial responsibility.
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, for Amendment 266A, 267ZA, 267AA and 267AB.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
I thank the Minister for his response. I am interested in his answer that, “Oh, well, they are already a non-departmental public body, so why am I bothered?” Well, why are the Government bothering to make this an executive agency and bring the powers under the Secretary of State? They are doing this themselves. I am struck that a lot of the legislation here is getting rid of non-departmental public bodies. By the way, they are not directly accountable to Ministers, and Ministers cannot direct them. That might satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Carter of Haslemere, but at no point did the Minister address Amendment 267AB, which talks about subsection (6). He did not address what is probably my key point in the group of amendments about the definition of a public authority. I am concerned about that and will certainly revisit it on Report. Given the late hour and that there are still two groups to go, I would be happy if the Minister would write to me and the Committee before then on that issue, as it was the key part of what I wanted to talk about. I will not trouble the Committee any further at this point and I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 266A.
Lord Hunt of Wirral
“(b) the conduct of, but not the decision as to whether the Secretary of State will bring, proceedings by virtue of section 113 (power to bring proceedings in employment tribunals).” Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that the Secretary of State cannot delegate the decision to bring proceedings on behalf of employees.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, these amendments address important gaps in the Bill, ensuring fairness, clarity and accountability in the enforcement of employment rights. Amendment 267A relates to Clause 89 and the delegation of the Secretary of State’s functions. Currently, the Bill allows delegation of functions, including enforcement, but does not explicitly restrict the delegation of the decision to bring proceedings to employment tribunals.
This amendment would ensure that while the Secretary of State is delegating the conduct of proceedings, the crucial decision to initiate legal action remains with the Secretary of State. Without this safeguard, delegated bodies could independently decide whether to bring legal claims, potentially leading to inconsistent decisions, lack of ministerial accountability and confusion about who holds ultimate responsibility. Maintaining ministerial control over such decisions is essential to preserve political accountability and to ensure decisions are made with proper oversight.
Amendment 271B focuses on Clause 113 and seeks to clarify the scope of claims that the Secretary of State may bring. The Bill currently refers broadly to “any enactment”, which risks allowing the Secretary of State to bring claims on a wide range of employment issues, including individual employment rights traditionally pursued by workers themselves. This amendment narrows that scope to relevant labour market legislation and Parts 1 to 4 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, ensuring that government enforcement targets systemic labour market regulation issues such as pay and working conditions, rather than individual employment rights or disputes. Without this restriction, there is a risk of governmental overreach into private employment matters, diluting resources and causing confusion about the limits of state intervention.
Amendment 271C addresses a practical and vital issue regarding claims that workers have already lawfully settled. Under current law, individuals can settle employment claims following independent legal advice, providing certainty to both employers and employees. This amendment prevents the Secretary of State bringing claims that had been settled in accordance with Section 203 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. Without this amendment, there is a danger that settled claims could be reopened by the Government, undermining the finality of agreements and subjecting employers to repeated litigation, even after fulfilling their obligations. Such uncertainty would damage trust in settlement processes and could discourage both workers and employers from entering into settlements.
Amendment 272ZA concerns the financial protection of workers in tribunal proceedings brought or conducted by the Secretary of State. It ensures that where an employment tribunal orders costs against a worker, such as legal costs or wasted costs, these costs must be met by the Secretary of State rather than the individual worker. This protection is critical, because workers who had not themselves initiated proceedings should not bear the financial burden of litigation costs. Without this safeguard, workers could face significant personal financial risk, deterring them from seeking support from the Secretary of State and ultimately restricting access to justice. Employers might then attempt to recover costs from these workers, imposing unfair hardship and undermining the purpose of public enforcement. I beg to move.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, I have Amendment 272 in this group. When an Act of Parliament creates rights and duties, it usually then allows those who benefit from the rights and duties to enforce them in law, which in the case of employment matters is via the employment tribunal.
This Bill fundamentally changes that and inserts the Secretary of State whenever he or she wants to intervene to take up cases that employees do not themselves want to pursue. It also interferes in the order of things by providing a back door route to legal aid for employees, which is not covered by the normal legal aid system. This part of the Bill is simply going to increase the number of cases heading towards the employment tribunal. As has been debated on several occasions, that system is already under massive stress, and it does not make any sense to stress it any further. I therefore support all the amendments in this group.
My own Amendment 272 merely states that the Secretary of State has to meet a public interest test if he or she wants to use the Clause 91 power to take over a case that an employee does not wish to pursue themselves. As drafted, there is no constraint whatsoever on the Secretary of State’s use of the power. The Secretary of State can simply find out one morning that an employee has a potential case and is not going to do anything about it, and decide to take it over. A public interest test would at least make sure that the Secretary of State intervenes in matters where there is a genuine national interest in the case being pursued.
I suspect that the Secretary of State will be pursued and lobbied by various organisations, quite possibly trade unions, who will see this provision as another weapon in their armoury to have a go at certain large employers, particularly where those employers have not been particularly interested in playing along with whatever trade unions want to do with them. The power is an important departure from the normal way of enforcing rights and duties, so guardrails in the legislation surrounding the use of the power are essential. There is absolutely nothing in the current Bill.
My first instinct was to delete Clause 91 entirely. As far as I can tell, no case has been made for its existence. But I can just about construct a scenario in which the Secretary of State concludes that there is a genuine public interest in overriding the wishes of an employee and pursuing the case in the circumstances I have described. I would expect such a case to be very unusual, and I hope the Minister agrees. Because of that, we should be looking to restrain the power in some way. The words I have used may not be the right words, but the essence of what I am trying to achieve is to reduce into something more reasonable an unconstrained power to completely subvert the normal way in which rights and duties are specified by Parliament and open to enforcement.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
I will speak to Amendments 272B and 272C in this group in the name of my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough. I will also speak to the other amendments, particularly Amendment 272, which has just been spoken to by my noble friend Lady Noakes. She has hit the nail on the head: how often is this going to be used to go beyond what has been requested—for example, a worker not intending to take a case forward, such that it could still end up in a tribunal?
I am conscious that we will return to Clauses 113 and 114 on Wednesday, so I will be brief on Amendments 272B and 272C. Even if the Minister cannot respond today on Amendment 272C, can she say what is meant by
“any other form of assistance”?
“Legal advice” and “legal representation” are pretty well understood, but what else? There are genuine concerns about this starting to become a blank cheque for almost anything with regard to employment law. While of course the House of Lords does not have financial privilege, it is important to still be mindful of where this could go.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe and Lord Jackson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, for tabling their amendments. This Government are committed to ensuring a fair playing field for all employees and businesses. This is why the Secretary of State will have the power to bring proceedings in place of a worker: it will mean that all employers are held to the same standards.
Amendments 267A, 271B, 271C and 272ZA have been tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom. While I appreciate the noble Lord’s intentions behind them—seeking fairness, clarity and accountability—I believe that they undermine those objectives. I have major concerns about Amendment 267A. A fundamental principle of the fair work agency is that it will have operational independence. As we have debated, the Secretary of State’s involvement will be at strategic level only. This amendment would undo all that; it would explicitly make any use of the civil proceedings powers dependent on a political decision. This goes against the whole thrust of what we have been debating up to now, and we therefore cannot support the amendment.
Amendment 271B would exclude legislation, such as on family leave, unfair dismissals or redundancies, from the scope of this power. These issues can have a substantial impact on people’s working lives and they are part of the employment package. It is right that the fair work agency has the discretion to support enforcement in these areas and to ensure that employees get what they are entitled to.
Amendment 271C is unnecessary. The Bill already builds in appropriate safeguards to prevent cases being relitigated. In considering whether a worker will bring proceedings, the Secretary of State will have to consider whether a worker has already contacted ACAS. If they have, it would serve as a strong indicator that they are contemplating proceedings. Therefore, where a settlement is being discussed, or has already been reached through ACAS, it is highly unlikely that the Secretary of State would pursue a claim. This amendment would create a rigid prohibition that may have unintended consequences. The Government would be restricted from acting where new evidence shows that a settlement was reached under duress.
On Amendment 272ZA, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, the Bill already makes it clear that any reference to a worker in proceedings brought by the Secretary of State should be read as including the Secretary of State. In practice, this means that, while it is for the tribunal to decide whether or not to award costs, a costs order could be made only in respect of a party to the case. This would be the Secretary of State, where they are the party that has brought this case. Therefore, this makes this amendment unnecessary.
On Amendment 272, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, in the worst cases of serious exploitation and intimidation, a worker may want to bring proceedings but fear the repercussions they may face from the employer should they be de-anonymised. Allowing the Secretary of State to take a case forward without consent would make it harder for employers to attribute blame to individual employees and also ensure that action could be taken against exploitation. Ultimately, I agree with the noble Baroness that this will take place only in exceptional circumstances, not least because it is more difficult to argue a case without the assistance of the worker. Nevertheless, where there is a breach of employment rights, there should be consequences. The fair work agency will decide the most appropriate route of enforcement, and it is important that in the most serious cases we allow this power as an option.
Finally, on the Amendments to Clause 114 from the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, the existing drafting of Clause 114 states:
“The Secretary of State may assist a person”.
This drafting was carefully thought through and is deliberately broad and inclusive. It includes both natural and legal persons, so it already covers both employers and their legal advisers. This amendment does not alter the substance of the clause, but merely restates what is already covered and therefore risks introducing confusion.
On the noble Lord’s Amendment 272C, Clause 114 has been carefully monitored against the provisions found in Section 28 of the Equality Act 2006, which also provides for any other form of assistance. This language has been used to ensure flexibility and inclusivity in the types of support that may be provided. This is neither novel nor excessive and is limited to assistance in the context of civil proceedings. To narrow the clause in the way this amendment does would compromise its effectiveness and undermine its accessibility. On that basis, I hope noble Lords will not pursue their amendments and I ask the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, to withdraw his Amendment 267A.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Noakes for providing an important guardrail: the idea that the Secretary of State has to pass a public interest test. I do not think the Minister gave us a direct answer to that suggestion. So far as my noble friends Lady Coffey and Lord Jackson of Peterborough are concerned, there are huge concerns about the way this will affect small businesses in particular. Again, I do not think the Minister addressed that particular point. I regret the fact that the Minister has not acknowledged the importance of these significant gaps in the Bill.
It is concerning that the challenges inherent in delegating the Secretary of State’s enforcement functions to others who may lack the necessary competence or accountability are not being fully recognised at the present time. How does such delegation genuinely serve the interests of workers if it risks inconsistent decision-making and a lack of clear responsibility?
Moreover, the Bill fails to address the very real issue of claims that have already been settled. Employment tribunals are already struggling with an overwhelming backlog, and reopening settled cases would only exacerbate this problem. Surely, we have got to avoid a situation where the Secretary of State is empowered to reopen disputes that workers and employers believed were finally resolved. This not only causes unnecessary anxiety and uncertainty for all parties involved but threatens to damage the fragile trust and relations between employers and employees. If this Bill is to be truly effective and fair, it has got to acknowledge these realities: —ignoring them will only undermine the very goals it seeks to achieve. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Coffey
“(1A) The Secretary of State must appoint a Chair of the Advisory Board who must be qualified to practice as a barrister and have been made King's Counsel.(1B) The term of the Chair’s appointment must be for a maximum of four years, with a maximum appointment of two terms, and with other conditions as may be specified by the Secretary of State.(1C) The Chair’s appointment must be approved by a relevant select committee of the House of Commons.”
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments 267BA, 267BB and 267D in my name. This is where we get to the composition of the board. In this group of amendments, the most important that I have tabled is probably Amendment 267D. It would remove the words “trade unions” but would insert “employees”. I am conscious that, of course, trade unions represent employees, but I was surprised by the composition of the board: that the word “employee” did not turn up as to who the members of the board were supposed to represent. To that end, one reason why I laid Amendment 267D is that we should remember that only 22% of UK workers belong to a trade union. That leaves 78% who, at the moment, may not necessarily be represented in the consideration of the advisory board. I think it is important that we rectify that.
It is possible that independent experts and others may be involved. By the way, this happens on a variety of other bodies—I think it is so on the Health and Safety Executive. Usually, the organisations representing employees are trade unions, but the point is made that it does not have to necessarily be trade unions. It could be professional associations—that has happened in the past as well, from my recollection.
In looking at the composition of the board, I noticed that my noble friends on the Front Bench have come up with a slightly different approach. Mine has tried to be pretty straightforward and to, in effect, insert an independent chair, who should be put forward to the relevant committee in the House of Commons for consideration before their appointment.
Deliberately, I have put in some specifications as to who should chair the board. Recognising that this is all going to be about enforcement of legislation, considering a wide range of issues including taking legal action when it has not been requested by people, by workers, I have specified that we should consider this board, which is going to be very important to the Secretary of State because there are a number of situations where the legislation says that the Secretary State “must” consult the advisory board. To that end, it would be worth while to have somebody who is a qualified barrister, a KC, but who shows a particular level of accomplishment without needing to look to tribunal judges or similar to chair that board. I beg to move.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 267B, 267C and 268A standing in my name, and I also thank my noble friend Lady Coffey for introducing her amendment, and, of course, my noble friend Lady Noakes for signing them. Amendments 267B and 267C are not mere technicalities; they are a matter of principle. They are a matter of representation and ensuring that the new fair work agency advisory board truly reflects the full diversity and complexity of the modern UK labour market.
As drafted, Clause 90(4) proposes a tripartite board composed equally of individuals representing trade unions, employers and so-called independent experts. While the intention of the balance is commendable, the provision as it stands is both overly simplistic and insufficiently representative of the contemporary workface. As my noble friend highlighted, trade unions, for all their historic importance, now represent only 22.4% of employees across the United Kingdom, 12.3% of the private sector—so the bulk of those are in the public sector.
As my noble friend also pointed out, that leaves a staggering 77.6% of working people whose voices, interests and concerns are not captured through union representation. To restrict employee representation on this advisory board solely to trade union nominees is to exclude the overwhelming majority of the workforce. That is neither democratic nor representative. It is outdated.
This amendment seeks to rectify that imbalance by introducing a more inclusive and nuanced structure. It proposes that the board includes two representatives from the trade unions, rightly acknowledging their important role; three representatives of employees beyond the trade union movement, an expansion that ensures that the voices of non-unionised workers, gig economy participants, freelancers and precarious workers are also heard; five employer representatives to be appointed only after the Secretary of State has sought advice and recommendations from recognised business representative organisations, a process that will ensure that these appointments are rooted in sectoral legitimacy rather than political expediency; and three independent experts to provide critical objective insight grounded in academic, legal or practical labour market expertise. That structure would do three things. It would broaden representation, professionalise appointments and future-proof the board against the ever-evolving nature of work.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords for tabling these amendments. I will begin by addressing Amendments 267AC and 267BB, which relate to the chair of the advisory board. The Bill already provides for a strong and credible chair, and we are confident that appropriate appointments can be made under the current drafting. These amendments would significantly narrow the pool of qualified candidates and exclude highly capable candidates. There is no precedent for such restrictions among similar bodies.
For example, the current chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission is the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner of Margravine. She brings deep expertise in public policy, regulation and public service to the role, but she is not a practising barrister. The focus should be on appointing the best candidate through a rigorous merit-based process, not restricting eligibility by profession. Moreover, there is no precedent for these amendments. Similar bodies, such as the Low Pay Commission and the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service, do not impose this level of restriction or require parliamentary approval. These models work precisely because they allow the Secretary of State to appoint individuals with diverse and complementary expertise. We fully support a strong, credible chair, but that is best achieved through a robust and flexible appointments process, not through rigid statutory constraints or exclusions.
On Amendments 267B and 267BA, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, and the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, we have no objection in principle to a larger advisory board, but this should be balanced against an increased cost to the taxpayer. In practice, we anticipate there will be nine members of the board mirroring the make-up of the Low Pay Commission, which has operated successfully for 25 years. The current drafting provides flexibility so that the Secretary of State may appoint more than nine members, but it is unwise to lock a specific number into primary legislation without operational justification. The amendment would create a fixed number of advisory board members. Clause 90 already provides for what the amendment seeks to achieve.
Turning to Amendments 267C and 267D, these amendments risk compromising the balanced representation of the advisory board. The current drafting has been carefully chosen to reflect the social partnership model that has served the Low Pay Commission and ACAS well for so many years with a mixture of employer, union and independent representation. Amendments 267C and 267D also seek to broaden employee representation on the advisory board by reducing the emphasis on trade unions. Let me be clear: trade unions serve to protect and advance the interests of all workers, and they are best placed to represent workers’ interests on the advisory board. Moreover, the Secretary of State has broad discretion to appoint members with relevant expertise as independent experts. The Government are also committed to ongoing engagement with relevant stakeholders through a variety of formal and informal means, so the advisory board is only one part of the landscape.
This leads me on to Amendment 268A, also in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe. The independent experts are intended to bring deep subject matter expertise and a perspective not already captured by the other members of the advisory board. The existing drafting already protects against partiality, as an independent expert is a person who does not fall within the groups mentioned in Clause 94. The Bill already provides a sound and balanced framework for the board’s composition, one that is adaptable, proportionate and future-proof. I must therefore resist these amendments.
I must also respectfully resist Amendment 269, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, which risks undermining the very purpose of the advisory board. Transparency in governance is vital, and the Government share the commitment to ensuring appropriate parliamentary scrutiny. Placing a statutory duty on the advisory board to publish its advice could compromise that level of confidentiality and flexibility which we believe is essential for it to carry out its role effectively. Mandating a separate annual report also risks formalising what should remain a responsive advisory relationship, potentially limiting the board’s ability to offer genuine, timely and informal guidance on emerging issues.
Introducing even more reporting requirements would place a confusing and unnecessary reporting burden on enforcement teams, potentially diverting staff and resources away from front-line inspection and enforcement work, where they are most needed.
With this in mind, I therefore ask the noble Baroness to withdraw Amendment 267AC.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My noble friend Lady Coffey and I raised the increasing statistical irrelevance of the trade unions. I do not think the Minister addressed that point. She also seemed to write off the idea of the advisory board amendments that we proposed, on the basis that they would be expensive to the taxpayer. But Clause 90(6) says:
“The Secretary of State may pay such remuneration or allowances to members of the Board as the Secretary of State may determine”.
They could determine to pay nothing, presumably, so why would that be an expense to the taxpayer?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
I thought I covered those points. As I said, we anticipate that the advisory board will have nine members, but we are building in some flexibility. We were trying to avoid locking a specific number into the primary legislation without any operational justification. I think that answers that point.
On the point about the unions, of course, if we stick with the social partnership model, they will be in a minority anyway. They will have the expertise and the knowledge to represent all employment issues on behalf of the workers.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, we heard from the Minister justification for keeping it as it is, but I reiterate the point that employees are not mentioned anywhere. In terms of the social partnership, it may be worth her looking at the Health and Safety Executive board in that regard. Ultimately, this should be extended to make sure it is about not just trade unions representing workers but a wider range of other bodies that do that very adequately. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Employment Rights Bill
Wednesday 18th June 2025
(9 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Employment Rights Act 2025 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 81-X(a) Amendments for Committee (Supplementary to the Tenth Marshalled List) - (17 Jun 2025)
Lord Hunt of Wirral
“with the three-year period resetting three months after any general election.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that a new government would not be held to the labour market enforcement strategy of a predecessor government for up to three years.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 271ZZA, I will also speak to Amendments 274 and 278, standing in my name.
Clause 91 requires the Secretary of State to set out a plan for enforcing labour market legislation over a three-year period. However, as currently drafted, Clause 91 lacks the flexibility necessary to reflect changes in government and political leadership. As the Minister will be aware, Clause 91(1) places a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to publish a labour market enforcement strategy
“before the beginning of each relevant three-year period”.
Subsection (6) then defines those periods as
“beginning with the next 1 April after the day on which this section comes into force”
and every successive three years thereafter. At first glance, that may seem entirely sensible, but let me explain why it creates a democratic and practical problem that our amendment seeks to fix.
Suppose, for example, this Bill passes this year, in 2025. Under Clause 91(6)(a), the first strategy would need to be published before 1 April 2026 and it would then run until March 2029. Now, imagine a general election takes place in 2027—entirely plausible, perhaps even probable. That would mean that a new Government taking office in 2027 would be bound by a strategy formulated and published by a previous Administration, with potentially very different political priorities, until well into 2029. I suggest to the Government that this is neither democratic nor desirable.
Labour market enforcement is not a neutral administrative matter. It involves clear policy choices about which sectors to prioritise, what level of inspection and enforcement to undertake, what approach to take with non-compliant employers, and how to engage with trade unions, businesses, regulators and workers. These are not technocratic decisions. These are matters of political judgment. They ought to reflect the democratic mandate of the day.
Our amendment is, therefore, straightforward. It would insert into Clause 91(6) a provision that the relevant three-year period should reset three months after any general election. This would provide any new incoming Government with a short period—not an immediate obligation—in which to consult the advisory board and prepare a revised strategy, only if they wish to do so. It would not force a change of strategy; it would simply enable one at a more appropriate and timely moment.
Amendments 274 and 278 together seek to inject evidence, accountability and proportionality into the Government’s proposal to establish a single labour market enforcement body under this legislation. These are not abstract or procedural concerns; they speak directly to the credibility of this legislation and the consequences it will have for workers, businesses and the rule of law in the labour market. We are therefore being asked to approve a significant structural reform—the consolidation of multiple specialist enforcement agencies into a single, central body—without a clear estimate of how much it is all going to cost and without a rigorous analysis of whether it will improve enforcement outcomes.
The idea that such sweeping institutional change could proceed without a public, detailed cost-benefit analysis should give us all pause for thought. The creation of a new enforcement authority is not merely a matter of administrative reorganisation; it involves physical premises, staff transfers, IT infrastructure, the legal realignment of enforcement powers, data-sharing agreements, and the re-establishment of everything, from complaints mechanisms to enforcement protocols.
All of this will come at considerable financial and operational cost, yet no such cost has been published, nor can it be debated. It is absent. This is particularly concerning given that we have seen similar government reforms in other domains—such as the establishment and eventual dismantling of the UK Border Agency—go badly awry, not for lack of ambition but for lack of foresight and planning. An effective enforcement agency cannot simply be declared into being. It has to be built carefully, deliberately and on the basis of hard evidence.
That is why Amendment 274 requires the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament a detailed cost assessment. We understand that the Government’s broader agenda includes a desire to reduce inefficiency and waste in the public sector. That is a principle all sides of this Committee would support. We would not, and I hope the Minister would not, wish to see the creation of another bloated agency duplicating functions and budgets and wasting taxpayers’ money under the guise of reform. Without clear planning, the risk is precisely that a new bureaucracy, with vague lines of accountability, an unclear mandate and spiralling costs fails to deliver better outcomes for workers and businesses.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
I support the lead amendment in this group in the name of my noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom to exempt a new Government, for up to three years, from the labour market enforcement strategy of their predecessor for the reasons set out so ably by my noble friend Lord Hunt. I also support Amendments 274 and 278 for a new clause after Clause 140 to review the effectiveness of enforcement and compliance with relevant labour market requirements as in Part 1 of Schedule 7 before the new agency is set up and for the costing of such a new body before it is set up.
The new fair work agency proposed by the Bill to bring together existing functions of enforcement is unknown territory. Today, to enforce a limited number of employment rights, official powers are used by four different agencies: the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority, the Employment Agency Standards Inspectorate, HMRC and the Health and Safety Executive. The proposed new fair work agency bundles these—and new responsibilities under the Bill—into a single, untried and untested body. In general employers are quite familiar with HMRC and HSE, which provide advice as well as having enforcement functions. At the moment, we have the benefit of experienced bodies with whom employers are familiar and an ability by each body to be precise and knowledgeable about the subject on which it is an enforcement officer. We also have the advantage of different horses for different courses. Now, the plan is to move to an unknown, inexperienced entity with all the start-up costs that entails and without the precision focus which the present bodies have, because what is proposed is a one-size-fits-all model.
The enforcement of the laws will be differently framed with different aims by the current bodies. GLAA will have a different focus to that of HMRC, although some of the functions may overlap. I therefore suggest, in the interest of the taxpayer, that there is a need for a costing of the new body before it is set up and for a review of the effectiveness of the outcomes of present arrangements for enforcement and compliance to see how they stack up. This should be done before any steps are taken to put in place a new body. For these reasons, I heartily support Amendments 274 and 278.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, I wish to speak on the issue of the labour market enforcement strategy in support of Amendment 274 to which I have appended my name and to build on the excellent remarks of my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral and the specific points raised by my noble friend Lady Lawlor. For transparency, I declare that I have been a member of the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development for more than 20 years. The CIPD estimates that the People Skills HR support service which it has mooted, working with ACAS, would cost about £13 million under the new regime when this Bill becomes an Act. We already know, following on from my noble friend’s comments, that the cumulative cost of the existing bodies doing similar work, with analogous workstreams, is about £40 million.
Amendment 274 is important because in this country we have a strange anomaly. Unusually for an advanced country, we generally do not put the architecture of scrutiny and oversight in primary legislation. I want to know how this agency is going to be accountable in terms of the costs, who it employs, its policies et cetera. No doubt the Minister will say, “Well, once it becomes an Act, there will be what was the Business Select Committee, or there might be the National Audit Office, or there might be the Public Accounts Committee”. But we are being asked to sign a blank cheque for this without knowing how precisely this agency is going to operate and, most fundamentally, at what cost. We have not seen a detailed impact assessment focusing on the work of this body. On that basis, I ask the Minister specifically how he sees the process of accountability working and whether there will be any work by his department, and Ministers more generally, to work out what the costs are likely to be.
I accept at face value that this Government are committed to reducing the regulatory burden, particularly on small and medium-sized enterprises. I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Leong, will bend the Minister’s ear on that, having come from the background that he came from as a champion of small businesses from the Labour side. It is therefore not unreasonable for us to ask what the cost will be and how we will be able to hold this agency to account once it is established.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, Amendments 277 and 328, which I expect the noble Lord, Lord Goddard of Stockport, to speak to shortly, are an interesting element. Amendment 277 talks about the review of the fair work agency. Considering that a number of questions have come up about this, that is a fair assessment, given that there is still a considerable amount of consultation to be done. Amendment 328 would basically strip out the commencement of any part of the Act until that review has been done and
“a Minister of the Crown has tabled a motion in both Houses of Parliament for debate … and the review has been approved by a resolution”—
not just regulations.
The reason I say this is that I continue to assert that some of the powers here are going to be novel. Even if the Equality Act 2006 may give powers to the EHRC, it has never used them to institute legal proceedings, only as an intervener or for judicial review, rather than taking on individual cases; I am conscious that there is a consultation there. The amendment from the Liberal Democrats is an interesting way to think about how we are looking at the details of what the new agency is going to do.
Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)
My Lords, before I begin my comments about the various amendments, I have news from afar. Councillor Fox—sorry, not councillor; that is going back a bit. My noble friend Lord Fox wants to pass on his thanks to Members of the House from all sides who have sent best wishes for a speedy recovery. I signed his card today from the Lib Dem group with the sentiment, “Don’t hurry back. I fully enjoy sitting until midnight doing the employment Bill on your behalf”—which I think, with my noble friend’s irony, he will get. His amendments would require detailed review of the fair work agency’s remit, funding powers and accountability structures, and parliamentary overview before commencement.
We are fairly neutral on Amendments 271ZZA, 274 and 278 from the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, which aim at transparency and reviews. They are broadly procedural, but I have some sympathy with the noble Lord’s three-year review, which could be quite sensible. He explains those two amendments with clarity and brings out the blindingly obvious—the lack of cost and the lack of understanding of how this thing will be set up and work in reality.
I intend to ask the Minister some direct questions as well as supporting my noble friend Lord Fox’s amendments regarding the implementation plan, the opportunity for scrutiny and further consultation. First, I turn to what the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, has been talking about, the fair work agency. We debated its creation and power across several earlier groups and I will not labour that point today, but I want to speak clearly in support of Amendments 277 and 328 tabled by my noble friend Lord Fox, and again place on record my regret that he is not able to be with us today. These amendments are central to establishing a credible and accountable agency. Amendment 277 would require a full review of the agency’s remit, powers, funding and relationship with other enforcement bodies, and would be subject to review, as the noble Lord has said. Amendment 328 would link the commencement of the Act to that process.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe of Epsom and—in absentia—Lord Fox, for tabling Amendments 271ZZA, 274, 277, 278 and 328. Before I go any further, I think we all join the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, certainly from our Benches, in wishing the noble Lord, Lord Fox, the very best and speediest of recoveries. We hope to see him back in his place at the earliest opportunity.
I will speak first to Amendment 271ZZA moved by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom. This amendment is unnecessary, as Clause 91(3) provides full discretion for the Secretary of State to revise the labour market enforcement strategy at any time, including following a general election. That means that a new Government are not locked in. They can act swiftly, decisively and in line with their mandate. Were the party opposite to win power again sometime in the distant future, however difficult that is to imagine, its hands would not be tied by these proposals.
Of course, businesses, workers and enforcement bodies all benefit from clarity, consistency and strategic continuity. Automatically scrapping an enforcement strategy, just as the Government are finding their feet, risks creating exactly the kind of disruption we should be avoiding. To reassure the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, the Bill is about strengthening our ability to tackle non-compliance and exploitation in the labour market, including, in the very worst cases, the scourge of modern slavery. The intention and mandate of the fair work agency are to catch the bad actors, not to trip up the good guys. This amendment risks instability rather than accountability.
Turning to Amendments 274, 277, 278 and 328 tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe of Epsom and Lord Fox, I want to be absolutely clear that the Government are committed to effective, transparent enforcement of workers’ rights. The creation of the fair work agency is a major step forward and we want to get it right, but these amendments are wholly unnecessary, duplicating myriad reports and recommendations over several years. By our count, there have been 33 government reports and strategies about the effectiveness of labour market enforcement over the past nine years. One could argue that this subject has been reported and scrutinised to death. The Director of Labour Market Enforcement produces an annual report and strategy that reviews the effectiveness of the labour market enforcement system. These documents are available in the Library of the House.
Additionally, our impact assessment for establishing the fair work agency sets out the current running costs of the enforcement bodies and initial estimates of set-up costs for the agency. I also refer noble Lords to reviews published by previous Administrations, including the Taylor review, which assessed the labour market enforcement system and found it wanting.
Ongoing oversight of employment rights enforcement is provided for in Clauses 91 and 92. They require the Secretary of State to publish a three-year labour market enforcement strategy and annual reports, which must be laid before Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly. To address the question of the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, they will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny in the usual way, which could well involve scrutiny by a Select Committee in the other place.
While the Bill does not explicitly require that the enforcement strategy and annual report address the agency’s funding, I can confirm to the Committee—and to the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, in particular—that the annual report will indeed include an assessment of the fair work agency’s budget and how this has been spent.
Turning to Amendment 328, establishing the fair work agency is not and should not be contingent on its reporting. I remind all noble Lords, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, that this was not only a Labour Party manifesto commitment; it was the policy of all the major parties at the general election to introduce a single enforcement body in some shape or form.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
Just because one side of the House or the other—or, indeed, both—brought it in does not necessarily mean it is the right policy. Does the Minister not agree that, if we have a chance to review some of the weaknesses in inherited policy, it is a very good time to do it? The 2017 Taylor review, on which some of the then Government’s policy was based, focused particularly on the most vulnerable workers and certain categories. It was not a very wide focus.
Lord Katz (Lab)
We have had a fair amount of scrutiny of the wider proposal, rather than the Bill’s specific fair work agency proposals. As I said, over the past nine years since 2016, there have been 33 different strategies and reports, including—but certainly not limited to—the Taylor report. This is not an area that has not been considered and scrutinised to some degree. I also say to the noble Baroness that the Single Enforcement Body—as it was called by the previous Administration—was the policy of successive Conservative- led and Conservative Administrations. I am not going to intrude on the great policy disagreements on that side of the House. We feel it important to establish the fair work agency and to ensure that we have strong enforcement of labour market regulations. I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw Amendment 271ZZA.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, this has been a very significant debate, because I believe it is the first time I have heard from the Government Front Bench an acceptance that the Opposition will eventually take over government again. He and I may disagree on when this will happen—of course we disagree: I just happen to believe that it is going to happen at the next general election. That is why these amendments are so important.
I also want to say how much we miss the noble Lord, Lord Fox. I was very disturbed indeed to hear about his unfortunate accident, but I am very pleased to hear that he may shortly be with us. I hope that, by speeding up the process to Report in July, he will still be able to be with us, because he has always brought a note of common sense—despite coming from the Liberal Democrat Benches. Now I am upsetting everyone. All I want to say to the noble Lord, Lord Goddard of Stockport, is that he has been a marvellous substitute, if one can say that. His pragmatic approach to the Bill has been enormously valuable, but we do miss the noble Lord, Lord Fox.
I thank my noble friend Lady Lawlor, who is quite right: we are moving into unknown territory. Although the Minister might remind us that the Conservative Government were committed to looking at stepping in this direction, we are still moving into unknown territory and, as my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough pointed out, the CIPD cost estimates are really worrying. I do not think the Minister properly addressed his key question on the whole issue of accountability.
However, here we are. I am surprised that the Government have rejected Amendment 271ZZA. It is a reasonable and pragmatic amendment that simply recognises the basic democratic principle that a new Administration should have the ability to review and, if necessary, revise a labour market enforcement strategy to reflect new economic realities and public priorities. Despite the amendment to which he referred—which is at the margin—the Government have always insisted that a labour market enforcement strategy must run its full term without reset, regardless of elections or changes in government. But why should a new Government be bound by a strategic direction set by their predecessor? That is not consistent with the democratic mandate bestowed on any incoming Government. Surely it is neither logical nor democratic to compel a newly elected Government to implement a strategy they did not design, especially in a labour market that is dynamic and constantly evolving.
Economic landscapes can shift dramatically within short periods, whether due to international events, technological change or domestic challenges. Flexibility to adjust enforcement priorities accordingly is essential. It is not only a question of governance, but of ensuring that enforcement remains effective and responsive to current labour market conditions. The Government have already recognised the importance of periodic review and the resetting of the labour market enforcement strategy every three years, as set out in Clause 91. If I am not mistaken, that periodicity is built into the framework precisely to ensure that the strategy remains relevant and responsive.
The main feature of this debate has been the cogent arguments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Goddard of Stockport. His insights, and those of my noble friend Lady Coffey, highlight the pressing need for a substantive independent review of the proposed fair work agency. While the promise of increased efficiency in enforcement is welcome, we must remember that there are intentions and then there are results. We must understand how such efficiency will be achieved and at what cost, what other alternatives were considered, and why they were rejected.
To date, the Government have not committed to publishing any specific details about the establishment of the fair work agency—details that are crucial for proper scrutiny. We lack clarity on the expected costs of this new body, the standards by which compliance will be measured and the criteria that will guide enforcement decisions. Without that transparency, it is difficult to assess whether the creation of this body will represent genuine progress or simply add another layer of bureaucracy, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Goddard of Stockport, stressed, will impinge on smaller businesses in particular.
There remains much to discuss and questions to be answered about the fair work agency. Unfortunately, I find myself unconvinced by the Government’s arguments against the amendments proposed by myself and the noble Lord, Lord Goddard of Stockport. Our proposals are not about obstruction but about ensuring proper oversight, accountability and flexibility in this important area of labour market governance. I am sure that we, and the Liberal Democrats, will return to these issues on Report, but for now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that any ‘fishing expedition’ actions of enforcement officers enabled by subclause (a) are limited to the most serious breaches, thereby preventing a broad expansion of an enforcement officer’s ability to enter business premises to include entering at any point to check on minor matters.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 271ZB I will speak also to Amendments 271ZBA, 271ZD and 273LA in my name. Amendment 271ZB ensures that the powers being granted to enforcement officers under this part of the Bill are used proportionately and only in response to the most serious breaches of labour market law. Without this amendment or something very much like it, we risk handing enforcement officers sweeping powers to enter business premises with very little constraint.
As currently drafted, Clause 94(1)(a) grants enforcement officers the authority to “enter any premises” for “any enforcement purpose”. That is an extraordinarily broad power. This amendment would limit such warrantless powers of entry to those paragraphs of Schedule 7 that deal with the most serious forms of labour market abuse, namely child labour offences, the failure to pay the minimum wage, unlawful deductions from wages and exploitation through forced labour. These are the areas where strong enforcement action is absolutely justified.
However, is it appropriate that the same powers—entry without warrant or consent—could be used to check whether someone forgot to keep a copy of an employment agency contract on file or perhaps miscalculated a payslip by a few pounds? We must not lose sight of the bigger picture. The vast majority of employers want to comply with the law; they invest time and money in doing so. However, if we allow overly broad enforcement powers, we risk creating an atmosphere of distrust, regulatory overreach and disproportionate intrusion, particularly into smaller businesses which may not have the resources to constantly defend themselves against investigatory overkill. The Government say they want better enforcement, and so do we, but good enforcement is not the same as unchecked enforcement.
Turning to Amendment 271ZBA, as currently drafted, Clause 95 restricts the power to enter dwellings to those occasions where a warrant is issued by a justice. This is a well-established and necessary safeguard, reflecting the heightened privacy interests we attach to a person’s home, but there is a conspicuous gap in the safeguards applying to entry into non-dwelling premises, such as business premises, offices or other places of work.
Clause 94 grants enforcement officers wide powers to enter any premises for enforcement purposes, without the same explicit requirement for a warrant or judicial authorisation, unless it is a dwelling covered by Clause 95. This gap means that, unlike the protections for residential premises, business premises can be entered and searched by enforcement officers without prior judicial approval. This is a significant and unwarranted imbalance. The intrusion into a business, especially a small or medium enterprise, is a serious matter. Entry and seizure powers can disrupt operations, damage reputations and create an atmosphere of suspicion.
That is all quite apart from the rather sinister nature of this power. For many small businesses, their premises are their livelihoods. The difference between a home and a business may be one of degree, but the right to protection from arbitrary state intrusion should be similarly robust. Judicial oversight ensures that these powers are used only when there is a legitimate and evidenced basis for entry, and it prevents abuse or overreach.
The requirement for a magistrate to authorise a warrant is a safeguard that protects due process, proportionality and the rule of law, and is of course very well established. It requires that enforcement officers demonstrate reasonable grounds and the necessity for the warrant. That is not a bureaucratic hurdle; it is just a check that balances the state’s legitimate enforcement interests with individual and business rights.
On Amendment 271ZD, as it stands, the appeal process focuses primarily on the accuracy of the sums claimed or the penalties imposed. It is essential that underpayments and penalties are correctly calculated and justified, but this narrow scope overlooks a critical element: the manner in which enforcement powers are exercised.
Enforcement officers hold significant authority when issuing notices, including entry, inspection and seizure powers. However, these powers must be exercised lawfully, proportionately and with respect for those affected. This amendment allows tribunals to consider whether enforcement officers have acted beyond their legal authority or used their powers excessively or unfairly. It further empowers tribunals to cancel or vary notices where misconduct or disproportionate enforcement is found and to award compensation as appropriate. This is not only a matter of protecting businesses and individuals from overreach but is vital to maintain public confidence in the enforcement regime. When enforcement is perceived as fair, transparent and accountable, compliance will improve and the number of disputes will reduce.
On Amendment 273LA, at this stage, the Bill does not define who enforcement officers are in any detail—we started this discussion on Monday—nor does it set any clear limits on the powers they may exercise when carrying out their functions. This lack of clarity is deeply concerning, especially given the serious nature of the enforcement powers being proposed, which include entry, inspection and seizure of documents and property. It is vital to establish unequivocally that enforcement officers, who are not police offices and do not have the training or mandate of the police, must not be allowed to use physical force or authorise others to do so. The use of force is an extreme measure that can be justified only in very specific and regulated circumstances, and generally only by trained law enforcement personnel. The amendment simply ensures that enforcement officers cannot resort to physical coercion, which is not appropriate for officials tasked with regulatory enforcement in the labour market. That is a matter of basic human rights and dignity. It is also a safeguard for businesses and individuals who may otherwise be subject to intimidation or physical harm.
I have absolutely no doubt that Ministers on the Government Front Bench have no interest in physical coercion being a part of these powers. In that case, they should accept this amendment because, if they do not, the implication is clear: they accept that physical coercion is acceptable. I do not believe that is what they want and I beg to move.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
My Lords, I support the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Sharpe. I declare an interest as a director of a very small business—a think tank.
As an employer, the idea that we have no warrant or judicial oversight of an enforcement officer’s intrusive visit to a business to seize or take copies of documents and to check up is intrusive on the time and output of the business. It is also an infringement of a business freedom to conduct the business to the best ability of those in the office or the business.
Both clauses in fact contain very intrusive proposals. As my noble friend pointed out, one of the things that is deeply worrying about them is we do not know who the enforcement officers will be or exactly what their powers will be. We have seen, even with the best trained police force in the world, the Metropolitan Police and local police forces, a certain amount of over-zealousness in pursuing certain types of crime. Therefore, with an untrained and unknown quantity and with such powers, we need very clear limitations, and we need to focus on the most serious crimes and those outlined in these amendments. For those reasons, I support both the amendments in the name of my noble friend.
Lord Katz (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, for tabling amendments relating to the fair work agency’s powers. Clause 94 introduces a single power to enter business premises and inspect workplaces. The noble Lord’s Amendment 271ZB would limit this power to such an extent that effective enforcement of the legislation, including the national minimum wage, would be extremely difficult. We are not amalgamating labour market enforcement into one single agency to diminish its effectiveness. This amendment would, in effect, prohibit the site visits that most minimum wage investigations rely on and bring an end to a system of state enforcement that has worked well for 25 years. The result would likely be an increase in claims to the employment tribunal. Given the noble Lord’s concern about employment tribunal capacity, I urge him to withdraw his amendment.
I turn to Amendment 271ZBA. While powers of entry are generally exercised on a consensual basis, in some situations it is critical that officers are able to carry out their duties quickly, particularly if they suspect that giving advance notice could give rogue employers time to destroy or tamper with evidence. None the less, in response to the concerns raised by both the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, and the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, an officer will not enter a premises if a person is not present but will instead notify the person to rearrange a time to enter the premises. As the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, mentioned, a warrant could be issued by a justice only if they are satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for entry, and judicial oversight ensures that warrants are granted only when appropriate, protecting businesses from unwarranted inspections while enabling legitimate investigations.
Clause 128 and Schedule 8 were added to the Bill to put in place appropriate safeguards relating to the execution of warrants. As I said, this approach will continue under Part 5 of the Bill, but with additional safeguards, such as needing a warrant before exercising powers to enter a dwelling. Extending this warrant requirement further to include all business premises would be a disproportionate and retrograde step in enforcement terms. It would introduce additional powers and bureaucracy, and create an unnecessary burden on the warrant system.
Amendment 271ZD is unnecessary. There are already extensive safeguards in the Bill around the use of investigatory and enforcement powers. These safeguards are designed to ensure that the use of enforcement powers is lawful and proportionate. In addition, enforcement officers are highly trained and carry out investigations under a strict code of conduct.
Clause 107 largely carries over the existing appeal grounds from the notice of underpayment regime contained in the National Minimum Wage Act 1998, which, as I said, has been functioning successfully for over 25 years. In fact, I recall debates in previous days of Committee around the effectiveness of minimum wage enforcement and the fact that not enough rogue employers have been named and shamed. The process as it stands is well known and understood by businesses and individuals. Changes risk adding confusion and uncertainty, leading to additional complexity and litigation.
Amendment 273LA would constitute a drastic downgrade in labour exploitation enforcement. The Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority can and must occasionally use force under PACE powers to rescue victims of modern slavery and tackle serious labour exploitation. Indeed, it is through the use of those powers that we saw two modern slavery convictions and 13 slavery and trafficking risk and prevention orders in the last reporting year of 2023-24. To reassure the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, as is currently the case, the use of PACE powers will be strictly limited to a small number of officers, as set out in their letters of appointment, and subject to stringent IOPC oversight functions and complaints and misconduct procedures.
I am sure the whole Committee will agree that we must tackle the scourge of modern slavery. The Bill is designed to strengthen employment rights in a clear, coherent and enforceable way. Unnecessary additions or alterations, however well-meaning, could compromise that aim. On that basis, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Carter of Haslemere (CB)
My Lords, I think the Minister explained that the reasons against requiring a warrant to be issued by a magistrate included the fact that an employer might destroy documents that were the purpose of the need to enter the premises. In those circumstances, why could the clause not say that, if the enforcement officer can show the magistrate reasonable cause to have concerns about the destruction of a document, they could apply on an ex parte basis for the search warrant? That would mean there would not be that risk of the destruction of documents in advance.
Lord Katz (Lab)
The noble Lord raises an interesting point, though I fear straying into legal territory, which I am not adequately briefed to comment on. I will write to him with further detail on the specific example he set out.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carter of Haslemere, for his intervention, because I was about to raise a similar point. It has been a long time since, as a policeman, I applied for a warrant, but we did not routinely notify the intended recipient of our visit that we were about to do it. I do not buy the argument that that would see an awful lot of documents destroyed or anything that they might have been pre-warned being removed from the premises—they would not know. I do not see why it should be different for enforcement officers and the police, who obviously are, in some cases, investigating much more serious crimes.
On the use of force arguments that the noble Lord, Lord Katz, deployed, surely the point is that these powers are being extended and, yet again, we are relying on future guidelines, comments or statements that will be written into their terms of employment. I simply do not believe that that is enough. The public deserve the reassurance of having this in the Bill or, at the very least, clarified in a Dispatch Box Statement.
As we bring this debate to a close—my noble friend Lady Lawlor, I think, homed in on this point—the fundamental concern that underpins all these amendments is that the Government have not yet provided a clear definition of who the enforcement officers will be, what precise powers they will hold, and what training or accountability measures will govern their conduct. The absence of clarity is not a minor oversight; it is a significant gap that leaves businesses and individuals vulnerable to potential overreach and misuse of authority. Enforcement officers will be vested with extraordinary powers of entry, inspection and seizure, but we have no clear picture of the safeguards that will be put in place to prevent abuse.
These amendments are not about obstructing enforcement or denying the Government the tools that they need to tackle serious breaches of labour market law; on the contrary, we recognise the importance of robust enforcement. However, enforcement must be lawful, proportionate and accompanied by proper oversight and accountability, or it will risk losing public trust.
We have sought to introduce reasonable limits on when and how enforcement—
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
Does my noble friend agree that, in addition to the problems he has raised, there is a very great danger of vexatious claims being made without evidence, and of disproportionate actions and intrusions taking place as a result?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I absolutely agree with my noble friend; that is one of the reasons that we are seeking more clarity in the Bill. As I said, without transparency, accountability and a clear definition of what the powers will be—they are unarguably vague —all those concerns remain. It is disappointing that the Government have not fully recognised the risks inherent in the broad powers envisaged by the Bill. We argue that the Government should, at a very minimum, provide clear guidance on these roles and responsibilities and on the limits of enforcement officers. This subject is so important that I think we will have to return to it. For now, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
I will speak to the significant number of amendments in this group in my name. This is quite an interesting cornucopia of amendments, a number of which are, in essence, probing amendments. The very nature of the work we are undertaking is to look at the minutiae of the Bill and to see it through the prism of how it impacts on small businesses. It is very important, when we consider the fair work agency’s powers, that we look at the Bill’s real-world ramifications and consequences.
Although some of the amendments may seem somewhat obscure, I think they are nevertheless quite compelling and worthy of the Minister’s attention. In addition, the Clause 95 stand part notice is in my name; I will come to that shortly. I also have a more substantive amendment near the end of the group on a duty on the UK border agency and the new enforcement agency, the fair work agency, to collaborate or co-operate.
I begin by considering the clause stand part notice. I remind noble Lords that, ostensibly, Clause 95 circumscribes the powers available in respect of using a warrant to enter a dwelling. On the face of it, the clause looks pretty innocuous, but I do not think it should be in the Bill because its wording is quite loose and opaque. I have serious concerns about the use of permissive, wide-ranging powers, particularly in subsection (3)(b), which says
“that it is not practicable to communicate with any person entitled to grant access to the documents or equipment”.
Further, paragraph (d) says
“that the purpose of entry may be frustrated or seriously prejudiced unless an enforcement officer arriving at the dwelling can secure immediate entry to it”.
I would like to interrogate the Minister’s perception and interpretation of these powers. For the avoidance of doubt, I think that the question of whether this clause should stand part of the Bill is worthy of our consideration. Although, of course, it was not considered by the statutory instruments committee—the name of which escapes me—to be a particularly egregious example of permissive or Henry VIII powers, I nevertheless think that it could be misconstrued.
I will now consider the other amendments in my name. Amendment 273A would require the Secretary of State to have “an evidential basis” for believing that a labour market offence is being or has been committed in order to request an LME undertaking, as opposed to requiring merely that the Secretary of State “believes” this to be the case. This amendment is important because what I am attempting to define more clearly the limits of the powers being conferred—in other words, to make it explicit that there has to be a firm evidential basis for exercising those powers. We do not want a situation in which the Secretary of State may do as he wishes as long as he pleads that he believed an offence was being committed.
I am not a lawyer, but I make reference to powers being conferred on a Minister based on subjective jurisdictional criteria. Let us look at—I am sure that the Minister will be advised of this—Customs and Excise Commissioners v Cure & Deeley Ltd 1962, in which it was found that Parliament would never presume on courts adopting a particular approach to statutory construction, especially when it comes to the subtleties of administrative law. I think that this reasonable and rational amendment would tighten up the wording.
Moving on, Amendment 273B would mean that the Secretary of State could impose a prohibition, restriction or requirement as an LME undertaking only where they considered it “proportionate” as well as “just and reasonable”. The test of proportionality is, of course, at the heart of adjudication and the justice system; it is the bread and butter of administrative decision-making, especially in respect of our human rights regime. It is good practice to have statute clear in order to direct Ministers to undertake the kind of judgments which the legal framework will impose on them anyway, and which otherwise will have to be communicated by the production of additional guidance material. That is the basis for that amendment.
Amendment 273C would reduce the maximum period for which an LME measure can have effect from two years to one year. This is a practical amendment, because there is no obvious reason why any necessary measures cannot be imposed and changes expedited within 12 months. It is better, for one thing, that a business falling foul of standards should be made to get its house in order quickly and to be compliant with any LME measure within a reasonable space of time. We are talking not about a month but about 12 months; I think that is a reasonable reduction from two years. It is also better for the economy, public expenditure and Civil Service efficiency to have a shorter timescale.
Amendment 273 would require the Secretary of State to bring the end of the LME measures to the attention of “all” other persons likely to be interested in the matter, rather than “any” such persons, and the subject of the measures. This is clearly straightforward. If you are in a business, you will have multiple partners, directors or people with a significant interest in the business. Therefore, to avoid bureaucratic mistakes and errors, I think it is fair to involve as many people as practicable.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Information and Technology (Baroness Jones of Whitchurch)
My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt. I am trying to follow the noble Lord’s arguments, but I think Amendment 273 is in a different group.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
I am grateful to the Minister for giving me the opportunity to clarify where I am: it is Amendment 273D. My apologies if I have not been clear enough.
This amendment would make a small clarifying adjustment: where the text currently says that the Secretary of State must take whatever steps she or he considers appropriate to bring the end of LME measures to the attention of
“any other persons likely to be interested in the matter”—
that is, other than the subject of the measures—it would use the words “all other persons”. It is important for business certainty, good faith and, indeed, fairness that all those who are affected or likely to be affected by a quite significant measure are kept properly informed about it. Otherwise, we may see messy episodes unfold where there is a misunderstanding or extra, hidden penalties imposed on businesses in the form of the costs of informing the other people affected by the LME measure that it has, for instance, come to an end.
Amendment 273E to Clause 119 would require notice of LMEs against a partnership to be given to “all partners”, rather than just “any partner”. This does not reflect what running a business with multiple partners is like, perhaps in multiple locations or running multiple business units as partners, whether it is an accountancy firm, solicitors or others—I know that there is a different regime for solicitors. It is not sensible to advise only one partner of a significant infraction or issue arising from an LME. If you want businesses to co-operate in ameliorating the issues identified in the LME, you would really need—I admit, at some modest cost—to advise all the partners. You need also to cultivate good faith in order to make the changes necessary arising from the LME.
Furthermore, it is possible that the courts will decide that notice has been given as a matter of law in circumstances where the one partner who was theoretically served it had not actually seen it and was not subjectively aware of it. Better, then, to require that all partners be given notice to ensure that businesses are genuinely aware of the ramifications and the LME decisions.
I am mindful of the time, so I will move with greater alacrity. Amendment 273F would increase the proposed burden of proof for court orders of LME measures from balance of probabilities to beyond reasonable doubt. There is reason to fear that a future Government will use the provision of Clause 117(3), which empowers the Secretary of State to create new kinds of LME measures by regulation, to create measures which go beyond regulation and become punitive, in which case the criminal proof standard will be appropriate. More generally, good faith between businesses and government, which aids compliance, will be better cultivated if they are required to comply with LME measures only in cases where there has been a clear violation.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I support several of the amendments tabled by my noble friend. The stand part notice in my name on Clause 134 is also in this group. We are getting into an interesting bit, in a legal sense, about what information is being gathered and how it can be used. I was somewhat struck by this. I found Clause 130 interesting in that, quite surprisingly, no evidence that has been provided relating to the information can be used in a criminal prosecution, apart from that which is directly related to perjury. That made me wonder how this works.
I want to probe why HMRC is—apart from the intelligence services, which I completely understand—singled out in Clause 134 as a body for which extra permission has to be given before its information can be disclosed to all these other different parties. That does not apply for information about the national minimum wage. I remind the Committee that HMRC is a non-ministerial department, so no Minister can be involved in directing HMRC in any way whatever. That is why it surprises me that it is felt that extra permission is needed. I would love to hear further from the Minister on that.
To turn to other amendments in this group, Amendment 273PB is an important one. I appreciate that there are further amendments later about the wider aspects of immigration, but in recognising that this new body will take over from the gangmaster authority on the extension of the Modern Slavery Act, it makes perfect sense that it should be proactively working—not just on cases that “may” be disclosed—with the Government’s agency that is responsible for tackling illegal immigration and all the impacts that come as a consequence of it. I support my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough in that regard.
I have a cheeky point to make about Amendment 273N. For reasons of procedural purposes, my noble friend does not believe that Schedule 9 should be allowed because it contains Henry VIII powers. However, the Minister has already amended, or at least debated, Schedule 9 during the passage of the Bill. I am quite struck that the Low Pay Commission is one of the bodies to which information may be disclosed in relation to Clauses 113 and 114. I am not aware that it is an enforcement body; I thought that it was, in effect, a research body that comes up with recommendations about the minimum wage and so on.
I also noticed that under “Other persons”, Scottish Ministers have for some reason been left out of the equation and may need to be added. Recognising that Part 5 applies to Scotland as well and that Welsh Ministers will receive information, I am surprised that Scottish Ministers are not there.
To make a broader point, we will of course start to see a lot more co-ordination, even with local government. It might be something for Ministers to share with their colleagues. We need to start thinking about combined authorities and also mayoralties—the Greater London Authority is accounted for, but others are not. The intention of this is, I think, to allow more co-ordinated efforts to try to stop abuse of employment law, including issues relating to modern slavery. I am afraid that, for once, I disagree with my noble friend on this occasion. The Government desperately need to be able to amend the bodies under Schedule 9. My main point was probing, particularly on HMRC.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 271ZC and 273BA but I first thank my noble friends Lord Jackson of Peterborough and Lady Coffey for their amendments. My noble friend Lord Jackson began by describing his amendments as a “cornucopia”. I was always told that a cornucopia was a goat’s horn overflowing with flowers, fruit and corn. A better definition than the one he used would be “an abundant supply of good things”, which opened the opportunity for the Minister to justify the unjustifiable. We all look forward to hearing from her.
Amendment 271ZC seeks to avoid governmental overreach by excluding holiday pay from notices of underpayment, given that the existing legal framework provides adequate remedy for individuals seeking to enforce their rights in this matter.
Amendment 273BA seeks to ensure that labour market enforcement undertakings are requested only when there is a public interest in doing so. This amendment provides an essential layer of protection against the risk of regulatory overreach and against the misuse of powers that could otherwise affect individuals and businesses unfairly. Clause 117 gives the Secretary of State considerable discretion to impose conditions on people or businesses suspected of labour market offences. That discretion already includes subjective tests of what is just and what is reasonable. Who defines what is reasonable? Who ensures that decisions are being made not just fairly but in service of the broader public good? By requiring measures to be in the public interest, as this amendment does, we would root enforcement action in its proper purpose: protecting workers, upholding lawful employment practices and maintaining public confidence in our regulatory system.
This amendment would strengthen the legitimacy of LME undertakings. It would ensure that measures are not only lawful and proportionate but meaningful, and that they serve society as a whole, whether it is tackling exploitation, improving transparency or deterring repeat offences. I believe the public interest must be front and centre. Without this safeguard, we risk opening the door to punitive, reputational or performative measures that may be justified in form but not in principle. This amendment would give Parliament, and more importantly the people affected, the confidence that LME undertakings will be guided by public value, not political expediency or administrative convenience. I urge the Government to support this amendment.
As I mentioned, I also support the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough. His proposed changes to the wording of the legislation, particularly in relation to enforcement powers, are both thoughtful and necessary. By raising the evidential threshold from a simple belief to one requiring an evidential basis, and by increasing the standard of proof for courts from “the balance of probabilities” to “beyond reasonable doubt”, these amendments would introduce essential safeguards. They do not undermine the policy intention of the Bill to tackle labour market offences effectively. Rather, they ensure that enforcement actions are firmly grounded in evidence, and that the rights of employers and individuals are protected from potential overreach or misuse of power. In short, my noble friend’s amendments help strike the critical balance between robust enforcement and fairness, which I believe is vital for maintaining public confidence in the system.
Amendment 273PB, tabled by my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough, is an incredibly important amendment. We live in a world where migration patterns are increasingly complex and the risks associated with illegal immigration, visa overstays and exploitation in our labour market are growing. At the same time, threats to our national security have become more sophisticated, requiring a co-ordinated and agile response across multiple agencies.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords I thank noble Lords who have spoken. I am responding to the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe, Lord Hunt and Lord Jackson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, who have tabled amendments on the powers of the fair work agency and oppose Clauses 95 and 134.
I accept the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, that some of his amendments are probing amendments. I will attempt to respond to each in turn. Forgive me if I repeat some points that my noble friend Lord Katz made in the previous debate, which covered similar ground. I think we covered some of this ground in debates on a previous day. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, that I have no need to justify the unjustifiable in my response.
I will speak first to the fair work agency’s investigatory powers and address the opposition of the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, to Clause 95. I listened to the noble Lord, but investigatory powers are common to all regulators. The fair work agency’s powers are based on those set out for existing enforcement bodies in the Employment Agencies Act 1973, the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 and the Gangmasters (Licensing) Act 2004. Employment rights enforcement agencies have had power to enter premises used as dwellings since their inception. For example, HMRC’s minimum wage inspectors can and do regularly visit business premises used as dwellings to gather evidence. It is right that officers should be able to gather evidence from such premises. Businesses operating from premises used as dwellings is nothing new. Pubs, for example, often have flats above the public area where the business’s documentation is kept.
Today, more and more businesses operate from home. Current law makes no distinction for dwellings. This Government believe in stronger safeguards for such powers. That is why Clause 95 introduces a new requirement for a warrant to enter dwellings. Together with the additional safeguards in Clause 128 and Schedule 8, this clause strikes the right balance between protecting the privacy and rights of individuals and allowing the fair work agency to go about its job of enforcing labour market legislation. I hope that I have reassured noble Lords on this point, and that noble Lords can agree that Clause 95 should stand part of the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Jackson, also addressed his amendments to Clause 128. I recognise the intent behind these amendments, but there are already extensive safeguards around the use of investigatory powers in Part 5, including the new requirement for a warrant when entering a dwelling. Clause 128 is a sensible provision that sets out that any enforcement officer has the right to execute a warrant and, as long as the enforcement officer is present, they can be accompanied by an authorised person or persons if they deem it relevant to the investigation—for example, an IT specialist.
Turning to Amendment 271ZC from the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, enforcement of holiday pay is a key part of the fair work agency’s remit. Large numbers of workers are missing out on their statutory right to paid annual leave. The Trade Union Congress estimates that 2 million people lose around £3 billion per year by not receiving holiday pay to which they are entitled. We recognise that this disproportionately affects the lowest-paid workers. The fair work agency will not be able to meaningfully support workers to recover the holiday pay they are owed if it cannot issue notices of underpayment. This is a power that is already available in the national minimum wage enforcement regime, which has been successful in ensuring that workers receive the arrears that they are owed. Therefore, I must respectfully resist this amendment.
I turn now to the amendments to Clauses 116 to 121 inclusive, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Jackson, Lord Sharpe and Lord Hunt, together with the amendments to Clauses 126 and 136. These pertain to the labour market enforcement undertakings and orders regime. Although these amendments touch on important aspects of the Bill, they either duplicate existing provisions and introduce unnecessary complexity, or risk undermining the careful balance that has already been struck in the drafting. The labour market enforcement regime was introduced by the 2015 to 2017 Conservative Government. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, at that time in the other place, voted in favour of this regime consistently during the passage of the Immigration Act 2016.
It is a regime that works and works well. It promotes a compliance-first approach, as employers are first encouraged to enter into voluntary undertakings to correct their behaviour. Only persistent or egregious offenders are issued with a compulsory order to stop. As of March 2024, there have been 140 labour market enforcement undertakings and just 14 labour market enforcement orders. These amendments seek to water down the regime and increase legal tests and administrative burdens for its use. By making the labour market enforcement regime more cumbersome and less effective, the fair work agency would have to resort more often to prosecution, which could be disproportionate and time-consuming for all concerned. The effects of these amendments would be to make enforcement more heavy-handed, less efficient and less focused on helping businesses to comply. This is not what businesses or workers want or need, and it is not what the fair work agency is about.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
I hear what the Minister says, but surely she would agree that, if one looks at Amendment 273F, which moves from having “a balance of probabilities” to “beyond reasonable doubt”, if you are taking forward an LME infraction case beyond reasonable doubt, you are more likely to succeed, and the corollary of that is that you are not taking forward cases on which you have a paucity of evidence. So, with all due respect to the noble Baroness, I disagree. If you are bringing in proportionality and “beyond reasonable doubt”, you are going to have sharper cases that tackle the most egregious examples of infractions of the legislation and do not waste a lot of time—and consequently save the taxpayer money.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
The evidence shows that the current wording is proportionate. There has not been a huge number of cases. Maybe we could argue about whether there should be more cases, but the fact that there has not been a huge number of cases is a reflection of that. What we do not want to do is set the barrier so high that we cannot take the cases that are necessary to deliver the changes and the better worker protection that we seek to achieve.
I turn to the noble Lord’s Amendment 273N. I agree that effective sharing of information and pooling of knowledge will be crucial to the success of the fair work agency. The list of bodies that the agency will be able to share information with is limited to those with a need for access, and safeguards are provided for. However, the power to update the list is necessary to ensure that the fair work agency can respond to future changes in the wider labour market and the regulatory landscape. It means that we can keep the list of bodies under review and remove bodies where the need to share information no longer applies. This is good data information governance.
The noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, asked about the Low Pay Commission being listed. The fair work agency will be able to share information with the bodies in Schedule 9 if it is for the purposes of a function of the body. This does not need to be about the enforcement functions. I also say to the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee expressed no concern with this power in its report on the Bill.
On the opposition of the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, to Clause 134, HMRC data is critical for investigating and enforcing various employment rights, not just the national minimum wage. However, I say to the noble Baroness that much of HMRC’s data is confidential, and it is therefore prudent to require an extra level of approval before this information is shared further.
Clause 134 restricts the sharing of confidential HMRC data without authorisation from HMRC commissioners. This will ensure that the fair work agency operates in line with the Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Act. This is a standard safeguard which is necessary to ensure responsible data sharing between HMRC and the fair work agency.
In relation to Amendment 273PB from the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, I reassure him that the Bill already gives the Secretary of State the power to share information with border authorities, such as the National Crime Agency and immigration officers. Rather than enhancing enforcement, the amendment risks introducing unnecessary complexity and diverting attention away from the fair work agency’s core task. The amendment’s intended effect can be achieved through the existing Bill drafting.
I turn to the noble Lord’s Amendment 273R to Clause 140. The ability to recover enforcement costs in relation to the time spent is a matter of fairness. Restricting the use of hourly rates would in practice force the fair work agency to adopt fixed fees. A fixed approach to cost recovery could mean that a small business ended up paying the same as a much larger organisation, regardless of the scale or complexity of the case, and that is not fair. This clause is an enabling power. Regulations made under it will be subject to the affirmative procedure. Parliament will be able to scrutinise and debate whether to adopt a fixed-fee or variable-fee regime at the point where the regime is proposed, and it is right that we afford that flexibility in design at this stage.
In conclusion, while I appreciate the intention behind the amendments, they either replicate what is already achieved by the Bill’s existing provisions or risk unsettling a framework that has already been carefully constructed. I therefore ask the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, not to press Amendment 271ZC.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
I thank the Minister for that comprehensive canter through my amendments. I defer to the poetic licence of my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral and accept that it is not a cornucopia, but my cup overfloweth nevertheless.
I appreciate the spirit in which the amendments were received. I was attempting to improve the Bill. Not for the first time, my noble friend Lord Hunt put it much more succinctly than I did in that, certainly with regard to proportionality and “beyond reasonable doubt”, notwithstanding the excellent drafting by officials, the amendments would have improved the Bill.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would enable an application for an order enforcing a requirement in a notice of underpayment to pay a sum to an individual to be made in Scotland to a summary sheriff (as well as to a sheriff).
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment requires the worker’s informed consent before the Secretary of State can initiate legal action, preserving individual autonomy and control over personal legal matters.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 271D, I shall speak also to Amendments 272ZZA, 272ZZB, 272ZZC, 272ZZD, 272ZZE, 272ZB, 272ZC, 272AA, 272AB and 272AC.
There is a troubling message throughout this legislation of the fundamental belief that third parties, whether they be unions or the state in Part 5, will make decisions on behalf of individuals rather than individuals being able to make decisions for themselves. The challenge with third parties making decisions is that they pay no price when they are wrong, and that is evidenced in this clause. Clause 113(6) states:
“The Secretary of State is not liable to any worker for anything done (or omitted to be done) in, or in connection with, the discharge or purported discharge of the Secretary of State’s functions by virtue of this section”.
That is an unacceptable subsection in this clause, hence my Amendment 272ZZE.
The reality is that workers whose claims are taken up or not taken up by the Secretary of State risk having their rights mishandled or ignored, yet, under the clause as drafted, they would have no recourse, remedy or ability to challenge that failure. We think that that sets a dangerous precedent, because we are granting power without responsibility. We would be creating a regime in which decisions that affect individuals’ livelihoods and legal rights can be made from behind a veil of immunity. That is neither just nor consistent with the principles of good governance. We need to be clear that, if a private employer or a trade union behaved with this level of impunity, we would not accept it, so why are we accepting it from the state?
The fundamental principle underlying Amendments 271D, 272ZZA, 272ZZB, 272ZZD and 272ZC is consent. Clause 113 currently allows the Secretary of State to initiate legal action in a worker’s name without requiring that worker’s consent. That is deeply problematic. Legal proceedings, particularly employment proceedings, can be deeply personal, reputationally sensitive and complicated. To bring such proceedings without the individual’s explicit and informed consent is a serious encroachment on personal autonomy. My Amendment 271D would insert a requirement that the worker must provide written consent before the Secretary of State may act on their behalf. That is not a mere administrative formality; it is the cornerstone of the individual’s control over their own legal affairs.
What if consent was not initially required or given but circumstances change? That is addressed in my Amendment 272ZZA, which would establish a clear opt-out mechanism. It would ensure that the worker is given notice before proceedings begin and is afforded 28 days to object. If they do, the case does not proceed. Surely this strikes a balance between the state’s interest in pursuing enforcement and the worker’s right to decide how their own case is handled. Legal action is not always welcome, even when it is justified. The consequences of litigation, especially in employment, can be damaging professionally and personally. Workers may prefer alternative dispute resolution.
However, consent and opt-out are not enough on their own. Even with consent, the state must be bound by a duty to act in the worker’s best interests. That is why I have proposed an amendment requiring that the Secretary of State should have regard to the worker’s stated objectives, the potential impact on their current and future employment, and the proportionality of taking legal action in the specific context. That is a safeguard to prevent well-meaning intervention becoming harmful or heavy-handed.
Then there is the matter of control. A worker may initially consent to the Secretary of State taking the lead but later wish to take back control of the proceedings, perhaps because they have secured private representation or circumstances have changed. My Amendment 272ZZD addresses this. It would ensure that the worker retains the right to reclaim their case and that the Secretary of State must accommodate that request. It affirms that ultimate control remains with the individual and not with the state.
Finally, my Amendment 272ZC would introduce a fundamental principle, that of subsidiarity. The state should not intervene unless there is absolutely no other viable route to justice. If the worker has representation or access to advice or union support, that route should be exhausted first. Legal action by the Secretary of State should be a last resort, not a first impulse.
These amendments are not intended to frustrate enforcement—far from it. They are designed to ensure that enforcement is fair, consensual and genuinely in the interest of the person whose rights are at stake. Workers are not passive subjects of policy; they are individuals with agency, judgment and a right to decide how they wish to pursue justice. We must ensure that the Bill does not cross the line from protection into paternalism.
I turn to Amendments 272AA and 272AC. Amendment 272AA simply calls for an annual report—nothing excessive, just a basic record of how often these powers have been used, what types of claims have been pursued, the outcomes and any costs or awards recovered. This is a common-sense transparency measure. If the state is litigating on behalf of private individuals, we should, at the very least, be keeping track of how that power is being exercised and with what effect.
Amendment 272AB, however, is the more pressing amendment because it would place a sunset clause on the power, causing it to expire at the end of the next Parliament unless it is actively renewed. It would also require an independent review to assess whether this power has delivered real value for workers, for justice and for public money, because the truth is we simply do not know if this clause is necessary. We do not know if workers even want the state litigating on their behalf; we do not know if the outcomes justify the costs; and we certainly do not know if this is the most effective way to improve enforcement. If this power is to remain, Parliament should be given clear evidence that it works and works better than the alternatives.
Finally, Amendment 272ZB would introduce a simple but important safeguard: a public interest test before the Secretary of State can bring proceedings on a worker’s behalf. Without this, we risk allowing the state to pursue claims that may be frivolous, politically motivated or unnecessary, potentially at public expense and also to the detriment of both workers and employers. Litigation should not be used to make a point; it should be used to deliver justice where it truly matters. This amendment would ensure that such powers are exercised responsibly and proportionately, and only where there is a clear public benefit. I beg to move.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I oppose the Question that Clause 113 stand part of the Bill. I raised this in Second Reading, and I appreciate the discussions that have taken place with officials and the Minister since, but I genuinely believe these are novel powers.
I appreciate that we are perhaps just not going to agree today on how far the Equality Act 2006 goes, but when I tabled Questions to the Minister, they were passed to the EHRC. The commission said that, since it had received those powers—I think it was commenced in 2007—no powers had been used to initiate legal proceedings that were not judicial review or as an intervener. It gave me the distinct impression that it did not necessarily believe that it should be initiating legal proceedings in this regard. It has its own policy and that is under consultation. However, it does beg the question, given some of the other consultations that the Government have initiated, whether they will in future seek to take over any such duties or powers that the EHRC has in a variety of legal proceedings, because the EHRC is not using powers that the Government think it has. However, I think that is still really a matter of debate.
Building on the amendments that have been tabled by my noble friends on the Front Bench, I think this is an odd situation. I appreciate we have discussed elements of Clause 113 before; indeed, the other day we debated my noble friend Lady Noakes’s sensible amendment that this should be in the public interest. It would be helpful to understand from Ministers what they see will happen as a consequence of this. Where are we getting to? What is going on?
I have deliberately degrouped some parts of this discussion on Clause 114—about the money side—but it is useful to understand that, for the purposes of this clause, this is not just about people who are working; it is about people who do not have a job with the person they are seeking to take to court. We had a debate some time ago about why that could be, and we got into a debate about what sort of special privileges there might be. Nevertheless, this seems quite an extraordinary shift in the capability of the Government, first, to initiate these proceedings anyway and, secondly, to do so when the worker involved does not intend to do so. That is why, I appreciate, the legal wording really restricts any inclusion of the worker at a future date, which specifically seems to be ruled out in various provisions in the clause, except in Clause 113(5), which allows the worker to be brought in at an appeal stage. However, I am concerned more generally about this approach of a new agency.
Another element that really concerns me is subsection (6), which in essence provides:
“The Secretary of State is not liable to any worker for anything done (or omitted to be done)”.
I expect that is there to cover circumstances—we may have had a brief exchange on this already—in which the worker says, “You didn’t go after this bit or that bit”; it is kind of “Tough luck”. As it stands, it is not clear to me whether, if the worker is unhappy with the action taken, double jeopardy is allowed: will the worker be allowed to initiate separate claims against the employer, if they feel that the Secretary of State and the enforcement officers have admitted different things?
Overall, this clause is an unnecessary innovation. I am concerned about it, and I would be grateful for some broad examples of how it could be used in the future.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, I support the amendments in this group in the name of my noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom. Looking at Clause 113, I am put in mind of the pre-exploration exhortation of Colonel Kurtz: “The horror! The horror!”. As an employment lawyer looking at this clause, I can say that it is a complete Horlicks. It is truly bizarre. Can the Minister say why this power is required? Who should decide whether the Secretary of State should intervene in a person’s right to bring proceedings? Why should that choice be taken away from them? If the Secretary of State decides to bring proceedings, how would the Secretary of State compel the person who did not want to bring proceedings to give evidence in their own claim that they are not bringing? Why would the judge decide that the claim should be allowed to succeed, in the absence of evidence from the person whose claim it is?
Then there is the question as to why the taxpayers of this country should bring proceedings in the name of somebody who does not want to bring them, possibly against a public sector employer who then has to pay to defend those proceedings to make an award of damages to a person who does not want to claim damages. All this is absolutely beyond belief.
Furthermore, I noticed that it is a discretion:
“the Secretary of State may, in place of the worker, bring proceedings about the matter in an employment tribunal under the enactment”,
which appears to relate to any enactment in the entire employment canon. There is no explanation as to the test the Secretary of State is going to apply in making that discretion. That exercise of discretion will plainly be subject to judicial review. If the Secretary of State chooses not to exercise their power, no doubt there will be satellite litigation in the High Court—brought by the unions, I suspect—as to why the Secretary of State has not chosen to bring a claim on behalf of somebody who they think should have had their claim brought by the Secretary of State. Applying the usual tests, I suppose it will be said that it was irrational not to bring the claim or it was in breach of some legitimate expectation that their claim would be brought. It seems to me that that whole delight now lies before the Committee as to whether there should be litigation on behalf of somebody who does not want to litigate.
This is simply an absurd and inverse world of mirrors that, frankly, Lewis Carroll in Through the Looking-Glass would not have believed was possible. The lunacy of it is notable in Clause 113(5), whereby a worker can appeal against the outcome in a claim when he did not even want to bring a claim. This is so badly thought out that it should clearly be withdrawn.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
My Lords, I follow my noble friends by supporting the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Sharpe and voicing very strong opposition to Clause 113. I could not believe it when I read this clause. I could not believe that a third party—the Secretary of State—could bring proceedings on my behalf to a tribunal if I did not want proceedings brought. Nor did I think that subsection (6) was worthy of any government Bill. One could go through the whole of this clause and find something very wrong with it on many grounds.
There are many reasons why a worker may not want to proceed with a claim. He or she may not wish to bring proceedings because of the hassle involved, the delay, the stress to themselves and their family in waiting for the tribunal—which can never hear a claim quickly—the potential impact on his or her reputation, or a perfectly natural desire by an employee to settle things amicably with their employer. There are many individual reasons: family reasons, personal reasons and professional reasons. What right have we to give the Secretary of State powers to override that basic individual liberty in order to bring a case which someone may not want to be brought?
One can only wonder why such a clause is there—that the Secretary of State can bring proceedings, presumably, against a worker’s will or inclination. We can only assume that this may be due to workplace political pressures exercised by others in the workplace, perhaps by union members who want these cases brought as test cases and for the taxpayers to pay, or by others who have the ear of government.
This is a very sectional Bill in the interest of one vested interest group. I have said it before during proceedings, but it is not for the Government of this country in a parliamentary democracy to sectionalise the law in favour of one interest group or another. Clause 113 is particularly dangerous, and I support my noble friends’ amendments to it. I hope the Government will not proceed with it.
Lord Carter of Haslemere (CB)
My Lords, I support the comments made, particularly those of the noble Lord, Lord Murray. This is an extraordinary clause; I am not aware of anything else on the statute book like it.
My practical question to the Minister is: if the Secretary of State takes it upon himself or herself to go to court on a worker’s behalf, and the worker is strongly against that, what will that do to the relationship between the worker and the employer? It could absolutely devastate that relationship, because the employer will greatly resent the fact that the Secretary of State is taking proceedings on behalf of the worker, even if the worker has said that they do not want those proceedings brought. This is not good for industrial relations at all.
I really urge the Government to rethink this. What are its practical implications? How will it work in practice if the worker is against it? Will they be called as a witness by the Secretary of State, if necessary? Will they then be a hostile witness? It is all a complete and utter mess, I am afraid. I was not planning to speak on this, but this is an extraordinary clause and I urge Ministers to drop it completely.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, I was happy to sign the clause stand part notice with my noble friend Lady Coffey. I am thinking of the words of Zhou Enlai, I think, who, considering the French Revolution, said, “What did they mean by that?” I look at this clause and think, “What do they mean by this?” Maybe the Minister will open the trinket box at the end of this process and let us into the secret of this bizarre, perverse clause, but I really cannot see the point of it.
I am mindful of the fact that we are surrounded by very accomplished lawyers, so I will not get too much into law, but lawyers and others will be aware that Magna Carta—1215; I know the noble Lord, Lord Katz, likes a history lesson occasionally in Committee—resiled from the arbitrary power of the state. It is an arbitrary power of the state for it to insert itself into civil litigation without any real methodological basis, any timeline or, as my noble friend Lord Murray of Blidworth so rightly said, any tests being met. That is very odd.
Perhaps the Minister will enlighten us as to the rationale. The clause is novel. It is completely perverse and unheard of, to be quite honest, because it will engender a disputatious regime, more litigation and more disputes in the workplace. It will have a deleterious effect on business, commerce and profitability, and on how businesses are run. What tests will the Minister use? How likely is it that these powers will be used and at what likely cost? Is there any impact assessment or opportunity cost as to the use of these powers?
Why does subsection (2) leave agricultural workers out of the process? There may be a specific sectoral reason for that, but that is a reasonable question to ask. Why are they not swept up in these powers? Why are their rights not circumscribed to not get involved in civil litigation in respect of employment?
Finally, the most bonkers part of a truly epically bonkers clause is subsection (7). It is so crazy that it could have been written by the Liberal Democrats, but it would be unkind to make such an observation. My noble friend Lady Coffey has already made the point that you do not even have to be a worker to have the Secretary of State impose themselves into your potential litigation on a matter; you can be someone seeking employment as a worker. Presumably, anyone who is of working age can be affected by this clause. Subsection (7) also states that a worker is defined more widely as an individual who is a worker for the purposes of Part 4A of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
I really do not understand the rationale for or the logic behind this clause. The Minister is clearly aware of the great disquiet that it gives rise to, and I hope she answers the specific points made, not least by the noble Lord, Lord Carter of Haslemere. It takes something for a noble Lord of his experience in the law to say that this is the most perverse and strangest clause he has seen in a piece of primary legislation. On that basis, I hope the Minister will respond to that and answer those specific points that noble Lords, in particular the noble Lord, Lord Carter of Haslemere, have raised.
Lord Ashcombe (Con)
My Lords, I support my noble friends Lord Sharpe of Epsom and Lord Hunt of Wirral in some of the amendments in this group, and my noble friends Lady Coffey and Lord Jackson of Peterborough in their opposition to Clause 113, which I must describe—much as the noble Lord, Lord Carter of Haslemere, did—as quite extraordinary. It is extraordinary because it grants the Secretary of State exceptional powers—namely, the ability to initiate proceedings before an employment tribunal on behalf of a worker without that worker’s consent or even their knowledge. How can this be right? If a worker has chosen not to pursue a claim, whatever their reasons, how can the state reasonably step in and proceed in their name? Unlike my noble friend Lord Murray of Blidworth, I am no lawyer, but I think this demonstrates the need for Amendment 271D.
Consent is a fundamental principle in so many aspects of law and life, yet here it appears to be disregarded. Amendment 272ZZA at the very least seeks to restore some balance by ensuring that the worker in question is given the opportunity to consent or decline. If consent is not given, the matter should go no further: all bets should be off. I find it puzzling that those on the Benches opposite consider it appropriate to have the ability to disclose personal data, whether legally privileged or not, without the written consent of the individual concerned. It is not typically something permitted in other circumstances. It is not fair, and we are about fairness in this House.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I begin by saying what a pleasure it was to be chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, who is celebrating 55 years of public service today. I congratulate her.
Back to the not-so-inspiring business: I am responding to the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, on his amendments relating to civil proceedings and the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, and the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, for giving notice of their opposition to Clause 113. The Government are committed to ensuring a fair playing field for all employees and businesses. This includes enabling the fair work agency to challenge breaches of employment rights and labour abuse where individuals may not be able to pursue this for themselves or where these cases are not suitable for other enforcement routes.
I am sorry to hear that some noble Lords cannot envisage the circumstance in which these powers might be necessary but, as we rehearsed on a previous group of amendments, many vulnerable workers, especially migrant workers, are reluctant or unable to bring their case to the tribunal to enforce their employment rights. Rogue employers exploit this, break employment law and get away with it. That is unfair for the majority of businesses that do right by their staff. It is unfair for the vulnerable workers involved in being denied their rights. It is unfair for British workers who are denied work opportunities due to illegal practices undercutting them. That is why, in the plan to make work pay, which was a manifesto commitment, we set out that the fair work agency will have the power to bring civil proceedings to uphold employment rights. This is why the Secretary of State will have the power to bring proceedings in place of a worker. It will mean that all employers are held to the same standards.
I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, and the noble Lord, Lord Carter, that these provisions on civil proceedings are modelled on the Equality Act 2006, which allows the Equality and Human Rights Commission to institute legal proceedings that are connected to the commission’s functions. This includes bringing proceedings for breaches of the European Convention on Human Rights and assisting individuals who are party to proceedings related to the Equality Act 2010.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
If the noble Lord lets me finish this point, I may answer his question.
The Employment and Human Rights Commission does not need consent for this and has issued proceedings in its own name before. When acting as an intervenor, the EHRC has also previously received court approval to take over conduct of an appeal on behalf of an appellant when the appellant decided to withdraw from the legal proceedings. This was done with the consent of the Supreme Court in the case of MS (Pakistan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department. I give way.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I am grateful to the Minister for reaching the end of that paragraph. She agrees that the power for the EHRC to intervene in proceedings is not a power to take over and institute proceedings if people do not want to. Instead, it is a power to intervene and carry on proceedings in the event that somebody wants to withdraw. That is not based on any statutory provision; this is still extremely novel. I am sure that the Minister will agree that there is no statutory precedent for the kind of power that the Government want to take in Clause 113.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
As the noble Lord has more legal expertise than me, I am happy to write to him on that point because it is an important point that we need to clarify. Of course, these are relatively new powers that we are taking on board, and we are taking them for very good reasons. I am sorry that noble Lords opposite do not see the case for this, because, certainly, an awful lot of workers are being exploited out there. At the moment, they do not have the power to speak for themselves in the way that many others who are better informed can do.
While I respect the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, behind some of his amendments, I must state they are unnecessary. Some of the provisions of the amendments are already provided for, either within the existing drafting of the specific clauses or in other clauses of the Bill. Regarding Amendments 271D, 272ZZA and 272ZZD, as I mentioned on Monday, normal practice would be for the Secretary of State to bring proceedings with a worker’s consent and involvement. However, in the worst cases of serious exploitation and intimidation, workers may fear the repercussions that they may face from their employer should they be de-anonymised. By allowing the Secretary of State to take a case forward without consent, it would be harder for employers to attribute blame to individual employees. Therefore, limiting this power in the way that these amendments seek to do could prevent the Secretary of State pursuing serious breaches in some of the most egregious cases.
Amendment 272ZZB is an unnecessary amendment. Legally privileged material and confidential information is already protected under the Data Protection Act, as well as under usual legal rules and principles that apply to proceedings.
On Amendment 272ZZC, normal public law principles already take account of all considerations referenced in this amendment, including the best interests of a worker. This is therefore another unnecessary amendment.
Amendment 272ZZE is yet another unnecessary amendment. Clause 113(6) does not provide a blanket exclusion from all liability, and it is self-evident that the Secretary of State would be held accountable if they undertook actions that were unlawful. This is a basic principle of the rule of law.
On Amendment 272ZC, it is clearly in the interests of enforcement authorities and all parties that the most effective and proportionate means of enforcement is chosen. The Bill already provides that civil proceedings cannot be initiated where a notice of underpayment has been given. It would be inappropriate to impose hurdles on the fair work agency’s use of its powers; it should be able to decide how best it will use this and its other powers to enforce labour market legislation in each case.
On Amendment 272AA, Clause 92 already provides for the fair work agency to prepare and publish an annual report, which we would expect to cover all of its activities. It is simply not necessary to require individual reports on individual powers.
We strongly resist Amendment 272AB. Ultimately, the business of the next Parliament should be for that Parliament to decide and not for us to dictate now.
Briefly on Amendment 272AC, only officers with appropriate knowledge and training will carry out these powers. Clause 87(6) already clearly provides that a person can exercise the powers of an enforcement officer only to the extent specified in their appointment by the Secretary of State. This amendment would duplicate that existing provision.
To summarise, Clause 113, together with Clauses 114 and 115, delivers a manifesto commitment. It provides a new power that will enable fair work agency enforcement officers to bring proceedings to an employment tribunal in place of a worker. It is designed to address situations where a worker has a legal right to bring a claim but, for various reasons, including fear of retaliation, lack of awareness or language barriers, they are unable to do so. This clause enhances the state’s ability to support the most vulnerable workers in accessing justice and will be particularly valuable in cases involving labour exploitation or breaches of minimum employment standards.
It will bring broader benefits. The fair work agency will be able to bring multiple complaints simultaneously. This will save time and costs for workers and employers alike. It has the potential to reduce the burden on the employment tribunal system over current practices, where most claims are brought individually.
Importantly, the clause is tightly drawn. The fair work agency’s tribunal proceedings will follow the same process as if they were brought by workers. This includes a requirement for ACAS consultation. Additionally, the power cannot be used in cases where a notice of underpayment has been issued under Section 100. This ensures that there is no duplication of enforcement mechanisms. Both the Secretary of State and the worker can appeal a decision, recognising that both parties have a legitimate interest in the outcome. The clause includes safeguards to ensure that the Secretary of State cannot be held liable to the worker for how they exercise this power, reflecting the discretionary and strategic nature of enforcement.
This clause forms a crucial part of the fair work agency’s toolkit, enhances the effectiveness of labour market enforcement and delivers a manifesto commitment upon which Members in the other place were elected. It should stand part of the Bill.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
I am listening very carefully to the Minister, and she did not address either of my specific points. Given that she is saying that this rather strange clause is to defend the interests of new migrants and black and minority-ethnic folk, many of whom work in agriculture, particularly in the east of England and other parts of the UK, why is there a carve-out for agricultural workers? The Minister did not answer my question on why that happened. Secondly, can I press her on my specific point on why de facto unemployed people fall under the purview of subsection (7) of this clause, allowing the Secretary of State to insert state apparatus into their litigation, when they are not even in gainful employment?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord. My apologies; I should have answered both of those questions. On the issue of agricultural workers, I do not know the answer, so I will write to the noble Lord. On his question about why subsection (7) covers people who are not yet employed, the clause was worded in that way to capture whistleblowers and was amended to widen it to include zero-hours contract workers. I hope that answers the noble Lord’s questions.
Baroness Verma (Con)
I am slightly confused. This seems to be quite a heavy-handed way of capturing workers who may have difficulties understanding their rights. Instead of being so heavy-handed about the whole approach and making it look like a two-tier system is being created, in which migrant workers in particular are focused on, maybe we can look at how we can inform both employers and employees about their rights, without taking such an approach. The people we are trying to protect will most definitely not be protected by this.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
Although I did talk about migrant workers as an example, this is meant to capture all vulnerable workers and all workers who are exposed to unfair practices or intimidation—which happens rather more than noble Lords opposite like to acknowledge.
In conclusion, the civil proceedings powers within the Bill align with our manifesto commitment—
Baroness Coffey (Con)
The Minister explained subsection (7)(a)(i) of this clause with regards to zero-hours contracts. In subsection (7)(a)(ii), I am struggling to understand how an individual
“seeking to be employed by a person as a worker”
could be a whistleblower. I would be grateful to understand that better, but I am happy for the Minister to write.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
On that point of clarification, I will write to the noble Baroness.
In conclusion, the civil proceedings powers within the Bill align with our manifesto commitment to strengthen enforcement and improve outcomes for workers through a fairer, more accessible system. We need to let the fair work agency operate with the tools it needs, guided by the statute but not constricted by inflexible restrictions or ministerial bottlenecks. I therefore ask the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, to withdraw Amendment 271D.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply. She will not be surprised to know that I am afraid I did not buy any of those arguments.
I am extremely grateful to my noble friends Lady Coffey, Lady Lawlor, Lord Jackson, Lord Ashcombe and Lady Verma for their interventions; they all made extremely good points. I will return to the points raised by the noble Lords, Lord Carter of Haslemere and Lord Murray of Blidworth, in a second.
We have just heard this clause described variously as “beyond belief”, “especially bonkers”, “an utter mess”, “quite extraordinary” and “perverse and unheard of”. Do you know what? It is all of those things. This has been an extraordinary debate, and so many interesting points have been made that it is hard to sum up. However, there is one point that was brought to my attention by the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, who was sitting next to me at the time. He pointed out that this clause might be in contravention of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights: the right to respect for private and family life. This needs to be explored, and it is important for the Minister to take account of, because, under Section 19(1)(a) of the Human Rights Act 1998, she has to sign on the front of this Bill that it is compatible with the rights under that convention.
I will read the relevant article, so it is on the record:
“Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence … There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others”.
I do not expect the Minister to answer this now, but I would be very grateful if she could at least allude to the legal advice that she was given before she signed the Bill to confirm that it did not contravene Article 8.
I appreciate that government legal advice is rarely published, but, having had some experience of government lawyers and their risk-averse nature, I would be very surprised if they had considered this in its entirety. I would be grateful if the Minister would come back to that issue, perhaps in the letter to my noble friend Lord Murray of Blidworth. This is clearly one of the subjects to which we will have to return, because, as both the noble Lord, Lord Carter, and my noble friend Lord Murray have explained, this is extraordinary and positively Kafkaesque.
I will leave the last words to my noble friend Lord Murray of Blidworth, who pointed out that we could end up in a state where we have litigation about litigation on behalf of someone who does not want to litigate. That is frankly absurd. For now, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Before I sit down, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, on her 55 years of public service. I believe that she was first elected on 18 June 1970 to represent Merton and Morden—many congratulations.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
That is most kind, but we must not be diverted from the business in hand. Is it your Lordships’ pleasure that this amendment be withdrawn?
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the definition of “worker” being inserted into Part 5 by my amendment of clause 148 at page 147, line 9.
Baroness Coffey
“(1A) This section only applies to an individual, not a trade union or a person acting on behalf of a trading union, seeking to take action against an employer.”
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, in moving my Amendment 272BA, I will speak also to Amendments 272D to 272L and to oppose Clause 114 standing part of the Bill. With Amendments 272J to 272L, I will consider parts of Clause 115.
I have looked at the Labour Party’s manifesto plan, Make Work Pay. In a previous debate, we talked about enforcement, but no reference was made to this being done without the consent of the worker involved. The manifesto is silent on providing funds, so I thought it was worth debating why we are having this, who it will go to and what amount of money we are considering. Consequently, I have proposed a number of amendments. They were actually tabled before we had the debate on Monday in which covered elements of this. At that time, I noted the response of the Minister, who said that the word “person” used in this legislation—I am not a litigator but a legislator, and I continue to learn about some of these matters—could also include an employer, which I also somewhat address in aspects of some of these amendments.
One of my questions is: who will this benefit? My reason for putting forward Amendment 272BA is to try to make it explicit that we are not talking about money going off to a trade union, which might provide legal advice or legal assistance. When we discussed it the other day, we never got to the bottom of what “any other … assistance” may be. I appreciate that that might be a catch-all, but it would be helpful to get some examples of what Clause 114(2)(c) would cover.
When we get into this—I appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord Fox, has tabled an amendment about legal aid in a later group—it is important to ask: where is this really going? The EHRC has some similar powers to finance proceedings. When I asked the EHRC to set out the amount of money, it said that, as of last month, there were four live cases and that, since April 2020—five years ago—it had spent £1.2 million on this sort of provision. Recognising that the EHRC can already provide assistance on aspects of discrimination and the like, I wanted to try to explore, in this clause stand part debate, what the Government were signing themselves up to and, as I pointed out, to whom it would go.
Amendment 272D is intended to be a probing amendment to examine how much an individual could claim—whether for advice or for representation—and to consider how often people might be turning to the fund that the Government seek to put forward. Should we cap that? How many times can somebody go to get basically free advice? I do not know who would even provide it. We could well consider that it should be provided by only the government legal service, under the auspices of the Attorney-General. I cannot imagine that that is what the Government are thinking, but it would be useful to understand who they think will deliver this and how.
Part of the role of the single enforcement body was supposed to be a place for anyone to go to get advice for free. So I am trying to understand what further is in this. By the way, the Government’s intention— I think it is in their manifesto and other papers they have developed—is that employers can go to the new fair work agency to get advice on how this all works and what they should do as employers. So I am interested to understand where else this could be.
Turning to Amendment 272E, I am conscious that—as was rightly pointed out to me a few weeks ago by, I think, the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady of Upper Holloway—Clause 114(2) says “may provide”, rather than “must”, so it will not become a right to get this money. But it would be fair for statutory guidance to be developed and published—ideally, as quickly as possible—on the result of this subsection coming into effect. Candidly, if people anticipate that extra funding will be available, it is important that they understand what expectation they should genuinely have.
In Amendment 272F, I am trying to address the situation that just came up in the debate on Clause 113. I find it hard to understand how we can be in a situation where, having taken over a case, it would go against the sense of natural justice that the worker themselves would then not be able to make representations to the tribunal, or indeed to other courts, to help consider why it has been taken over, when they did not want such action to do. I felt that it was important that, frankly, the Government should pay for that. For me, that felt like a sense of natural justice in that regard.
Amendment 272G concerns something I have raised before, but I wanted to specifically address it. I find it astonishing that the Government are opening up this fund for people to get advice—which, I assume, they cannot get from the fair work agency—but they will not be allowed to use it towards mediation. The answer given in previous debates was, “Well, people can just go to ACAS”. That is right, they can—and ACAS is free. However, while it is free for early conciliation, it is not free for more advanced mediation.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, in this group of amendments, I have the stand part notice for Clause 114. I support the several amendments in this group in the name of my noble friend Lady Coffey, many of which are probing amendments to try to find out more about this clause. I could find no clear rationale that the Government have given for Clause 114, in the sense of providing a rationale for the state—that is to say, taxpayers—funding the legal and other costs of civil proceedings in employment matters cases.
The scope of Clause 114 is huge. Not only does it cover the whole of employment, trade union and labour relations law, but the intended recipients seem to be unlimited. My noble friend Lady Coffey referred to the use of “person”. Subsection (1) refers to
“a person who is or may become party to civil proceedings”,
which covers a huge number of persons, and there does not seem to be any clear target for this clause. Of course, as we have heard, the funding can also extend to litigation involving non-employment matters, which seems extraordinary to me. All of this adds up to Clause 114 being very wide.
We already have in the UK a system for providing support for people in legal cases. It is called legal aid. It costs the taxpayer around £2 billion a year, nearly half of which is for civil litigation. That already has rules for employment tribunal support, where there is no funding for legal representation but there may be funding for advice on preparing cases. Successive Governments have had to make hard choices about what will be funded by legal aid in order to keep the cost of it within reasonable bounds for taxpayers as a whole but, now, with Clause 114, the business department is going to undermine that completely by taking powers to fund legal cases completely outside of the structures and limits that have been created for the legal aid system. The Government are again showing that they are, at heart, a two-tier Government, with unlimited legal aid by the backdoor for some favoured employment cases but tough eligibility criteria and financial limits for everybody else.
I now turn to the costings, which my noble friend Lady Coffey mentioned briefly. I could not find out what Clause 114 is going to cost. There is a limited amount of information in the paperwork that surrounds the Bill on the estimate of the overall costs for the fair work agency but, as far as I could find, there is no reference to how much the implementation of this proposal to fund legal costs will be within that totality. So my question to the Minister is really quite simple: what are the Government’s estimates of what Clause 114 will cost?
Going beyond that into the underlying assumptions, how many cases do the Government expect to bankroll every year? Will the Government support only cases with a better than average chance of success, or will they also fund no-hopers? What is the average cost of the cases that they think they will fund using the powers under Clause 114? What are their assumptions about cost recovery? I would have expected to find all these things analysed in detail somewhere in the papers, but I could not find anything. I hope the Minister will be able to answer these specific questions, and maybe also explain the lack of analysis in the documentation that the Government have prepared surrounding the Bill so far.
As I said earlier, I support my noble friend Lady Coffey’s amendments in this group, and I will listen carefully to what the Minister says in response to those amendments and, indeed, on Clause 114 standing part overall. My view is that, in the absence of good justification and a good understanding of the costs of Clause 114, it should not stand part of the Bill.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, I commend my noble friends’ excellent speeches on this clause. I press the Minister on what the Explanatory Notes say about subsection (4), because we have talked about the concept of persons and what that actually means. My noble friend spoke earlier about ministerial powers and the lack of information on costs, which should have been in a proper and more detailed impact assessment but is not. It is not in any supporting material, including the Labour Party manifesto for the general election. Presumably, the Minister will say that such information about the form and function of the clause will be developed in secondary legislation.
The sentence in the Explanatory Notes about subsection (4) is extraordinary, because it touches on what is potentially ultra vires and will certainly, I think, be subject to litigation or judicial review. Given that this is an Employment Rights Bill about labour relations and employment, it says:
“Subsection (4) makes provision for situations where proceedings relate partly to employment or trade union law … and partly to other matters”.
I just do not understand what those other matters can be. This is an employment law Bill. It is about labour relations and the relationships between employers, trade unions and a workforce. What other matters are within the bailiwick of Clause 114? I think we need to press the Minister on that, because we are being invited to give a blank cheque with taxpayers’ money to something that is very opaque, we do not understand, is not costed and is not detailed. On that basis, the Minister should address those specific issues.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friends Lady Coffey, Lady Noakes and Lord Jackson of Peterborough for some penetrating questions about the power to provide legal assistance as set out in Clause 114. First, I would like the Minister to share with us what discussions have been held with the Lord Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Justice. A number of the points made by my noble friends relate to the fact that legal aid is already available in certain circumstances, so what is this all about and, as my noble friend Lady Coffey asked, who is this going to benefit?
Lord Katz (Lab)
I do not want to disappoint the noble Lord, but I am afraid he is stuck with me again. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, for tabling amendments on legal assistance and the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, for notifying us of her opposition to Clause 114 standing part of the Bill.
I will start with Amendment 272BA. To be fair, the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, and others indicated that this has overlapped with not only previous discussions today but discussions of groups on previous days in Committee. As my noble friend Lady Jones said on Monday, the drafting of Clause 114
“was carefully thought through and is deliberately broad and inclusive”.—[Official Report, 16/6/25; col. 1883.]
It is only fair that it covers not just employees but employers and trade unions. To answer a specific question from the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, about what other assistance could be provided, this could include help in understanding procedural requirements, preparing documents or accessing expert input. It is designed to be flexible and responsive to individual needs. Given this, we cannot support Amendment 272BA.
Amendment 272D would restrict the amount of support that could be offered to any individual through this power. It is not a reasonable measure. I understand that it is a probing amendment, as the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, said, but the small amount proposed in the amendment would leave the power meaningless. As we have discussed, this would be, although it is not intended as such, tantamount to a wrecking proposal, because it is such a small amount. Obviously, as we have discussed, this is a manifesto commitment. The fair work agency should be able to decide how much support it can offer, without being constrained to random financial limits for no good reason.
Amendment 272E would create an additional process before the power can be used. Part 5 of the Bill already calls for the fair work agency to publish an annual strategy, as we discussed on an earlier group. Requiring yet another administrative document in this way would be burdensome and unnecessary, and I think we share across the Committee a desire to reduce bloated bureaucracy—a phrase that has already been used this afternoon.
Turning to Amendment 272F, the powers under Clause 114 will operate in tandem with those in Clause 113, but workers will not always want to be separately represented in proceedings brought by the fair work agency. They can be represented, but they do not have to be. Therefore, we cannot support this amendment.
Amendment 272G would mean that the fair work agency would duplicate ACAS’s existing responsibilities regarding dispute resolution. This power is not intended to be a replacement or a duplication of existing support. We cannot support this amendment, as it would complicate the enforcement landscape when we are trying with this Bill to simplify it.
Amendment 272H would limit the scope of this power. It would create situations where legal assistance would have to cease, even if proceedings continued, leading to unfairness. It could lead to people being unable to continue their cases, which could cover other matters such as discrimination, because support could no longer be offered. The fair work agency should be able to decide what is appropriate and fair in each case.
Amendment 272I would put an unnecessary burden on the Secretary of State to have insurance in place before being able to provide advice on a settlement agreement. To be fair to the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, she sort of indicated uncertainty around this. To be clear, this amendment wholly contradicts established government practice. I refer her to paragraph 4.4 of Managing Public Money, which sets out that the Government should generally not take out commercial insurance and it is not good value for money.
To summarise on Clause 114, the legal system can be intimidating, particularly for vulnerable workers or those from marginalised backgrounds. To repeat what my noble friend Lady Jones said in the previous group, many vulnerable workers are reluctant or unable to bring their cases to tribunal to enforce their employment rights, and this has serious consequences. Rogue employers exploit this, breaking employment law, and get away with it. For instance, Citizens Advice suggests that high-paid workers are more likely to file a case with an employment tribunal than lower-paid individuals, despite the latter being more likely to have their rights infringed. As I said, this lets rogue employers off the hook, and that is unfair for the vast majority of businesses, which we all know do the right thing by their staff and want to. It is unfair for the vulnerable workers involved—to state the obvious—who are being denied their rights, and it is unfair for the rest of the workforce, who are denied work opportunities due to illegal practices undercutting them.
As was said in the last group, that is why, in the plan to make work pay—again, a manifesto commitment—we set out that the fair work agency will have powers to bring civil proceedings to uphold employment rights. The Bill will give the fair work agency the power to bring civil proceedings in the employment tribunal to uphold rights. This is a critical power, particularly for situations where a worker feels unable to bring proceedings themselves. But there are occasions where a person is able to bring proceedings in the tribunal or another court but needs assistance, or where the case has wider ramifications and the person concerned could benefit from the fair work agency’s expertise.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, can the Minister remind us to what extent there has been consultation with the Secretary of State for Justice? Has the Lord Chancellor been involved in putting together this scheme, which is going to sit alongside legal aid, for which she is responsible? It would be really helpful if the Minister could make sure that the Government is joined-up in putting forward what is, in a way, as my noble friends have pointed out, quite a blank cheque, which has not properly been costed. Can he put us right on all this, please?
Lord Katz (Lab)
I am more than happy to. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, anticipates the comments that I was just about to come to—but we can address the point now. The noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, focused on this as well. This is not expanding legal aid. The power is intended to give the fair work agency a discretion to provide support in employment-related cases. It is not an alternative to legal aid and it will be used in specific cases. The Government will set out how and when the fair work agency will exercise its power in due course and will discuss this with a range of stakeholders. I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, we have regular conversations with the Ministry of Justice, including on the Bill’s implementation.
I return to what I was saying about the importance of ensuring that the power of legal advice is appropriately bounded. It cannot be used to fund dispute resolution facilities delivered through other routes. Importantly, the clause protects the integrity of the courts and tribunals by confirming that nothing in the clause overrides existing restrictions on representation imposed by legislation or judicial practice. This clause complements the fair work agency’s wider role in promoting access to justice and fair treatment in the workplace. It provides a vital lever for supporting individuals who might otherwise face legal barriers alone or for ensuring compliance with relevant law, and it delivers our manifesto commitment on which Members in the other House were elected.
The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, asked about the costs. These will be set out in due course and will be discussed with a range of stakeholders, particularly employers, trade unions and employees.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
That was a rather surprising statement. Is the Minister saying that these costs are not included in the estimates that have already been given for the costs of the fair work agency, which were included in the various documents surrounding the Bill? He has just implied that it will be done later. It is rather extraordinary to produce a clause in a Bill without having a costing for it. Can I press him again on what the costs are, whether they are included in the existing estimates of costs for the fair work agency and, if not, when they will actually be made clear?
Lord Katz (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for that intervention. The costs are not factored in. As I said, they will be set out in due course, following discussions with a range of stakeholders. I hope that this has persuaded the noble Baroness that Clause 114 should stand part of the Bill.
I turn finally to the amendments on recovering costs for legal assistance. Regarding Amendment 272J, if an individual has received free legal assistance from the fair work agency, any cost award should be returned to where that assistance came from. To be clear, a cost award is separate from any other awards a tribunal may make in favour of an individual. This amendment will prevent the fair work agency recovering costs and could lead to situations whereby individuals receiving legal assistance could receive money for costs they had not incurred. I hope noble Lords will agree that this is completely unreasonable.
On Amendments 272K and 272L, removing the ability to provide for the appointment and expenditure incurred is unreasonable and could lead to uncertainty about what expenditure of the Secretary of State is recoverable. In addition, while Amendment 272L looks consequential to Amendment 272K, it would actually remove the requirement for regulations under Clause 115(5) to be subject to any parliamentary procedure. I am sure that this is not the intention of the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey. Needless to say, we oppose removing requirements of parliamentary procedures in this way.
In response to noble Baroness’s question on why the regulation for Clause 115(5) is negative, this follows precedent from the Equality Act. I indeed note and point out to the noble Baroness that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee has raised no concerns with the Government about this power.
The legal assistance powers within the Bill are necessary to deliver our manifesto commitment to strengthen enforcement and improve outcomes for workers through a fairer, more acceptable system. These amendments would hamper that goal and might even unintentionally limit access to justice. The current drafting has been carefully considered. It is both deliberate and necessary. I therefore ask the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, to withdraw Amendment 272BA.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
In the case of the noble Lord’s response to this group of amendments, and the response to the previous group of amendments by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, the Ministers have claimed that these clauses are covered by manifesto commitments. The Labour Party manifesto is not something I carry around in my handbag, but, from memory, I do not think it covered these particular clauses. What makes me so sure that this is the case is that these two clauses were introduced in the other place on Report. They were not part of the original Bill that was introduced. That means, inter alia, that they received no substantive examination or discussion whatever in the other place. More importantly, this suggests to me that they were not a part of the original package that can claim manifesto support. I think we will want to examine that extremely carefully. If the Minister has a response now, with a chapter and verse in the manifesto, I will be happy to look it up afterwards, but I think we find unconvincing this part of the Government’s defence of these clauses.
Lord Katz (Lab)
I do not have chapter and verse but a page number. Noble Lords can find it on page 16 of the Labour’s Plan to Make Work Pay document, which was part of our manifesto.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
I must press the Minister. I have looked at the Labour’s Plan to Make Work Pay document and it does not make reference to de facto legal aid. It says:
“We will also consider measures to provide accessible and authoritative information for people on their employment status and what rights they are owed, tackling instances where some employers can use complexity to avoid legal obligations”.
That is very different to what the Minister has outlined to your Lordships’ House.
Lord Katz (Lab)
I do not want to extend the debate too much or do too much quoting across the Dispatch Box but, to counter that, Labour’s Plan to Make Work Pay talks about establishing a single enforcement body that
“will have the powers it needs to undertake targeted and proactive enforcement work and bring civil proceedings upholding employment rights”.
To a fair-minded person that is pretty clear.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, this has been an exceptionally revealing debate on this group of amendments and the clause more broadly. I somewhat agree with the Minister on creating the ability to initiate legal proceedings—which, by the way, continues some of the work already being done by the existing authorities—but the Bill does not refer to being able to do that without the consent of the worker, which will surprise a lot of people, and absolutely does not make reference to the level of financing, which we have just discussed in relation to Clause 114.
Another point I noted is that, on Monday, the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, referred to “employees and employers”, but the Minister at the Dispatch Box today has been very clear that this is also about funding trade unions. As I said, this has been a revealing debate and one that, after I discuss it with my Front Bench, we may explore further on Report. With that, however, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Goddard of Stockport
“Legal aid in employment tribunals(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, lay before Parliament a report on the options for expanding the right to legal aid in employment tribunals.(2) The report under subsection (1) must consider—(a) the impact of employers’ compliance with measures contained within this Act, and(b) the impact on employees’ personal finances.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to report on the impact of expanding the right to legal aid in employment tribunals within 6 months of the passage of this Act.
Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)
My Lords, for the sake of clarity, we on these Benches fully support the Government on expanding employment legal aid beyond discrimination cases to improve fairness and efficiency and also on the importance of maintaining the power of employment tribunals to ensure summary judgment, speed up proceedings and reduce unnecessary hearings. However, we have concerns over the existing backlog of employment tribunals, which we have debated several times on previous evenings, which is causing delays of up to two years and making the system very difficult to navigate.
I strongly support Amendment 273, tabled by my noble friend Lord Fox, which would
“require the Secretary of State to report on the impact of expanding the right to legal aid in employment tribunals within 6 months of the passage of this Act”.
This modest but important proposal recognises the reality facing too many claimants today. Legal aid in employment cases is currently restricted almost entirely to discrimination claims, leaving workers pursuing other serious issues such as unlawful deduction of wages, unfair dismissal and whistleblowing without any publicly funded legal support. These are not simple matters.
For claimants without legal training, navigating the tribunal process, understanding evidential requirements and articulating legal arguments can be incredibly challenging. This lack of access undermines both fairness and efficiency. If claims are poorly presented or inadequately understood, they are less likely to succeed and more likely to absorb more of the tribunal’s valuable time. Given the current backlog of employment tribunal cases in which claimants often wait for more than two years before their cases are heard, the process can feel effectively impossible to engage with. This amendment would, based on evidence, begin to build the case for change. I hope that the Minister will look on it constructively.
I also welcome my noble friend Lord Fox’s Amendment 323, which seeks to ensure that employment tribunals continue to have the power to make summary judgments in cases brought under this Act. Tribunals already use this mechanism to resolve matters early when one party has no reasonable prospect of success. It is an essential part of an efficient system that avoids unnecessary hearings and reduces pressure on the tribunal’s time. With the Bill creating new routes to claim and potentially increasing the volume of cases, the continued ability to make summary judgments in those procedures will be more important than ever. It provides certainty to respondents facing unmeritorious claims and reassures claimants that their cases will be dealt with proportionally and swiftly when they are clearly valid. I will be grateful if the Minister can confirm that this power will remain fully enforced under the new regimes and that guidance will reflect the continuing relevance of these points.
Lastly, I note that Amendments 279GA, 330ZA, 330D and 334A by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, are concerned with ensuring that the employment tribunal system has the capacity and resourcing to absorb these responsibilities. Those are legitimate concerns and considerations that the Minister should address. Tribunal delays are already a source of frustration for many users, and it is right that we consider how implementation will interact with the wider system. I urge caution, however, against any suggestions that reform must wait until conditions are perfect. A parallel process is needed, with sensible, targeted reform on one hand and sustained investment in the system on the other. I beg to move.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, my Amendment 279GZA seeks to understand what “and, in certain cases” means in Clause 149. I would be grateful for an explanation. I looked extensively in Schedule 12 and saw only the insertion of a regulation to do with Northern Ireland. I would be grateful to understand that.
I am happy to support Amendment 323, which seems a sensible way of trying to ensure that justice is delivered effectively and people can still have fair access while also making sure that we make the best use of employment tribunal judges’ time.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Coffey for introducing her amendment and also to the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, for speaking to the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Fox, the first of which proposes a report on the expansion of legal aid in employment tribunals. It would not itself change entitlement but seeks to prompt a structured exploration of the options. Legal aid is, of course, a complex and often contested area, and this amendment simply calls for a government-led review that considers both employer compliance and the financial position of workers. It is reasonable to assess whether the current system adequately supports access to justice in employment disputes.
I have a question for the noble Lord, Lord Fox. I will discuss with him outside but, just to get it on the record, I am curious to know whether the “report on the options”, which he describes in subsection (1) of the proposed new clause in his lead amendment, extends to small and medium-sized employers as well. I am interested to know whether he thinks they should be included within that survey based on the fact that many of them will also suffer some financial hardship.
On the proposed new clause on summary judgments in employment tribunals in Amendment 323 by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, such a power could offer a means of reducing the burden on tribunals, improving efficiency and focusing resources on cases where the issues genuinely require full examination. In short, both amendments are interesting and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I will first speak to Amendment 279H in my name, which increases the time limit for making a claim to an employment tribunal in relation to paid time off for employee representatives in consultations on certain changes to occupational and personal pension schemes from three months to six months. This would amend the employment tribunal time limit that is set out in the Schedule to the Occupational and Personal Pension Schemes (Consultation by Employers and Miscellaneous Amendment) Regulations 2006.
This amendment is essential to ensure consistency with the time limits for the majority of tribunal claims which are being amended to six months throughout the Bill. This is a technical amendment which brings the provisions on consultations on pension schemes in line with the other clauses in the Bill regarding the increase in time limits which have been set out.
Increasing tribunal time limits will provide employees and employers more time to resolve disputes internally or through the conciliation process as well as more time for employees to consider the merits of bringing a claim to an employment tribunal. Judges will continue to have the discretion to hear out-of-time claims on a case-by-case basis.
Amendment 279GZA from the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, seeks to provide that the extension of employment tribunal time limits from three to six months does not apply in respect of industrial tribunals in Northern Ireland. We have worked closely with the Northern Ireland Executive to develop an approach to extending time limits which respects the Northern Ireland Assembly’s competence to legislate on devolved matters. Where time limits are in UK-wide legislation that extends to Northern Ireland and that relates to matters that are reserved, such as the National Minimum Wage Act 1998, this Bill amends the time limits for bringing a claim to the industrial tribunal in Northern Ireland. We will continue to work with the Executive to consider implementation and, if appropriate, these changes may come into force at different dates for Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The Bill does not amend time limits in legislation that extends to Northern Ireland and is transferred—that is, devolved powers.
On Amendments 273 and 323, I understand the motivation of the noble Lord, Lord Fox, in tabling his amendments, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, for speaking to them so ably. In order for the reforms we are making through this Bill to be effective, it is vital that workers can enforce their employment rights. As noble Lords know, tribunals, including employment tribunals, are designed to be informal, accessible and low-cost means of accessing justice. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, that the backlog of tribunal claims at the moment is unacceptable. We are taking steps to address that backlog in conjunction with the Ministry of Justice, and the fair work agency can also play a part in easing that load. We will be able to debate the measures that we are taking further in later groups.
However, I would like to reassure the noble Lord that legal aid is available, subject to means and merits tests, in relation to discrimination and breaches of the Equality Act 2010. Where an issue falls outside the scope of legal aid, funding may still be available through the exceptional case funding scheme. Of course, members of trade unions will receive advice and representation anyway as part of their membership.
Turning to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Fox, on employment tribunal summary judgments, I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, that employment tribunals have a wide range of existing powers to address weak claims or responses, including strike-out and default judgments, to achieve the aims set out in this amendment. The strike-out rule in its framing and application is already similar to that of Rule 24 in the Civil Procedure Rules. It allows employment tribunals to strike out half or all of a claim or response, including where there is no reasonable prospect of success. I therefore ask the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, to withdraw Amendment 273.
Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)
I thank all noble Lords—a small but perfectly formed band on this group—for their contributions to the debate. The contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, was reasonably complimentary on my noble friend Lord Fox’s amendment, and when I speak to my noble friend, I will mention the point about small and medium-sized companies; there is some mileage in that, if we have further discussions. The noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, is fast becoming my buddy again for supporting in essence these amendments—to my certain knowledge, she has never called any of our proposals “bonkers”, so she gets an extra bonus point for that as well.
We support the Minister’s amendment, which brings clarity. For me, it shows an understanding that the Minister gets it; sometimes in these debates on the Floor of this Chamber, such as in the previous debate about litigation and whether it was known about by somebody, some people do not get it and you need to bring it back to the real world. Tribunals are very stressful for people and very complicated, so the simpler and more efficient we can make it, the better. But that does come with a price. I honestly think that, working together, we can deliver this Part with a degree of certainty, because all parties want this to happen. On this occasion, therefore, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment makes a minor drafting change.
“The Security Industry Authority.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would enable information obtained in connection with the exercise of enforcement functions under Part 5 of the Bill, or functions under or by virtue of clause 113 or 114 (powers in relation to civil proceedings), to be disclosed to the Security Industry Authority for the purposes of its functions.
Baroness Hamwee
“Restrictions on disclosure: immigration and nationality purpose(1) Nothing in sections 132 or 133 authorises information to which subsection (2) applies to be used for a purpose within section 40(1) of the UK Borders Act 2007.(2) This section applies to information disclosed to an enforcing authority— (a) regarding a person who has been the subject of labour abuse, for the purpose of that person requesting or receiving support or assistance, or(b) by a person who has been witness to labour abuse, for the purpose of evidence or other assistance in connection with an investigation into or a prosecution or other legal proceedings relating to that abuse.(3) Paragraph 4 of Schedule 2 to the Data Protection Act 2018 shall not apply to personal data to which subsection (2) applies.(4) In section 20 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 after subsection (2B) insert—“(2C) This section does not apply to information to which section (Restrictions on disclosure: immigration and nationality purpose) of the Employment Rights Act 2025 applies.”(5) In this section “labour abuse” includes—(a) a labour market offence,(b) an offence under the Gangmasters (Licensing) Act 2004, and(c) an offence under the Modern Slavery Act 2015,in England, Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland or a suspected or alleged offence.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new secure reporting Clause would prevent information disclosed about a victim or by a witness of labour abuse being used for a purpose within section 40(1) of the UK Borders Act 2007. This aims to help ensure that migrants with insecure status are able to equally benefit from the improvements in employment rights brought by this Bill.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, Amendment 273P is a real-world amendment, to echo my noble friend. I am very conscious that I have a single amendment to this Bill, that others have laboured into what is day 10, I think, and that noble Lords are waiting for the important discussion on the Casey review, so I will try to be almost telegraphic.
This amendment is about a firewall, with the objective of protecting workers who are in great need of protection, so it is squarely within the fair work agency’s client base, if you like. The firewall would restrict the disclosure for use for immigration purposes of information about someone who has suffered or witnessed labour abuse. That may sound counterintuitive: surely these are people about whom all the agencies of the state should have information. In the case of migrant workers, the situation is not so straightforward. It was during the passage of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 that I first heard about the conditions in which some overseas domestic workers existed—I use that term rather than “lived”. Slavery was the right term. A change in the rules was made, but it was minor and quite inadequate. Our law did not and does not protect them and all migrant workers as it should.
Migrant workers, not only overseas domestic workers, are particularly vulnerable to exploitation and abuse, not just because of the consequences if their existence comes to the attention of immigration authorities but because of their fear of the consequences. If you do not know your way around the system, you are on the wrong side of the power balance with an unscrupulous employer who can threaten that you will be detained or deported, or that you will have your children taken away, so you cannot take the risk of reporting abuse and exploitation to anyone in authority.
I understand that that fear is well founded. I am told by the sector that evidence indicates that data is often shared between labour market enforcement agencies, the police and immigration enforcement. They have no obligation to share, but they do. In a way, that is not surprising; they have their own jobs to do. I am not surprised, because I have a long history of opposition to paragraph 4 of Schedule 2 to the Data Protection Act, which allows that sharing—opposition with which someone who is now in a very high place in the current Government became associated and led the troops into the right Lobby.
The current situation has a widespread effect. It fosters mistrust of migrant communities, prevents the police and labour inspectors doing their jobs properly, and drives down conditions for all workers. Secure reporting has been implemented elsewhere, including in the Netherlands and in Spain, and I am pleased to say that Surrey Police has implemented a firewall and the Greater London Authority is undertaking a pilot. Had I more time, I would explain the detail.
Secure reporting mechanisms are badly needed in many sectors, such as agriculture, health, social care, cleaning and domestic work. Your immigration status should not mean that you should not have access to safe, decent working conditions and be protected against abuse and exploitation. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Watson of Invergowrie, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London, who have signed my amendment, as has my noble friend Lord Paddick. In turn, I have signed his two amendments in this group. They are probing amendments. They are hugely important because they seek to ensure that the fair work agency, which is not a legal entity but will be an agency of the Department for Business and Trade created administratively, can carry out all the powers and functions of the GLAA, or that somebody does, because what the GLAA is able to do in this area must not slip out of the legislative framework. I beg to move.
Lord Paddick (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 279ZA and 279ZB, which are in my name and that of my friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. Before I speak to them, I will say how much I support her Amendment 273PA.
My amendments are probing amendments, as the noble Baroness just said, to seek reassurances from the Minister that the fair work agency will have the capacity and focus to maintain the safeguards provided by the Modern Slavery Act that are currently undertaken by the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority—the GLAA. I am grateful to Dame Sara Thornton, a former Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner, and her colleagues at the University of Nottingham and Nottingham Trent University for highlighting these issues.
The GLAA has two important responsibilities under the Modern Slavery Act in this context: it is a first responder referring victims of modern slavery into the national referral mechanism, and it has a duty to notify the Secretary of State for the Home Department in cases where victims of modern slavery refuse to be referred, to ensure that the Home Office has a comprehensive understanding of the nature and extent of modern slavery and those affected by it. My understanding is that, under this Bill, the GLAA will be abolished and its responsibilities will be taken over by the fair work agency, but it is not clear from the legislation whether the GLAA’s first responder status and duty to notify will also be transferred, or whether amendments such as those proposed are necessary to ensure that those important responsibilities and duties are carried out by the fair work agency once the GLAA is abolished.
In addition, the GLAA is focused on protecting vulnerable and exploited workers and on illegal activities such as human trafficking, forced labour and illegal labour provision, whereas the fair work agency will have a much wider remit, including what is currently in HMRC’s national minimum wage unit and the Employment Agency Standards Inspectorate. Staff expertise in modern slavery may be lost, and if the fair work agency is not adequately resourced, the emphasis is likely to be on compliance rather than enforcement. By ensuring that the fair work agency has first responder status and a duty to notify, it is more likely to retain its level of expertise in modern slavery.
Under Section 43 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015, the GLAA has a duty to co-operate with the Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner, enabling the commissioner to access unpublished information that assists in understanding and responding to modern slavery in the UK. Again, it is unclear whether the fair work agency will also have a statutory duty to co-operate with the Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner in the same way as the GLAA, which it is replacing. The second amendment would make that duty explicit.
Can the Minister reassure the Committee that the focus on modern slavery is not being lost or diluted by the absorption of the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority into the fair work agency, either through a lack of resources or a lack of expertise, and that the GLAA’s statutory responsibilities as a first responder, its duty to notify and its duty to co-operate with the Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner will not be lost or diluted as a result of these changes? I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)
My Lords, I support Amendment 273PA in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. I want to give an example of why this amendment is so important. Following a five-month freedom of information battle, the Bureau of Investigative Journalism was finally given access to 19 farm inspection reports produced by the Home Office between 2021 and 2022. Nearly half of the 845 seasonal migrant workers interviewed raised welfare issues including racism, wage theft and threats of being sent home. In nearly two-thirds of farms inspected, workers said that they were not always paid for the hours they spent at work, off sick or travelling, or that they faced pay deductions beyond the maximum allowed by law. Workers who complained were ignored or told they could leave the farm and go back to their home countries. One visa sponsor was recorded saying:
“Look, do you want to go home? Shush then”,
by workers protesting about working conditions.
A report by the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration found that none of the allegations raised during these inspections was ever investigated by the Home Office. Workers understandably concluded that the Home Office was more interested in checking their immigration status than upholding their rights and dignity at work. The only way that the fair work agency can do its job of stamping out exploitation is to guarantee safe reporting. Only then can migrant workers speak out about exploitation at work without fear that it will result in a bad employer silencing them by removing their visa. Ultimately, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, the rights of all working people are only ever as strong as those of the most vulnerable workers. This amendment seeks safe reporting that will benefit workers and decent employers alike. I hope my noble friend the Minister can support it too.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I am conscious of the sentiments expressed here, but it would put the Government and the Secretary of State in a very difficult legal situation if they were to hold information that they were not allowed to pass on to relevant authorities within the rest of government. I hear what the noble Baronesses have said, but I do not know, with all the other rights that are starting to come through this Bill, why anyone should be afeared, especially when they are here on a legitimate visa as in the example to which the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady of Upper Holloway, has just referred. I am conscious of some of the exploitation, but I believe that same sponsor was suspended from sponsoring any more visas. I was not aware of what the Home Office did or did not do, but restricting the Secretary of State from formally upholding the law is quite a worrying trend.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, whom I had the honour to serve when she chaired the Home Affairs Select Committee. She has raised a number of key points, as has the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady of Upper Holloway, and my noble friend Lady Coffey for their speeches as well.
Let me make it absolutely clear: modern slavery remains one of the gravest human rights abuses of our time, and tackling it requires vigilance, clarity and effective enforcement. It is crucial that the agencies tasked with identifying and assisting survivors and with co-operating closely with the Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner have clear mandates and necessary powers to act decisively. While the specific amendments before us seek to clarify the transfer of roles from the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority to the fair work agency, the wider point is this.
Enforcement bodies must be both effective and well co-ordinated to respond to the complexities of modern slavery. Without this, vulnerable individuals risk slipping through the cracks, and the machinery of justice and protection loses its impact. Ensuring transparency about which bodies are responsible for what and guaranteeing that they are properly equipped underpins our broader commitment to eradicating modern slavery. It is not just about legal technicalities but about safeguarding human dignity and upholding fundamental rights.
Lord Katz (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, for tabling Amendments 279ZA and 279ZB and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for her Amendment 273PA. I reflect that on an earlier group we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough—whom I am glad to see now in his place—with his Amendment 273PB, so we have seen two ends of the spectrum in terms of an approach to information sharing and enforcement with modern slavery. One might speculate that perhaps we have, in a Goldilocks way, achieved the right balance with what we are proposing in the Bill. I hope noble Lords agree.
Turning to Amendment 279ZA and 279ZB, I understand that these are probing amendments and the noble Lord is seeking reassurances that the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority’s vital work tackling labour abuse will continue under the fair work agency. Let me provide that reassurance very clearly now. Action on labour abuse and modern slavery will be core and central to the mission of the new fair work agency. I am happy to join in the sentiment set out by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral. Modern slavery is a stain on our society as well as on our economy. We are determined as a Government to continue the work of previous Administrations in stamping it out. My noble friend Lady O’Grady of Upper Holloway set out very starkly for us why this continued exploitation needs our continued focus and vigilance.
All the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority’s functions, including in relation to labour abuse, will transfer to the Secretary of State. Its vital work in this area will continue. We are also committed to ensuring that there is no disruption as we set up the fair work agency. The fair work agency will continue to work in close partnership with Eleanor Lyons, the Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner, as the GLAA does now, to identify and disrupt patterns of exploitation across sectors such as agriculture, construction and adult social care. The Bill lays the foundation to build on that successful working relationship between the commissioner and the GLAA. Clause 132 and Schedule 9 together will enable the two-way sharing of information between them where this will help both fulfil their statutory functions. To address the questions from the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, the fair work agency will still have first responder status and a duty to notify.
Regarding Amendment 273PA in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, I appreciate the noble Baroness’s concerns but there is a need for information to be shared with the Home Office to help protect the public, including vulnerable migrants, from harm. The need for this was recognised by Parliament in the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. Mechanisms already exist to support those of insecure immigration status who may be victims of abuse. The national referral mechanism is in place to ensure that individuals can be properly identified and supported, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick. The NRM is a framework for identifying and referring potential victims of modern slavery and ensuring they receive the appropriate support. The online process allows first responders to submit an NRM referral through a single online form, regardless of their location in the UK or whether the victim is an adult or a child. This provides a structured and compassionate route for potential victims of modern slavery to receive help without fear of immediate immigration consequences.
I am concerned that creating a legislative blocker to information sharing could have unintended consequences and make it harder for the vulnerable individuals concerned to get the help that they need and deserve. My department will continue to work with the Home Office to ensure that we strike the right balance between protecting vulnerable workers and maintaining the integrity of our immigration system. I therefore ask the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, to withdraw Amendment 273PA.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady. I was not surprised that she was able to produce that example; there are lots of examples.
I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, that there is data protection for a good reason. I cannot say that the current situation “breaches” it, as it is not illegal, but it does not observe that data protection.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, is of course right about human rights abuse. He used the important term “safeguarding”. Obviously, I am disappointed with the response from the Minister—I will have a good read of it. I think we might be returning to this issue in the next Home Office Bill that is coming to us—the noble Lord, Lord Hanson, has not reacted.
With regard to my noble friend Lord Paddick’s amendments, I still do not follow quite how the assurances can be implemented. I ask the Minister—though perhaps I shall go back to Dame Sara Thornton and the Rights Lab to be sure that I have not got it wrong—to write to my noble friend and me explaining just how those assurances work their way through in the legislation, because to have just the assurances without a statutory underpinning seems not to be enough.
Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Member's explanatory statement
The effect of this amendment is that enforcement costs recovered by the Secretary of State under clause 140 will be payable into the Consolidated Fund.
Employment Rights Bill
Wednesday 18th June 2025
(9 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Employment Rights Act 2025 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 81-X(a) Amendments for Committee (Supplementary to the Tenth Marshalled List) - (17 Jun 2025)
Baroness Chakrabarti
“Secretary of State: equal pay enforcement function(1) Payroll and other company information required by HMRC for the purposes of taxation may be used by the Secretary of State for the purpose of monitoring compliance with the equal pay duty under the Equality Act 2010. (2) The Secretary of State may conduct more detailed investigations into equal pay compliance on the basis of such monitoring of payroll and other information and an employer must take all reasonable steps to cooperate.(3) In the event that the Secretary of State is of the view that a particular employer is in breach of its duties to provide equal pay for like, equivalent or work of equal value, they may—(a) issue a private notice to the employer, advising of that view and recommending rectifying measures in relation to past discriminatory pay or future pay practices and policy,(b) issue a public notice with the type of advice set out in paragraph (a) above, or(c) seek such relief as would be open to individual employees in the appropriate court or tribunal, on their behalf.(4) A court or tribunal finding in favour of such an application may, in addition to awarding appropriate compensation to victims of discriminatory pay practice, impose a civil penalty, not exceeding 10% of the employer’s annual turnover, as it finds appropriate in all the circumstances.(5) The Secretary of State may employ algorithmic technology including artificial intelligence software in the monitoring of equal pay compliance but must provide any court or tribunal in which relief is sought, with details of any relevant software and evidence of the effective functioning of the computer system employed in the monitoring and investigation of the employer in question.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to probe why equal pay laws have been left to individual employees to enforce by personal litigation, and how an element of state enforcement might assist such employees in achieving their rights to equal pay as provided for under the Employment Act 2010.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, I hope that the principle that sits behind my probing amendment, like the principle of equal pay for equal or equivalent work, is uncontroversial and therefore that I need not detain the Committee for too long—I am a sort of guest of this Committee, when some noble Lords have been really putting the hard yards in for so long. Over the years, I have been incredibly grateful to discuss my concern about equal pay legislation with a number of Members in this Committee and noble Lords in general. I have been particularly grateful to my noble friend Lady Jones of Whitchurch and her officials, who have been very generous with their time and responded to me by agreeing to consider my proposal as part of their preparations for a more specific Bill—not too long in the future—that will cover these issues.
There has been a broad consensus in British politics for some years that there should not be discrimination in pay. We have had the Equal Pay Act since 1970 and successor legislation; I do not believe it has been controversial in party-political terms. That will be 75 years of equal pay legislation in December, and still nowhere near equal pay. My own view is that, right from the beginning, there was a fundamental design fault in the legislation—which was so brilliantly “Made in Dagenham”—because the enforcement mechanism was wanting.
I have said before there is no other area of regulation in this country that we take seriously that we would leave to an individual citizen or consumer to enforce for themselves. Imagine school standards, food standards, nuclear safety standards, health and safety standards, environmental standards and so on if the only enforcement mechanism in the legislation was for the individual citizen to investigate the regulatory breach and then, with or without the support of a trade union or an NGO, to sue for themselves. That has been the position for individual workers under equal pay legislation from the very start, and that is problematic.
My amendment creates the possibility of the state acting as a backstop to stand behind an individual worker, so that she does not have to go through those ridiculous hoops—which will take years of expensive investigation and legislation—to find out what her colleagues are getting paid, not just for the same job but for equivalent work, with all the complications around that, and then, with or without trade union support, sue her employer. Who wants to do that? It is just not a realistic regulatory enforcement mechanism.
In my probing amendment, I suggest that some agency of the state ought to sit behind as a backstop in that investigation and enforcement process. If that were the case, we could help to avoid unnecessary and expensive litigation and the bankruptcy of some local authorities. A state regulator could, for example, investigate a particular employer that had become a concern with a range of regulatory options, including private notices and private conversations, before public conversations and potential enforcement action. Entrenched inequality in pay practice could be nipped in the bud before years transpire and the debts accumulate. I think, having listened to some previous debates on this Bill, that this principle ought to be welcomed on all sides of the Chamber, because it could be good for the business as well as for workers.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, I will speak very briefly on this amendment. It is quite an ingenious and intelligent amendment that is quite superficially attractive. I know the Minister will give it proper and due consideration.
My only problem is that it draws an analogy that does not really stand up to close scrutiny. I defer to the noble Baroness’ greater legal expertise, but when you are employed, there is a personal contract between the employee and the employer that you have freely entered into. It may be that, in the course of that contract, your pay falls behind and there are societal and economic reasons why you are paid different amounts of money. We could be here all week discussing that.
However, it is not the same as the relationship you have with a nuclear power station, where you have the expectation that you will be kept safe from accidents and drastic events; with your local water authority and the expectation that you will not be flooded; or when you go on an aeroplane that, God forbid, that aeroplane will not crash. You do not have that direct contractual relationship with those bodies. In other words, you essentially defer that responsibility legally to other bodies to intercede on your behalf. Therefore, this amendment, in a circuitous way, undermines the very concept of a one-on-one contractual relationship, so I do not think it is analogous.
Having said that, I would not particularly oppose this amendment. It is ingenious and interesting but, with all due respect, I do not think the noble Baroness draws an accurate analogy between the two.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for taking the argument so seriously. Of course, I disagree with him. When you go to eat in a restaurant, go to school or buy a can of baked beans, you may well have a private, contractual relationship with the supplier of that good or service. None the less, the state has decided that it needs to intervene because these power relationships are not all equal and there is a public good in the baked beans being safe to eat, the school delivering a good service, et cetera.
So, from the moment the UK Government and the UK people took the democratic decision that there should be laws to protect school standards, food safety, health and safety and non-discrimination in pay—supported by people from all parties, including in your Lordships’ House—it is not just a matter of private contract between two parties anymore; it is actually a matter of public policy and a wider rule of law point. The non-discrimination point has been non-partisan in this country for some years.
Most equality legislation has, perhaps, been promoted by Labour Governments, but the disability rights Act is the obvious exception. There has been a bipartisan consensus that we should not discriminate against people because of their sex, including in pay. We just have not been delivering on pay as well as we have been delivering in other areas of women’s lives. Therefore, the analogy with school standards, health and safety standards and food standards works. If we want to achieve equal pay, we have to take it seriously in enforcement.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
Just to come back to the noble Baroness, would she therefore extend the provisions of her amendment to all protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, that was a most interesting exchange, and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, and my noble friend Lord Jackson for it. As I have said many times, I am not a lawyer, but as a broader observation, there seems to be a slight philosophical discussion developing this evening between intervention and initiation when it comes to various state interventions in certain areas of law.
I have no doubt at all that the intention behind the noble Baroness’s amendment is to strengthen the enforcement of equal pay laws. As she rightly says, we all support that objective, but we feel that this particular proposal is somewhat flawed, not least because we just do not think it will work. At its core, the amendment risks conflating pay disparity with unlawful discrimination. It assumes that if a pay gap exists, there must therefore be wrongdoing. As the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, acknowledged, it is not that simple, because pay disparities can and often do arise for entirely legitimate reasons, such as differences in experience or qualifications, performance geography or even negotiated terms, to my noble friend Lord Jackson’s point. To suggest that a mere statistical difference is indicative of discrimination is to abandon the nuanced legal framework carefully set out in the Equality Act 2010. While paying a great deal of respect to the arguments—and there is considerable merit in this—we cannot support this amendment.
The Minister of State, Office for Equality and Opportunity (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)
My Lords, like my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti, I am also an occasional visitor to this Committee, but I am very pleased to be here this evening to address her Amendment 275. I thank her for recognising the engagement there has been with the Government and others on this up to this point.
Certainly, the Government want to make very clear that we share the broad aims behind this amendment. Over 50 years after the Equal Pay Act 1970 and 15 years after the Equality Act 2010, it is clear that equal pay has not yet been achieved. That is why the Government have committed to strengthen the equal pay regime and end pay discrimination. I share the concerns of my noble friend in identifying the challenge of enforcement in this case. There is more we can do to ensure that the onus does not fall only on women to find out whether they are receiving the same pay as their male colleagues for equal work and to take enforcement action against employers in the case of a breach.
It is possible to envisage, in relation to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, a system in which you have both the contractual arrangement and the ability to take individual action as is the case now and an enforcement body that supports people doing that in general terms and identifies thematic or consistent ways in which equal pay is being breached. That is why the Government are committed to establishing an equal pay regulatory and enforcement unit with the involvement of trade unions. As part of this, we will carefully consider how we can improve the enforcement of the equal pay scheme.
On 7 April we launched a call for evidence on this issue and wider equality law to ensure that any steps we take will lead to a meaningful strengthening of protections against pay discrimination—an objective that I am sure my noble friend will share. It is important that the Government are able to develop these changes in partnership with business, trade unions and civil society to ensure that the law works for everybody. For that reason, I hope my noble friend will recognise that this will be a more appropriate process through which to address these issues. As she suggests, we will give these areas very close consideration in advance of the equality, race and disability Bill.
In relation to some of the specific points my noble friend raises about the way this might operate, we certainly recognise the benefits that can arise from government departments, including HMRC, working together. HMRC already has a number of joint working and data-sharing arrangements with departments and agencies. The Government are therefore not closed in principle to establishing new data-sharing arrangements with regulatory authorities where this can support their regulatory functions.
My noble friend made a very interesting point about the use of AI. It would not be sufficient simply to compare the pay of different people working within a workplace unless you could also have some analysis of how that applied to the nature of the work and whether that was work of equal value. It may well be that advances in technology, including AI, would be a way in which we could support that monitoring.
Policy is at a very formative stage. My officials will explore a wide range of options to improve the enforcement of equal pay rights. While taking great care to ensure that safeguards are put in place in relation to personal data, particularly where that relates to discrimination and protected characteristics, I suspect the sort of description that she gave of the contribution of AI is very much part of what, across government, we are wanting to see in terms of its use in future.
We are sympathetic to the ultimate objectives of my noble friend’s amendment. I hope she recognises that and the progress that we intend to make on that pledge to deliver stronger enforcement mechanisms and, in particular, an equal pay regulatory and enforcement unit. With that assurance, I hope she feels able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My apologies to the Committee. It has of course been 75 years since the European Convention on Human Rights and 50 years since equal pay legislation—forgive that rather glaring howler. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, in particular, and to my noble friend the Minister, whose officials have been very generous and thoughtful with their time. I look forward to watching their thinking develop on this forthcoming legislation. With that, I beg leave to withdraw.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
Member’s explanatory statement
This is a probing amendment to understand Parliament’s role as an employer itself and the role of over 600 other employers on the site.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I beg to move Amendment 279ZZZA—it somewhat reminds me of ZZ Top. This is, again, a bit of a niche amendment. The reason I say that is because many people—not your Lordships, I am certain—may think that “the Crown” in Clause 144 applies just to the King and the Royal Family. In fact, UK Ministers are of the Crown, and “Crown premises” means any government building and any land that it has, and so on. So the reality of what this clause refers to is much broader. I am sure that Ministers are thrilled that subsection (3) applies to them, so they will never be found criminally liable in that regard.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Finlay of Llandaff) (CB)
Does the noble Baroness wish to move her amendment?
Baroness Coffey (Con)
I thought I started by saying I would move it, but yes, I certainly do want to move it.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Coffey for her amendment. She raises thoughtful and important questions about Parliament’s role as an employer and the complexity of managing the site, which contains over 600 other employers. These are legitimate concerns that deserve proper consideration, not least because Parliament should seek to model best practice in matters of employment and compliance. I think we all agree with that, but does it comply, and should there be a power of entry into these premises to check that we are complying?
My noble friend has made compelling points, and I hope that the Minister will respond with clarity and detail. The concerns that my noble friend outlined are not theoretical; they touch on the credibility of this institution as both lawmaker and employer. I therefore look forward to hearing the Minister’s response and the Government's justification for retaining—or reconsidering—the exemption as drafted.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Information and Technology (Baroness Jones of Whitchurch) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, for her amendment, which raises an important topic: how the enforcement provisions in Part 5 would apply to Parliament and MPs as employers.
Parliament must of course comply with employment legislation. However, the Bill provides that the powers of entry in Part 5 cannot be exercised in relation to
“premises occupied for the purposes of either House of Parliament”;
otherwise, Part 5 would apply to both Houses of Parliament and to MPs as employers. We are in danger of having something similar to—but slightly less than—a deep constitutional crisis, because the approach was agreed on the advice of the House authorities. It is therefore not a government decision; it is a decision made by the House authorities. They are more powerful, as far as I can see, and they can therefore overrule what the Government may think about all this.
This approach is not unusual. It aligns with recent precedents, such as Section 165(1)(a) of the Building Safety Act 2022, to respect parliamentary privilege. In this case, Parliament has to comply with employment legislation. The only issue raised here is about the power of entry not applying to the Parliamentary Estate. The noble Baroness might understand why we want to make sure that the Parliamentary Estate is secure from that challenge, and there is probably another place where she could raise her concerns about employment in the Parliamentary Estate. I have some sympathy with some of the cases that she argued about, but I suggest that she sees the House authorities about them. I therefore ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
I certainly will withdraw it. I did not mean to put the Minister in a difficult place, and her answer was very gracious. My amendment was based on the expectation that this is a royal palace, where things such as licensing laws and health and safety rules do not technically apply. However, that aside, we still need to consider how we act. If nothing else, I hope that this short debate has contributed to reminding ourselves of the obligations that we all share. With that, I beg leave to withdraw.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
“Impact assessment on enforcement of holiday pay compliance(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the day on which this Act is passed, lay before Parliament an impact assessment of the ability of businesses to comply with the enforcement provisions of this Act relating to holiday pay entitlements.(2) The assessment under subsection (1) must include—(a) an evaluation of the practical, administrative and financial implications for employers in meeting the requirements relating to holiday pay,(b) consideration of the capacity of small and medium-sized enterprises to comply with those requirements, and(c) an analysis of any barriers to compliance identified during implementation.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment places a duty on the Secretary of State to assess how effectively businesses—particularly small and medium-sized enterprises—are able to comply with the enforcement mechanisms relating to holiday pay under this Act, and to identify any practical barriers or burdens.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 279ZZB and 305 to 309, which are in my name.
Turning first to Amendment 279ZZB, we firmly support the principle that workers must receive their full entitlement to holiday pay and that those rights must be enforceable. However, we believe that achieving that goal in practice, particularly under the new framework set out in the Bill, requires us to be clear-eyed about the real-world challenges that many businesses face. Holiday pay is one of the most complex areas of employment law and has only become more so following the changes introduced in January of this year.
While some employers regrettably seek to avoid their obligations and should rightly being sanctioned, the reality is that many more are simply trying to navigate a legal framework that is very confusing, technical and still evolving. For small and medium-sized enterprises in particular, compliance is not always a question of willingness but of capacity and clarity. That is why this amendment is both timely and proportionate: it asks only that the Secretary of State undertakes an impact assessment to consider how businesses—particularly SMEs—are coping with the new enforcement provisions. It would require an evaluation of the practical, administrative and financial implications of compliance and establish whether any barriers have emerged during implementation.
Crucially, this is not about weakening enforcement. In fact, it is quite the opposite: it is about ensuring that the fair work agency, which we hope will become a cornerstone of enforcement under this Bill, is properly resourced, modernised and equipped to support both workers and employers in meeting their obligations.
Turning to Amendment 305, this Government have managed to get unemployment to hit its highest since the pandemic—4.6%, according to the most recent ONS figures. This is not a figure that we can shrug off because, of course, behind it are real lives, real households and real businesses that are facing uncertainty. At the same time, the business environment is under considerable strain. Recent changes to national insurance contributions have forced employers to make extremely difficult decisions. The employer rate has risen from 13.8% to 15% and the threshold has been lowered, placing even greater pressure on payrolls.
Research from S&W has shown that around a third of UK business owners are still planning further job cuts as a direct result of these changes. Many have already begun reducing headcount. Others are cutting hours, freezing pay or raising prices—moves that will impact both employees and consumers. So, the question that has to be asked is: how will this legislation affect employment in that context? I should also have mentioned, of course, that May showed a very significant drop in payroll numbers.
It is easy to sit in Westminster and write these rules. It is much harder to understand how the rules will play out in towns and factories, in small businesses, in hospitality, in logistics, and across the many sectors that make up our labour market. That is why this amendment is vital.
I turn to Amendment 307. The British Retail Consortium has warned of a potential “high-street bloodbath”, with one in 10 retail jobs at risk over the next three years, if the Bill’s measures are implemented without careful consideration. Retailers are already grappling with rising costs and squeezed margins, and these additional employment burdens could accelerate job losses in an industry that is vital to our economy. I believe that 180,000 jobs—I forget the precise number—are at risk through to 2028, according to the BRC.
Similarly, the Institute of Directors has published stark findings showing that nearly three-quarters of its members—72%—believe that this legislation will dampen economic growth. Some 49% of business leaders say they plan to reduce hiring; 36% of them intend to outsource more roles; and 52%, more than half, anticipate investing further in automation as a response. These figures paint a clear picture: employers are preparing to scale back on job creation and are likely to replace human roles with technology, in response to rising costs and compliance demands.
The Federation of Small Businesses echoes these concerns. SMEs are the backbone of the UK economy, yet many are telling us that the cumulative impact of new regulations, increased national insurance contributions and rising wage floors are forcing them to reconsider recruitment plans or even reduce existing staff. The FSB has called for a more balanced approach that safeguards workers’ rights without stifling the very businesses that create these jobs, and the growth. Can the Minister name a single business that expects to increase hiring because of the measures in the Bill?
On Amendment 306, what of our youth? At a time when the Government should be prioritising opportunities for young people entering the workforce, the figures are concerning. Between January and March 2025, an estimated 354,000 young people aged 16 to 24 were not in education, employment or training; that is up by 21,000 compared with the same period last year. The Government will no doubt argue that the provisions in this Bill, such as the right to guaranteed hours and changes to statutory sick pay, are designed to protect vulnerable workers, many of whom are young and may be on the margins of employment. However, the reality is more complex. Although well intentioned, these changes will make it more costly and complicated for employers to hire young people, who often lack the experience and are seeking flexible or part-time work to get started in their careers. The burden of additional costs and rigidities can discourage employers from offering entry-level roles or apprenticeships—exactly the opportunities that young people desperately need to develop skills and build work histories.
On Amendments 308 and 309, let me turn to a specific sector in the UK: manufacturing. In the north-west, manufacturing is not only a significant contributor to the regional economy but a vital source of skilled employment and innovation. Many manufacturers there are actively seeking to invest in advanced technologies, including artificial intelligence and automation, to improve productivity and to remain competitive on the global stage. However, these ambitions risk being undermined by the additional costs and compliance burdens imposed by this Bill. Manufacturers are already grappling with the challenges of global tariffs, supply chain disruptions and inflationary pressures; adding further regulatory and financial strain threatens to hollow out this critical sector.
If the increased labour market enforcement and associated costs become too great, there is a real risk that manufacturers will reduce investment, scale back hiring or even relocate operations. The knock-on effects on local economies, particularly in regions depending on manufacturing, would be severe, affecting jobs, skills development and regional growth. While the objectives of the Bill—to protect workers’ rights and promote fair employment practices—are indeed laudable, we must ensure that they do not come at the expense of vital industries and communities. I beg to move.
Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)
My Lords, these amendments collectively highlight the critical importance of supporting small and medium-sized enterprises as they adapt to the changes introduced by the Bill. We have raised this issue repeatedly throughout our deliberations. Night after night, this comes up in other parts of the legislation. It all comes back to small businesses. My biggest postbag at the moment is from small businesses concerned about their future—of no political persuasion at all. This is one of the few chances, in this small debate, where we get to talk about those challenges and the enforcement mechanisms, especially around things such as holidays. As alluded to by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, compliance can be complex and resource-intensive, although I do not fully agree with his complete doom-and-gloom scenario of this part of the Bill.
Recent data shows that SMEs employ around 60% of the UK workforce, yet many report that regulatory burdens can disproportionately strain their limited administrative capacity. The amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, such as Amendment 279ZZB, would place a duty on the Secretary of State to assess how effectively the SMEs can meet those obligations and to identify any practical barriers that they face. It is important to ensure that the Bill’s ambitions do not inadvertently disadvantage the very businesses that form the backbone of our economy. That the Government should have a means of tracking how the Bill’s implementation is impacting on the economy is vital.
I briefly turn to the reviews called for in Amendments 305 and 309, which seek to examine the Bill’s impact on employment, youth opportunities, job creation and regional labour markets, especially in the north-west of England, where my heart still lies and where the Industrial Revolution began. We are trying to embrace AI. We are trying to become ground-breakers again at Manchester University and other establishments. I know that these really affect the regional labour markets, but these are valid concerns, as we are still recovering from the recent economic shocks. The requirement for independent assessment would help us get a clearer picture of this legislation and how it affects businesses and workers. While amendments by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, and others are cautious in their approach, they reflect a genuine concern that implementation must be manageable for SMEs, without stifling growth for employment.
As we move forward, I look forward to hearing the Minister’s view on these amendments and would appreciate some remarks about how the Government intend to physically support SMEs throughout these changes and the unintended consequences. Because that is at the heart of this. You can have and develop the policies, but what businesses are asking me is, “What are you going to do? What can I see that helps me to embrace this legislation and to take people on, train them and employ more people?”—as opposed to the perception that the burden is against that, which is an unintended consequence of trying to do the right thing of giving everybody employment rights, and it is a fine line. We are politicians and we understand it a bit clearer than people in a small company employing 10 or 15 people. They are just concerned that something is going to overwhelm them: something is going to come that they cannot control.
I want the Minister to explain the following to me and members of my group. What practical things will the Government put in place to give those small businesses confidence to embrace this and to work with them to make employees more secure, safer and have better rights? Meanwhile, how can small and medium-sized companies, not the giant multi-million companies, carry on creating jobs, developing the economy and lifting us out of the doom and gloom? We have done it before, and we can do it again. That is the question that needs answering—whether or not the Minister can do so tonight, we need some clarity before Report, or we will be meeting other people. This is important. This is not just me grandstanding; small businesses are saying to me, “Just ask the Government what they are doing and how they can help us”. This is what I am trying, clumsily, to say as we draw to a close this evening: if the Minister can give me some hope that what we are doing and have put in place will help small and medium businesses, I will be satisfied.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Leong) (Lab)
My Lords, here we go again on impact assessment. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, will forgive me if some of my notes repeat what was said in previous debates, but I will answer some of the points here. First, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe, Lord Hunt and Lord Goddard, for their amendments relating to impact assessment.
I refer to the point by the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, about what the Government are doing concerning SMEs. I have just recently been appointed as the spokesperson for the Department for Business and Trade, and my priority is to have regular communications with micro-businesses and small businesses. That is what I will be focusing on. Today, we appointed the Small Business Commissioner, who will start work very shortly in tackling late payments and some of the abuses that small businesses experience from big companies not paying them on time. We will be publishing a small business strategy very soon, and our industrial and trade strategy very soon as well, hopefully sometime next week or thereabouts. We are doing a lot—not only myself but the Secretary of State, my noble friend Lady Jones and all the Ministers in the department. We have regular contact right across the business community.
We have had extensive debate already on impact assessments related to this Bill. My commitment in an earlier debate to meet noble Lords to further discuss the impact assessments still stands. The Government have already published a comprehensive set of impact assessments based on the best available evidence on the workers likely to be affected by these measures. This includes an assessment on the economic impacts of the Bill, including on workers, businesses, sectors and regions. This package shows that there are clear, evidence-based benefits from tackling issues holding back the UK labour market. This analysis is based on the best available evidence and consultation with external experts and stakeholders, including academics and think tanks. Further analysis will be forthcoming, both in the form of an enactment impact assessment when the Bill secures Royal Assent and when we consult on proposed regulations to meet the Better Regulation requirements.
Before I conclude, I share with noble Lords some really startling statistics. We already know that healthier and happier workers are more productive workers. The Health and Safety Executive estimates that stress, depression or anxiety accounted for something like 17.1 million working days lost in 2022-23, which is equivalent to a loss of something close to £5.3 billion in output per year. In addition, close to 2 million employees report feeling anxious about hours worked or shifts changing unexpectedly. By increasing the job security of these workers, the Bill would have well-being benefits worth billions of pounds a year. The Bill will therefore create a healthier and happier workforce, which is not only the right thing to do but will help businesses by making the workers more productive as well as resulting in lower treatment costs for the NHS.
Earlier, the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, asked me what we have done to support growth since getting elected. I am proud to share with the noble Lord that, since the election, 500,000 more people are in work. In recent weeks, we have had the strategic defence review with some 30,000 new jobs building submarines created, and the announcement of the Sizewell C project, which will create some 10,000 new jobs. So, we are creating new jobs.
In addition, we have people who are investing in this country and who have confidence in this Government. Jamie Dimon, who has run one of the largest US banks, JPMorgan Chase, for two decades, told the Financial Times:
“I’ve always been a believer in the UK’s inherent strengths as a place to do business and there’s much to like about the new government’s pro-growth agenda”.
Further, a couple of weeks ago, Jon Gray, president of Blackstone, one of the largest private equity companies in the world, which has invested close to £100 billion in the UK and employs some 50,000 people, told the Times:
“I would give the UK government a lot of credit for embracing business”.
This is not what the Government are saying, but what people with money who are investing in this country are saying to us. Further, every single day, £200 million is being invested in tech companies in this country. I do not call that a small sum, I call it confidence in the UK Government and what we are doing for business.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, I listened very carefully to that wonderfully rosy picture of the UK economy. Can the Minister reconcile that with the most recent employment statistics, which show a decrease in payrolled employment and an increase in unemployment? That does not reconcile with what he is trying to convince us is the case.
Lord Leong (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for that. Figures go up and down every month but let us look at it in the longer term. We are creating new jobs and that is what is really important. In conclusion, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I am enormously grateful to the Minister for his passionate defence of his Government and for his remarks. I am genuinely delighted that he has taken on a new role in small business because, unlike the vast majority of his Government, he actually knows what he is talking about when it comes to small business. We are very pleased to hear that and we welcome his general remarks. I also agree with Jamie Dimon about the growth agenda, but the fact is the Bill will not help the growth agenda. That is the argument we are trying to make.
I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, for his remarks. He accused me of being doomy and gloomy, but I did not get those statistics out of thin air; they were all supplied by the employer organisations that we referenced. If he would like, I will happily put him in touch with them all. The fact is that, once again, the Minister could not rise to the challenge of naming a single business that expects to increase hiring because of the measures in the Bill, and references to the strategic defence review do not help that argument.
The other reason why I am doomy is because, the other day, I came across a notice in a window in London that said, “After much reflection, and as a result of the substantial business rate and national insurance cost increases imposed on us in this year’s Budget, we have made the difficult decision to close. Our final day of service will be 28 June 2025”. That is a real business going out of business—that is disgraceful.
The Government’s impact assessment of the Bill, which we have debated a number of times and which I know irritates the Minister every time we bring it up, was simply inadequate. There is not enough detailed rigorous analysis to understand how these enforcement measures will affect businesses and employment across the country. Without that, we are walking blindly into serious economic risks. At this rate, if the Bill proceeds without the necessary amendments and safeguards, it will not just fall short, it will create unemployment. The additional burdens on employers, especially small and medium-sized businesses and crucial sectors like manufacturing, threaten to reduce hiring, stall investment and ultimately cost jobs. This is not speculation; it is happening, as my noble friend Lady Noakes pointed out. It is a clear and present danger based on the evidence that we have seen, and the trend is unlikely to diminish.
We support workers’ rights, but not at the expense of widespread job losses and economic harm. The Government have to provide a proper, thorough impact assessment—one that honestly addresses these risks—before we proceed further. I am grateful to the noble Lord for his offer of a meeting to discuss this, but I am not sure what there is to discuss without the actual impact assessment or the commitment to hold it as soon as possible. If this does not happen, the Bill will fail both workers and employers, and we will face the consequences of higher unemployment as a result. That is something no one wants. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“(2) Any reference in section 134 to HMRC information includes a reference to any information mentioned in sub-paragraph (1)(a) or (d) which—(a) was disclosed to the Director of Labour Market Enforcement or a person falling within paragraph (a), (d), (e), (f) or (g) of paragraph 6(4) by the Commissioners for His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs or a person acting on behalf of the Commissioners, and(b) was not obtained by an officer in the course of acting for the purposes of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 or by virtue of section 26(2) of the Immigration Act 2016.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment provides for information previously disclosed by HMRC to enforcement authorities, and treated by paragraph 13 of Schedule 11 to the Bill as having been obtained by the Secretary of State in connection with the exercise of enforcement functions under Part 5 of the Bill, to be treated as HMRC information for the purposes of clause 134, which imposes restrictions on the onward disclosure of such information without authorisation from HMRC.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment corrects an incorrect cross-reference.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendments of clause 148 at page 146, line 43 and page 147, line 9.
““employer” has the meaning given by subsection (1A);”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the definition of “employer” being inserted into Part 5 by my amendment of clause 148 at page 146, line 43.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the definition of “worker” being inserted into Part 5 by my amendment of clause 148 at page 147, line 9.
“(1A) In this Part “employer” means any of the following—(a) an employer within the meaning of section 230(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 or Article 3(4) of the Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 (S.I. 1996/1919 (N.I. 16));(b) a person who is an employer for the purposes of Part 4A of the Employment Rights Act 1996 in relation to a worker mentioned in section 43K(2) of that Act;(c) a person who is an employer for the purposes of Part 5A of the Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 in relation to a worker mentioned in Article 67K(2) of that Order;(d) a person who is the principal for the purposes of section 47A or 63A of the Employment Rights Act 1996 or Article 70A or 91A of the Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 (right to time off for young person for study or training);(e) a person who is—(i) an employer for the purposes of Chapter 3 or 4 of Part 2A of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (zero hours workers) by virtue of section 27BJ(7) or (as the case may be) 27BP(8) of that Act,(ii) an employer in relation to a zero hours arrangement within the meaning of Part 2A of that Act (see section 27BZ2(1) of that Act), or(iii) an employer in relation to a non-contractual zero hours arrangement within the meaning of Article 59A of the Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) Order 1996;(f) in relation to an individual who is an agency worker within the meaning of Part 2A of the Employment Rights Act 1996—(i) a person who is the hirer within the meaning of any Part of Schedule A1 to that Act (agency workers: guaranteed hours and rights relating to shifts);(ii) a work-finding agency within the meaning of Schedule A1 to that Act (see section 27BV(4) of that Act);(iii) a relevant person within the meaning of section 47I of that Act (agency workers and Schedule A1 rights);(g) in relation to an individual who is an agency worker within the meaning of the Agency Workers Regulations 2010 (S.I. 2010/93) or the Agency Workers Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2011 (S.R. (N.I.) 2011 No. 350)—(i) the hirer within the meaning of the relevant Regulations;(ii) (where the worker is not actually employed by the temporary work agency) the temporary work agency within the meaning of the relevant Regulations;(h) in relation to an individual seeking to be employed by a person as a worker, that person.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment defines “employer” for the purposes of Part 5. In particular, the definition reflects the persons on whom requirements are imposed by clauses 1 to 5 (zero hours workers, etc).
“(4) In this Part “worker” means any of the following—(a) a worker within the meaning of section 230(3) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 or Article 3(3) of the Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 (S.I. 1996/1919 (N.I. 16)); (b) an individual who is not a worker as defined by section 230(3) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 but who is a worker for the purposes of Part 4A of that Act (see section 43K(1) of that Act);(c) an individual who is not a worker as defined by Article 3(3) of the Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 but who is a worker for the purposes of Part 5A of that Order (see Article 67K(1) of that Order);(d) an individual who—(i) is a worker for the purposes of Chapter 3 or 4 of Part 2A of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (zero hours workers) by virtue of section 27BJ(7) or (as the case may be) 27BP(8) of that Act,(ii) works under a zero hours arrangement within the meaning of Part 2A of that Act (see section 27BZ2(1) of that Act), or(iii) works under a non-contractual zero hours arrangement within the meaning of Article 59A of the Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) Order 1996;(e) an individual who is an agency worker within the meaning of Part 2A of the Employment Rights Act 1996;(f) an individual who is an agency worker within the meaning of the Agency Workers Regulations 2010 (S.I. 2010/93) or the Agency Workers Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2011 (S.R. (N.I.) 2011 No. 350);(g) an individual seeking to be employed by a person as a worker.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment defines “worker” for the purposes of Part 5. In particular, the definition reflects the persons on whom rights are conferred by clauses 1 to 5 (zero hours workers, etc).
Lord Hunt of Wirral
“(2) Subject to subsection (3), this section is repealed three years after the day on which it comes into force.(3) The Secretary of State may, following a full independent review of the operational impact of the section on tribunal efficiency and access to justice, by regulations made by statutory instrument provide that the provisions of this section are not repealed in accordance with this section but shall continue in force indefinitely.(4) The regulations in subsection (3) are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment introduces a sunset clause to ensure that the extension of time limits for bringing employment tribunal claims is subject to periodic parliamentary oversight.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 279GA would introduce a sunset clause to ensure that the extension of time limits for bringing employment tribunal claims is subject to periodic parliamentary oversight. I will speak also to Amendments 330ZA, 330D and 334A in my name.
I have tabled these amendments along with my noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom because I believe that the state of the employment tribunal system is deeply concerning and urgently requires our attention. The proposals before us introduce a range of new rights for workers, including the critical right to claim unfair dismissal from day one of employment. We must therefore confront the uncomfortable truth that the current tribunal system is simply not prepared to handle the additional burden that this Bill will place upon it. Indeed, we have heard from a respected law firm that there is broad consensus among legal professionals that the employment tribunal system is, in its words, the “biggest problem in the legal world”.
The Government’s own impact assessment suggests that tribunal cases will increase by around 15% as a result of these reforms, yet I must ask how this figure has been calculated. Given the scale of the backlog we are currently witnessing, can this be anything other than a gross underestimate? The reality is that, by extending the time limits within which individuals can bring claims, the Bill itself may actively incentivise an increase in the volume of cases. If people have more time to bring claims, it is only natural that more claims will be submitted—claims that must then be processed by a system that is already groaning under enormous pressure.
To put this in perspective, we are currently facing, we are told, an employment tribunal backlog of nearly 50,000 cases. This backlog has now reached record levels, with preliminary hearings being scheduled as far away as April 2026, and full hearings not likely to take place until well into 2027. This must be a crisis. A delay of this magnitude means that justice for many is effectively denied. When someone has to wait years for their case to be heard, the protection that the law is supposed to afford becomes little more than an empty promise.
The causes of this backlog are clear. There is an acute shortage of employment judges. There is insufficient funding. There is inadequate administrative support. Although the Government have pledged to recruit hundreds of new judges, the practicalities of ensuring that those judges have the necessary expertise and that adequate administrative support is in place remain significant challenges.
That is why I believe these amendments are vital. They do not seek to block or delay the introduction of important workers’ rights, but they instead insist on responsible, measured implementation. It is essential that before these new rights come into force an independent and thorough assessment is conducted to evaluate the capacity and effectiveness of the tribunal system. This assessment has to address current delays, judge numbers, funding and the likely impact of this Bill’s provisions on tribunal caseloads. Moreover, the Government must commit to implementing all necessary measures identified in this assessment to reduce the backlog to a manageable level, specifically to fewer than 10,000 outstanding claims. Only then should these rights be activated.
This is all about ensuring that, when workers exercise their rights, they have access to a tribunal system capable of delivering timely, fair justice. Additionally, the amendment regarding the extension of time limits for claims rightly insists that this measure cannot come into effect until the Senior President of Tribunals certifies that the system can handle the expected increase in cases without further lengthening hearing times. Without such a safeguard, we risk compounding the problem and turning an already overstretched system into something unworkable.
There is another important point that I must raise. Nowhere in the Government’s impact assessment is there any explanation of why the option of introducing a right to claim unfair dismissal between day one and two years was not considered. If the intention is truly to balance the employment relationship and provide fair protections, why do we have to leap to day one? This decision is not just a legal technicality; it carries real risks. One such risk is the disincentive it creates for employers to hire workers who may be perceived as risky or less secure in the labour market—such as individuals with a history of mental health challenges, younger workers or others on the margins of employment —by exposing employers to potential unfair dismissal claims from the very first day. This Bill may inadvertently make it even harder for these vulnerable groups to find work in the first place. This would be a tragic and unintended consequence, compounding insecurity rather than alleviating it.
We have debated at length the potentially vast powers of the new fair work agency, its funding and the role it might play. However, many questions remain. Will the fair work agency with its undefined enforcement officers and unclear operational framework genuinely take on the enforcement of workers’ rights in a way that meaningfully reduces the burden on the already overstretched employment tribunals? Or will tribunals continue to bear the brunt of this increased workload without adequate support or relief?
I now look to the Government to provide this House, workers, businesses, law firms, and no doubt the tribunals with some assurance, clarity and ideally a timeline for the day-one rights provisions in this Bill. Perhaps this is the moment when the Minister will at last share with us, at least in draft, the implementation plan that we have heard so much about during the course of this Committee. Will she please undertake to ensure that we have the implementation plan before we reach Report?
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
My Lords, I support Amendment 279GA for a sunset clause. I perfectly understand the reason for extending the period in which employees can make claims, but I am quite sure it will increase the burden on the tribunals. We have heard about the very long delay, with even preliminary hearings not scheduled until April 2026, and these delays have continued for some years. People going to tribunal sometimes have to wait more than 18 months just to have the preliminary hearing. If numbers increase, as they are likely to, as my noble friend suggested, it is going to put far more pressure on the tribunals. The parliamentary oversight proposed and the sunset clause must take account of that.
Not only is there no point in law in having a claim left unsettled for years, but it is very bad for business to have the uncertainty. It is very bad for employees and their lives to be subject to such delays and uncertainties in what is going to happen to them professionally, because taking a claim to tribunal is not an easy matter. It can be expensive and full of obstacles. Not knowing how it will pan out is very worrying for people. For businesses, being subject to constant pressures of claims in a tribunal, whether they are justified or not, brings insecurity and a lack of confidence.
For these reasons, I think this moderate request for a sunset clause and coming back to Parliament for an affirmative vote are a good proposal, and I hope the Government will listen kindly to it.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for introducing these amendments, but I say to him that the problem he has described so vividly was one we inherited from the previous Government. We are acutely aware that these issues need to be addressed, and I share his desire to ensure that the employment tribunal system can manage its existing caseload and the potential increase from the Bill’s measures. I assure your Lordships that we are working across government and with business and the unions to identify ways to improve a system that we inherited that is not working currently for anyone.
We are already recruiting more judges and legal case workers and providing additional resources to ACAS. On top of that, we are considering other things, such as the role that the expanded fair work agency could play in reducing the time spent awaiting costly and lengthy tribunal claims.
I would be delighted to receive any constructive suggestions from the noble Lords on this issue, but it would be entirely disproportionate to make the vital improvements to workers’ rights contained in the Bill dependent on the kind of review that their amendments propose. It would be wrong to take workers’ rights to challenge unfair practices away from them when they are not to blame for the backlog that we are currently grappling with.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
The Minister made reference to the number of judges that the Government are busily recruiting so as to help the backlog, and this is part of the Government’s response. Of the 35,000 extra civil servants recruited since March 2024—these are the March 2025 figures—how many are judges, and how many of them will be in the employment tribunal service? I do not expect the Minister to have the figures to hand, but I would be pleased if she could write to me.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, 50 new fee-paid employment judges were appointed in 2024-25, and a further three recruitment exercises to further increase capacity are now being undertaken in 2025-26.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend Lady Lawlor for putting all this in the context of the security or insecurity of workers right across the board faced with this terrible backlog. The Minister upbraided me for the previous Government’s culpability in this, but she will know that we have been expressing serious concern about this backlog for a very long time. The fact is that it has got worse: it is 20% up on what it was when the Government came into office last year. The Minister was quite right to say there was a backlog, but my plea to her is not to make it worse.
As we draw this debate to a close, I worry that the Government have not fully grasped the critical importance of these amendments. They are not obstacles to progress but necessary safeguards to ensure that the rights we are creating are not rendered ineffective by an overwhelmed tribunal system. We urgently need clarity on the implementation plans.
The Minister promised that we would have the implementation plan “shortly”. The definition of “shortly” is “within the next hour or so”. In the dictionary, we are told that shortly means that something is about to happen. So where is it? I would like to believe that the noble Baroness’s reference to the word, which she must have carefully considered, means that tomorrow we will get it. I am very happy for her to interrupt me if I am incorrect—perhaps she could clarify.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
I was trying to be helpful to the noble Lord, but since he provokes me, I will simply say that I have used my interpretation of “shortly”, rather than the dictionary definition. It will not be happening in the next hour, I can assure the noble Lord of that.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
Could I possibly have a copy of the noble Baroness’s dictionary? She has just quoted from her dictionary, but sadly I do not have it to hand. We would all like to see the implementation plan, so please can we, if possible, before our next day in Committee next Tuesday?
There are all sorts of issues we have discussed that have not been answered. Why a measured approach between day one and two years? Was it ever seriously considered? There has been no answer from the noble Baroness on that. Did she look at it or did she move straight to day one? The gap in reasoning leaves many of us deeply worried about the unintended consequences for workers and employers alike. Regrettably, these are crucial issues which remain unresolved, and the Government have yet to provide the assurances we need. As we approach Report, we will have to return to this matter with a determination to secure the clarity and commitments that are so essential if the Bill is ever to be successful. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, I will be very brief. I feel like the support act, really, because the substance, the meat, of this issue and this clause has been debated, although I am delighted that this is the final schedule and the final part, so we are on the final stages of the Bill. I just say very briefly, with respect, to the Minister, that we often ask the Minister to write to elucidate the remarks that she and her colleagues have made in the course of the Committee’s proceedings. We are watching that and making sure that we do get replies and, if we do not get proper replies, we will raise those issues on Report. I do hope, very gently, that the Minister is aware of that. Of course, we understand that information is not always at her disposal or her colleagues’ disposal, but we will need that information in order to make an informed decision on Report if the House divides at that juncture.
The second issue that I think it is appropriate to raise, raised several Committee days ago by my noble friend Lady Coffey, is impact assessments. The Cabinet Office guidelines say that impact assessments should be updated as the Bill goes through. To the best of my knowledge, that has not happened, and I am not sure that the Minister has satisfactorily answered the question that my noble friend asked earlier. With that in mind, I think that the rationale that the Minister used for the extension from three to six months was not even tepid and not even weak; it was just non-existent. To say that the Law Commission has done a consultation I do not think cuts the mustard. We on this side believe firmly that extending that period will bring more uncertainty to business, will be more costly, will encourage more litigation and workplace strife and will be a false economy.
I look over at the Government Benches and I see the pawprints of the trade unions in this. I do not know why they would want to do this, but, as on so much of the Bill, they are seemingly pulling the strings and I think that, in the end, it will not be in the best interests of workers for this to happen, not least because, as my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral said, the system is creaking. It is no good saying, “Oh, well, it was creaking under you”; this Government have been in power 12 months now, it is incumbent on them to fix the system with their legislation and I think that this is a retrograde step. It will not work, it will backfire, and on that basis, I think that neither Clause 149 nor Schedule 12 should stand part of the Bill.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, most of what I needed to say was said in the last group, so I will not labour the points, except to add a bit of colour, because my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral and I consult quite widely. We consulted this morning with a distinguished employment lawyer, who told us that, if you apply now to an employment tribunal, you will have no chance at all of getting even a preliminary hearing for 10 months. That is next April. In order to get a resolution, a case resolved, you would be looking probably at December 2027. That is nearly two and a half years away. It will take a lot more than the number of judges the noble Baroness mentioned that they have recruited so far in order to fix that particular problem. I wish her good luck and I hope she succeeds, but I really do not think that we should be doing this.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, the first thing I will say to the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, is that if we say we are going to write, we will write: we do not need to be told that this is being monitored in some way. I would say that I feel that we on these Benches have bent over backwards to engage with noble Lords, not only in debates but outside, by having meetings and trying to work through some of these issues in more detail. So I do resent the accusation that we are somehow hiding from accountability on these issues. We are bending over backwards to be accountable.
I also say to the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, that we have updated the impact assessment and written to the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, about it already. As noble Lords have said, we have now debated this issue quite extensively. We argue that the proposals we are putting forward will benefit not only employees but employers, by increasing the time within which workplace procedures and conciliation can be completed, creating an opportunity for more disputes to be resolved without the need for litigation.
Current ACAS performance data shows that that around a third of early conciliation notifications go on to submit an employment tribunal claim. Therefore, the longer period of time for resolving disputes internally and/or via conciliation will simplify the time limits for making employment tribunal claims and improve access to justice.
I have heard the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, and, as I say, we have now debated this extensively. I can assure your Lordships that this clause and schedule are essential for those who need to bring a claim to a tribunal in order to have adequate time to prepare a robust claim. I therefore ask that they stand part of the Bill.
“Occupational and Personal Pension Schemes (Consultation by Employers and Miscellaneous Amendment) Regulations 2006
13A In the Schedule to the Occupational and Personal Pension Schemes (Consultation by Employers and Miscellaneous Amendment) Regulations 2006 (S.I. 2006/349) (employment rights and protections in connection with consultation), in paragraph 4(2)—(a) in paragraph (a), for “three” substitute “six”;(b) in paragraph (b), for “three” substitute “six”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment extends from three to six months the time limit for bringing a claim in an employment tribunal under paragraph 4 of the Schedule to the Occupational and Personal Pension Schemes (Consultation by Employers and Miscellaneous Amendment) Regulations 2006.
Baroness Penn
“Substitution clauses: duties of company directors(1) The director of a relevant company has a duty to ensure that the company keeps a register of all dependent contractors.(2) The director must supply details of the register under subsection (1) with the Secretary of State within 12 months of the passing of this Act and every 12 months thereafter, subject to the provisions of the Data Protection Act 2018.(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about what information must be supplied in the register of dependent contractors.(4) For the purposes of this section―(a) a “relevant company” is a company that―(i) provides services in relation to postal and courier activities, food and beverage service activities or taxi operation,(ii) has more than 250 employees in the UK and overseas, and(iii) includes provision within the company’s contracts with contractors which allow the contractor to send another qualified person (a “substitute”) to complete the work in the contractor’s place if the contractor is unable to complete the work,(b) a “director” includes any person occupying the position of director, by whatever name called, and (c) “dependent contractor” means a person who—(i) performs work or services for the relevant company,(ii) is paid according to tasks performed rather than hours of work,(iii) depends partially or primarily on the relevant company for employment and income,(iv) is not required to perform services for the relevant company, and(v) is not specified as an employee or worker for the relevant company within a statement of employment particulars or a contract of employment.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to require certain company directors to keep a register of the people carrying out work for the company under so-called “substitution clauses”, which allow companies to permit their suppliers – including some delivery couriers – to appoint a substitute to supply services on their behalf.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 280 is designed to address the use of substitution clauses that allow for illegal working. There are different ways of measuring it, but on some estimates there are 4.7 million gig economy workers in the UK, including around 120,000 official riders at Uber Eats and Deliveroo, two of the largest delivery companies in the country.
For years we have heard stories of labour market fraud and visa abuse committed by contractors related to those companies, and much of that abuse has come through the legal loophole created by substitution clauses. These clauses have traditionally been used to give flexibility to businesses, but in the gig economy they are being used to allow illegal working. From late 2018 to early 2019 there were 14,000 fraudulent Uber journeys, according to Transport for London. During random checks two years ago, the Home Office found that two in five delivery riders who were stopped were working illegally.
I acknowledge that some action is being taken that will address part of this issue. Ministers have said that they will consult on employment status and moving towards a two-part legal framework that identifies people who are genuinely self-employed. I support that ambition, but as someone who worked on the original proposals in this area that stemmed from the Taylor review, I also understand the complexity of resolving this, and I fear that it could end up being put in the “too difficult” pile in Ministers’ in-trays.
The Government have also brought forward amendments to the borders and immigration Bill to include a legal requirement for organisations to carry out right-to-work checks on individuals they employ under a worker’s contract or as individual subcontractors, and for online matching services that provide details of service providers to potential clients or customers for remuneration. What are the timescales for the consultation and the secondary legislation to bring those measures into force? On my understanding, these provisions will not extend to the use of substitutes, meaning that this loophole will remain.
Amendment 280 seeks to go some way to addressing this through the introduction of a comprehensive register of all dependent contractors. Such transparency would help to ensure that employment rights are upheld and pay is not suppressed through illegitimate competition, and would also support the enforcement of right-to-work checks. An alternative approach would be to ban substitution clauses altogether, or at least for those companies and sectors where abuse is the most prevalent—or, as Amendment 323E in a later group from the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, seeks to do, restrict their improper use.
Given that substitution clauses have played an important part in case law on determining employee or worker status, this could have broader implications, so I have focused on transparency as a first step. But I would be interested to hear the Minister’s view on removing or restricting the use of substitution clauses and whether that is preferable to a register delivering transparency, for example.
A further alternative would be to introduce right-to-work checks for substitutes by the original engaging business. While this was deemed to be out of scope for this Bill in the Commons, I had hoped that the Government’s amendments to the borders Bill would fill this gap. However, unless I have misunderstood—I would be grateful if the Minister can clarify this for me—their approach leaves this loophole untouched. The impact assessment for the Government’s amendments to the borders and immigration Bill reflects the harms that illegal working has on our economy. It says:
“Illegal working creates unfair competition, negatively impacts legitimate businesses, and puts additional pressure on public services. A rapid growth has been observed in the UK in modern labour market models where businesses can currently engage workers without the requirement to complete right to work checks”.
Without further action to address the abuse of substitution clauses, as the App Drivers and Couriers Union has said:
“Unfortunately there is this loophole that allows some bad people to come through. They are not vetted so they could do anything”.
The Government need to take action to guarantee fairness and justice in our labour market. A register of dependent contractors provides a way to resolve this abuse and hold big employers in the gig economy to account. I beg to move.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lady Penn on tabling this important amendment. The requirement for certain company directors to maintain and report a register of dependent contractors under substitution clauses is a measure that would bring much-needed transparency to a complex area of employment. It recognises the evolving nature of work arrangements in sectors such as courier services and taxi operations. Of course, there are compliance burdens associated with maintaining such registers, especially for large companies operating over multiple jurisdictions. Additionally, data protection considerations must be carefully addressed to ensure sensitive personal information is handled appropriately and securely. These are important factors that require careful balancing against the benefits of increased transparency. We look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, for her Amendment 280 and for meeting with my noble friend Lady Jones and me last month to discuss this very important issue.
I reassure the noble Baroness that the Government are already taking action to tackle the main risks that arise from substitution, including illegal working. As she mentioned, substitution is a complex area on which we are still gathering data.
An ONS online survey of around 10,000 businesses from across the UK, published this month, found that close to 3% of UK businesses use substitution clauses. While we do not know the number of substitution clauses used in the gig economy, we know that this could impact a large number of individuals. Although estimates of the number of gig economy workers vary vastly in various surveys, from around 500,000 to 4.4 million people—the noble Baroness mentioned some 4.7 million people—the CIPD finds that roughly 75% of those in the gig economy consider themselves to be self-employed.
We have introduced an amendment to the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, as was mentioned by the noble Baroness, to extend the scope of employers required to carry out right-to-work checks to those who engage limb (b) workers or individual sub-contractors, such as those working in the gig economy. This requirement will cover those working as substitutes.
We understand the complexity of these issues, and of employment status more widely, and that is why we have committed to consult in detail on a simpler framework for employment status. Comprehensive consultation will better account for the full range of today’s employment relationships, while addressing the minority of employers who will seek to avoid legal obligations.
We were clear that some reforms in our plan to make work pay will take longer to undertake and implement. We do not have a set timeline for consulting on employment status at this point, and I assure the noble Baroness that we will keep her up to date as and when this happens. We understand the complexity of employment status, as I mentioned earlier, and we are definitely committed to consulting in detail. Comprehensive consultation will better accounts for the full range of today’s employment relationships, while also addressing the minority of employers who will seek to avoid legal obligations, as I mentioned.
The noble Baroness’s amendment would create significant additional reporting burdens for businesses and would not necessarily change how those businesses use substitution clauses, as I mentioned in my earlier speech. I therefore ask the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, to withdraw Amendment 280.
Baroness Penn (Con)
Before the Minister sits down, could I confirm what I think I heard, that the amendments to the borders and immigration Bill will cover the use of substitute workers and substitute clauses with the extension of right-to-work checks?
Lord Leong (Lab)
I had better clarify this. I said that the amendment to the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill will extend the scope of employers required to carry out right-to-work checks to those who engage limb (b) workers—perhaps one could classify that as those without many rights—or individual sub-contractors, such as those working in the gig economy. Perhaps that answers the question of the noble Baroness.
Baroness Penn (Con)
So not, therefore, the use of substitute workers. That answers my question, but it leaves the issue unaddressed. The challenge before the Government is that they have acknowledged the existence of this problem, with amendments brought to the borders and immigration Bill on Report, but they propose to leave this loophole unaddressed. The powers they are bringing in that Bill will require further consultation and then secondary legislation, and the Minister was not able to put a timeline on that. If this is not addressed by those proposals in that Bill, then when will it be addressed?
Lord Leong (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness. I stand corrected on that point. The officials have just given me a note that it does cover substitute workers.
Baroness Penn (Con)
Okay. Perhaps it might be good to sit down between now and Report and clarify the exact proposed powers in that Bill. If it does—although the powers are then for secondary legislation and the detail is to be worked through—if the Government are taking the powers to address this loophole and can do it through secondary legislation under that Bill, that is welcome news. The transparency measures proposed in my approach were really an interim measure due to scope and other wider considerations. If we can directly place the obligation to carry out right-to-work checks on those organisations engaging people and their substitutes, then that would be very welcome news indeed. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Noakes
“Employment Law Advisory Committee(1) There shall be a committee, to be known as the Employment Law Advisory Committee (in this Act referred to as “the Committee”), for the purposes of—(a) giving advice and assistance to the Secretary of State in connection with the Secretary of State’s functions under this Act and any other relevant labour market legislation, and(b) performing such other duties as may be assigned to the Committee under any enactment.(2) The Committee shall consist of no more than 10 members appointed by the Secretary of State and include equal numbers of each of the following—(a) persons appearing to the Secretary of State to represent the interests of workers,(b) persons appearing to the Secretary of State to represent the interests of employers, and(c) persons who have relevant expertise but who do not fall within paragraph (a) or (b).(3) The Chairman of the Committee shall be appointed by the Secretary of State from one of the persons falling within subsection (2)(b).(4) The Secretary of State may by regulations set out matters relevant to the constitution and operation of the Committee.” Member's explanatory statement
This amendment sets up a Committee to advise the Secretary of State on regulations made under this Act and other labour market legislation. It is intended to be similar to the Social Security Advisory Committee which advises the Secretary of State in relation to social security regulations.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
As noble Lords know, this is the final group of amendments, and I must say that I am very flattered that so many noble Lords on the Benches opposite have stayed to hear it.
The inspiration for these amendments is the Social Security Advisory Committee, which has been in existence for over 40 years and has established itself as an impartial and expert committee in the highly complex area surrounding our benefits system. Much of the benefits legislation is set out in secondary legislation.
It is an area marked by highly complex law, which has very important real-world effects for the people affected by the secondary legislation. If the Department of Social Security gets it wrong, people can suffer genuine detriment. The SSAC has been an important underpinning to the parliamentary approval of complex social security secondary legislation, and it gives parliamentary accountability some real substance. Parliamentary accountability is the key driver of these two amendments.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, given the hour, I will be incredibly brief. My noble friend and I do not always find common cause—even though we are on the same Benches—but this is an extremely sensible amendment, and my noble friend has explained the extent to which she has shaped it in accordance with the Government’s wider thinking in their approach to the Bill. Given the amount in the Bill that is being left to secondary legislation, if I was in the department I would welcome a proposal like this, even if it did not stem from our own proposals and officials. In having this proposed expert committee review the secondary legislation and help the department get it right first time, this is a good example of giving very careful consideration to what it would bring. That can only be welcome, so I add my support to my noble friend’s amendment.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Noakes for so expertly introducing her amendment, and I welcome the contribution from my noble friend Lady Penn regarding the establishment of an employment law advisory committee.
We believe my noble friend’s amendments would significantly strengthen the framework for effective and balanced labour market regulation. The creation of a dedicated advisory committee, modelled on the Social Security Advisory Committee, seems a prudent and timely measure. It would provide the Secretary of State with expert independent advice that draws from a diverse range of perspectives: employers, workers, and independent experts alike. This inclusive composition is vital to ensuring that any regulations developed under the enacted Bill are well-informed, fair and workable in practice.
Moreover, the proposed committee’s clear statutory function to scrutinise draft regulations before they are laid before Parliament would introduce an important additional layer of oversight and transparency. It would help to ensure that regulations and the views of all relevant stakeholders are carefully considered. The requirement for the Secretary of State to publish the committee’s report alongside any laid regulations, including an explanation when recommendations are not followed, would enhance accountability and public confidence in the regulatory process.
In sum, we think that these amendments represent a balanced and constructive approach to policy-making in the complex area of employment law. They would help guard against rushed or poorly considered regulations, support better policy outcomes and uphold the principles of consultation and transparency that are essential to good governance.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, for her Amendments 299 and 300. The Government have already committed to consulting on the detail of implementation and have already undertaken extensive engagement with employers, businesses and workers’ representatives, trade unions and experts. We will continue with this approach as we develop our secondary legislation.
There are some specific instances, such as in the enforcement space, where we are proposing setting up an expert group. Upgrading the enforcement of workers’ rights is an important and complex task, where it is right to draw on expertise from businesses, workers and independent representatives.
That is why the Bill requires the Secretary of State to establish an advisory board. It will play a critical role in providing advice and insight to the Secretary of State on their enforcement function under Part 5 of the Bill, which they will in practice deliver through the fair work agency. This is a proportionate and necessary step to help ensure the agency’s effectiveness. But this is not required across the Bill and wider labour market legislation as a whole. The committee proposed by the noble Baroness would be a repetition of the planned engagement and consultation on the Bill. We have already engaged with more than 190 different stakeholder organisations on our Plan to Make Work Pay, including employers of all sizes, from SMEs to large corporations, trade unions and representative organisations representing thousands of businesses and millions of workers.
We have held round-table discussions focused on particular topics, such as zero-hours contracts, and with particular groups, such as leaders of small businesses or retailers. As a Government, we are committed to engaging closely on our plans, and we will continue to do so. This engagement will continue throughout implementation, including as we develop regulations under the Bill.
On parliamentary scrutiny, the Select Committees will of course scrutinise the government proposals and reforms as they are rolled out. The Economic Affairs Committee had an inquiry on the labour market, and the noble Baroness was herself a member of that committee, so we know that there are already bodies in the parliamentary network that can be used to provide that scrutiny. On the basis of our proposed consultation and the parliamentary scrutiny available, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her Amendment 299.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, I will not detain the Committee for long. With the exception of the expert group, which I was not aware of, I could have written the Minister’s speaking notes myself. They ran along the lines of, “Blah, blah, blah, consultation; blah, blah, blah, Select Committees” and, basically, “We know best”.
My amendment was a genuine attempt to try to enhance the process of parliamentary scrutiny. As I am sure the Minister is aware, Select Committees are simply not set up to deal with the detail of secondary legislation; they are set up to do some things very well—usually broader-ranging topics such as those undertaken by the Economic Affairs Committee of your Lordships’ House—but they never attempt to look at secondary legislation. I can see a lot of secondary legislation coming down the line and the need for a better process and greater information to help Parliament in its job on that.
I am not surprised by the Minister’s response. Before we get to Report, I will consider again what to do with my ideas, which I had hoped would be constructive contributions to the Government’s Bill. I beg leave to withdraw.
Employment Rights Bill
Tuesday 24th June 2025
(9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Employment Rights Act 2025 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 81-XI Eleventh marshalled list for Committee - (20 Jun 2025)
Lord Hunt of Wirral
“Impact on new business entrantsThe Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the day on which this Act is passed and annually thereafter, publish an independent assessment of how this Act affects new business entrants and small start-up enterprises, particularly regarding the impact of increased administrative or financial burdens on market entry and growth.”
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to amendments 310, 311, 312 and 319.
If I may start with Amendment 311, I stress that productivity is vital for growth. The Government’s own impact assessment of the Bill is lacking in many areas, but it correctly identifies productivity as a problem in the UK workforce and reveals the fundamental weakness of their approach. They state quite explicitly:
“there is little quantitative evidence about the knock-on impacts on productivity”,
and conclude:
“On balance, we believe the impact on growth could be positive … but the direct impact would be small in magnitude”.
Most tellingly, they admit that
“the impact on average productivity will be small”.
To paraphrase, the Government seemingly admit that productivity will not be significantly improved, if at all, by this legislation. This raises a fundamental question that goes to the heart of economic policy: how does one achieve high levels of productivity?
High productivity emerges through competition—genuine, unfettered competition—where businesses face lower regulatory burdens, can compete effectively for the best workers and possess the freedom and flexibility to innovate, to adapt and to respond to market signals. Productivity growth stems from technological innovation, capital accumulation and, as we have just heard in the questions on the previous Statement, investment in skills and productivity—skills above all. These improvements occur naturally when markets are allowed to function, when competitive pressures incentivise businesses to innovate or perish and when the price mechanism can operate without distortion.
Competition drives productivity by creating what economists call “creative destruction”—the process whereby inefficient firms are displaced by more productive ones. When businesses have to compete for workers, they invest in training, technology and better working conditions. When they have to compete for customers, they innovate and improve efficiency. When they must compete for capital, they demonstrate their productivity gains to investors and offer competitive returns.
So what will this legislation achieve in practice? I regret that it will impose additional regulation, create additional burdens and constrain the very competitive forces that drive productivity improvements. This of course comes on top of the tax rises announced by the Chancellor—measures that undoubtedly constrain business investment and growth. The increase in national insurance contributions is particularly damaging in this context. Higher employer NICs directly squeeze the possibility of productive investment. Investment that would otherwise create jobs in productive areas of the economy will now not take place. Capital that could have been deployed to improve productivity, whether through new technology, training programmes or research and development, will instead have to be diverted to meet higher tax obligations and burdens. This represents a fundamental misunderstanding of how productivity improvements occur. Productivity does not increase through regulatory mandate or government directive; it increases when businesses have the freedom, the incentive and the resources to invest in productivity-enhancing activities.
This brings me to Amendment 319 and what I can only describe as a profound contradiction in government policy. The Government committed just months ago to a 25% cut in the regulatory burden. They reaffirmed this, as we heard, in the published industrial strategy. Yet here we have legislation that introduces what can only be described as a raft of new regulatory burdens. The question that demands an answer is this: how will the Government achieve this 25% reduction in the regulatory burden? How will it be measured? How will the Bill, which manifestly increases regulatory compliance costs, align with that stated target?
I turn to Amendment 310. A truly competitive market must make it simpler, not harder, for new businesses to enter. Yet there is no consideration in the Government’s impact assessment for how this legislation affects barriers to entry. I believe that this represents a profound oversight because, when businesses cannot enter a market because of costs imposed by government regulation, that fundamentally alters the competitive dynamics driving productivity improvements. The economic logic here is straightforward but crucial: when entry barriers are low, existing businesses face constant competitive pressure from potential new entrants. This pressure has to keep them on their toes, forcing them to remain productive, innovative and responsive to consumer needs. They cannot afford to become complacent because they know that more efficient competitors could emerge at any time, hot on their heels and full of competitive energy. But when government policy raises the cost of market entry through complex regulations, compliance burdens or increased operational costs, it can effectively insulate existing businesses from this competitive pressure. The result is predictable: established firms have less incentive to innovate, less pressure to improve productivity and less need to compete aggressively for the best workers.
Turning to Amendment 312, I come to a particularly important point about wage competition. In a competitive market, businesses compete not only for customers but also for workers. When entry barriers are low and competition is fierce, employers must offer competitive wages and working conditions to attract and retain talent. This competitive pressure naturally drives wages upward as businesses bid for the best employees. When regulatory burdens prevent new businesses from entering the market, however, this wage competition diminishes significantly. Existing employers face less pressure to offer competitive wages because workers have fewer alternative employment opportunities. The reduced threat of labour mobility gives established businesses greater power in wage negotiations.
I believe that the costs imposed by this Bill will exacerbate this problem in two distinct ways. First, the direct compliance costs and increase in employer national insurance contributions will pressure businesses to control their wage costs more tightly. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, these costs will deter new business formation, reducing the competitive pressure that would otherwise drive wages upward. Of course, the Government may want to point to the increase in the minimum wage as evidence of their commitment to higher wages, but that misses the fundamental point about how competitive markets operate in practice. The minimum wage affects only a small proportion of the workforce—those at the very bottom of wage distribution; for the vast majority of workers, wages are determined by market forces and competition between employers for their services.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
My Lords, I support this group of amendments in the name of the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe of Epsom and Lord Hunt of Wirral, calling for an impact assessment requiring an independent analysis on different measures. I have added my name to three of them. Amendment 310 asks for an impact assessment on business, new entrants and start-ups, while Amendment 311 asks for a productivity impact reporting, and Amendment 319 asks for a new clause on assessing the impact of the regulatory burden on businesses.
Amendment 310 would require an impact assessment on new business entrants and small start-ups, including the impact of administrative and financial costs. Why do we need this? We know from ONS data that the story of business start-ups from 2016-17 to 2023-24 was one of steady increase, from 664,750 new start-ups in 2016-17 to 800,000 in 2022-23. We know from other data, from an analysis for NatWest bank and the Beauhurst Group, that for the last calendar year 846,000 new businesses were registered, bringing the total to a record high of 6.63 million last year. Just under one-third of that, 248,000, in the first quarter was, sadly, a figure not sustained by the end of the year, with a 25% drop in business formation as the year progressed.
Of course, headline figures should be read with caveats entered. Here are just three. Quite a few new companies do not survive their first or indeed their second year. One tech and computer entrepreneur once told me that you would expect in his sector at least one or two failures until you got to a success; it was almost the necessity to fail that brought success. Difficult circumstances, such as an economic slowdown due to exceptional causes or external shocks, may have an impact on new start-ups taking off. Indeed, some companies will simply be reformations of existing organisations and businesses.
These may be the ordinary reasons why we see start-ups not doing so well, but one common obstacle to getting a new business off the ground or making a success of it is the burden of too much of the wrong—and unnecessary—regulation. The Government and the public will need to know the impact of this measure, after a year or at a period to be agreed between the Government and opposition parties, to see whether the decline in new applicants that we saw at the end of 2024 will continue in the first year of operation and, if so, what steps we may need to take to mitigate this. New businesses are our lifeblood. They help replace the stock of zombie businesses which go out of business and rightly fail in the competitive economy to which my noble friend Lord Hunt alluded.
This Bill, as others which the Labour Government have proposed or enacted since 2024, penalises employers and businesses and introduces a device of damaging politicisation and ideologically driven changes to favour certain vested interest groups over the interests of business, the whole UK economy and the people of this country, who depend on a strong, prosperous and competitive economy to find and keep a job to pay their bills and to pay the tax revenue on which their public services depend.
The Bill’s burdens on all will impose a multitude of additional costs—through employee rights without corresponding obligations or duties, and additional duties and costs on employers—uncertainties, as many of the proposals in the Bill will be decided by regulation, and costs to businesses trying to plan. They weigh the law against and involve cost and compliance burdens for an employer or business, as my noble friend has explained, not only in respect of the rights of employees but through procedures that vary from record-keeping and handling equality action plans in Part 2 to the new law on industrial relations, which is in favour of trade unions and changes or repeals measures that have been around since 1992 and, by and large, have brought peace and harmony to the labour market of this country and the prosperity we need.
These burdens will make for grave uncertainty, given the range of powers that will be exercised, as I have mentioned, by a Minister who may reflect the ideological bent of the current Government to direct their powers against business, employers and the UK economy in favour of those who pay for the Labour Party through political funding—we have had many a debate on that in this Chamber. They are to be finalised through consultation and announced later. Surely, it is not too much to temper such militancy by giving the public and the Government of the day an analysis of what the costs of the regulatory burdens will be so that any adverse impact can be measured and mitigated.
Amendment 311 calls for an assessment of the impact of the Act on productivity. My noble friend has said that the Government recognise in their own impact assessment that the productivity gain will be small. UK productivity is already significantly lower than that of our competitors in the G7—the US, Germany and France—but we will discuss international competitiveness later so I will not speak on that now. However, as a result of this Bill, we expect productivity to decline further by sector and by employee. We know that around 70.9% of workers in the UK work in firms with labour productivity below the mean. It is very difficult to envisage that productivity will increase as a result of the regulatory burdens in this Bill.
If growth is the aim of this Government, we need to increase productivity dramatically. This will not be achieved through an ever-shrinking workforce and the contraction of business activity; at my last count, our labour market had lost 115,000 workers since this Government came to power. Nor will it be achieved by burdening business—and, as my noble friend Lord Hunt mentioned, its capacity to invest in new people, plant and technology—by increasing the money needed to pay for the extra compliance and regulatory costs of this Bill, rather than investing in the production of goods and services, and the training of the people who produce.
I support this amendment, as I do the others, so that we shall have a real measure, based on independent, impartial data, that will shed daylight on the impact of the Bill on these three counts and help the people of this country—and the Government—to press for change, should we need it.
Lord Deben (Con)
My Lords, I remind the Committee of my interests in both consultancy and the hospitality industry. I have really come to help the Government on this bit of the Bill, because the problem they have is that very few of those who are working on the Bill run businesses. I have run businesses all my life, except for the time when I was a Minister, and, as I read the Bill, I am very concerned that it has been written by people who have not run businesses. They do not understand the damage that they do to employment and new business. I hope every Minister will admit that to themselves, whether or not they have run businesses and met these problems. Have the civil servants who advise them, or the political advisers from their parties, run businesses and seen these problems for themselves? If the answer is “Not much”, “Not many” or “Not overall”, surely they ought to see whether they have got it right.
Frankly, I do not think they have got it right, but I am very happy to be proved wrong. I do not think they have got it right because I know what has happened in the businesses with which I am associated. I know that we are employing less, because that is the only way we can pay the increased demands on employers. I know that the balances that we have to make now are not to the advantage of staff recruitment. Above all, I know that if I were starting a new business, the temptation not to do so would be very much greater because of the complications that the Bill, and previous actions of the Government, place on us.
That puts me in a position in which I do not think the Bill is, in large measure, a good one. But I am prepared to be proved wrong if, by clear investigation, we look at the results of what happens and take account of it. The problem is that if this Government are going to carry out effectively many of the policies with which I agree—more than I agree with some of the policies on this side of the House—they must prove to the public that they listen and are prepared to look at the facts.
I came to this debate to plead with the Government not to say, “Oh well, this is what we are told by people and we think it is a good idea. It fits in with our obligations and our attitudes”. Instead, they might say, “We will argue in both the House of Lords and the House of Commons, and at the end of it we will see whether we were right. We will see whether the Opposition were right or we were. If we show we are right, we have a really good position to say to the public, ‘There you are, we said we were right and we have been proved right’”. They might say now that they are not even going to find out whether they are right, not going to measure it and not going to accept these amendments.
The noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, and I disagree on most things. Both of us, though, think that it would be a good idea to check to see where we are. I do not understand why representatives of the trade unions are not getting up and saying to the Government, “Look, we think we’re right and we think you’re right, so check it and independently show that it is right”. Instead of that, the Government are admitting, frankly, either that they do not know or that they fear they would be proved wrong. I want a Government who are brave enough to say, “We’ll actually put it to the test. We’ll actually accept these amendments and we’ll find out who’s right. If we’re wrong, we’ll change it. If we’re right, we’ll crow like mad over those people who told us we were wrong”.
Baroness Verma (Con)
My Lords, I agree with almost everything that my noble friend said. When I was growing up, my father, who was in business, suffered the three-day week, and I understand the impact it had on his business and many like his. I also understand that productivity needs to be improved and increased. We need to look at what is happening across the world to be competitive enough.
I know that the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Leong, has a business and understands business. If he were sitting on this side of the Chamber, I suspect that he would be arguing in the same vein as we are. It would be right and proper not to shirk away from proper impact assessments and proper comparative assessments of what is happening across the world, because we all want a competitive country where we are leading at the helm. Denying and disagreeing just for the sake of denying and disagreeing does not do this debate any good.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, unusually, I completely agree with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Deben; he and I are both surprised by that. That is not because I am a business owner—that has never been my shtick—but because I am worried about the unintended consequences of the Bill. I too simply want an opportunity to check—and if I am wrong, that is fine.
This group of amendments is very important because it will give the Government a chance to think again, to assess and to reflect. It does not have to be a U-turn; it can straightforwardly be something that is accepted at this point in the Bill that would then mean that those of us who are nervous about the Bill’s consequences can be proved right or wrong.
I am particularly concerned about the impact the Bill will have on productivity, and Amendment 311 is therefore key. I am concerned that the Bill is not doing what it says on the tin and will have a diametrically negative impact on workers’ rights, jobs and wages. I am interested in Amendment 312, which simply asks for real wage impact reporting.
Of course, the big amendment that would cover all the things that have been argued for so far is Amendment 319, which calls for an impact assessment of the regulatory burden of the Bill on businesses. In the past, people who have complained about overregulation have been considered to be on the right of politics—the idea is that those people are so irresponsible that they do not want any regulations and are prepared to take risks. I have never understood it like that at all.
I was therefore delighted to find that I agreed with the Government and the Prime Minister, Keir Starmer, when he made some tub-thumping speeches about the problems of
“the regulators, the blockers and bureaucrats”
stopping investment and growth. He called them an “alliance of naysayers”, which I thought was good, because I have always been worried about this. I am not from the Tory fold, but that goes along with what I thought. I was genuinely excited that the Labour Government were embracing this way of understanding what can get in the way of economic development and growth, which is necessary for workers to have jobs, wages and rights under an industrial policy that we are hearing about today—all the infrastructure things.
Last December, the Prime Minister infamously blamed Britain’s sluggish growth on
“people in Whitehall … comfortable in the tepid bath of managed decline”.
As we have been going through the Bill, I have felt like I am in the tepid bath of managed decline at the heart of Whitehall and Westminster. Therefore, I urge the government representatives here to remember their own Prime Minister’s words when deciding how they should approach the Bill, rather than just being partisan.
Between 2015 and 2023, the Conservative Government set themselves the target of a £19 billion reduction in business costs through deregulation. Instead, the Regulatory Policy Committee watchdog calculated that even exempting most Covid regulation, the regulatory burden increased by £18.4 billion in that period. I am saying this because people keep declaring that they are going to tear up the regulations getting in the way of growth, industrial capacity and so on, and then, the next minute, unintentionally, regulations grow. The Bill is so jam-packed with regulations that workers’ rights do not stand a chance of breathing.
One of the fears I have about the Bill, which I have raised in a number of amendments and which I hope Amendment 319 will address, is that it is a recipe for huge amounts of lawfare. Day one rights and protection from unfair dismissal both sound progressive and admirable, but the Government’s own analysis predicts a 15% rise in employment tribunal claims. There are already huge backlogs of between 18 months to two years, even before the Bill is enacted, so there is a real threat of a litigious clogging up of the system. Of course it is important that employees are treated fairly. As I have argued throughout consideration of the Bill, I am not frightened of trade union and workers’ rights at all, but I am concerned about this growth, encouragement and incentivisation of the use of lawfare.
I have just read a fascinating report, which I will send to the Ministers, entitled The Equality Act isn’t Working: Equalities, Legislation and the Breakdown of Informal Civility in the Workplace, produced by the anti-racist, colourblind organisation Don’t Divide Us, which assesses the unintended consequences of the Equality Act. Nobody thought this would happen, but it has led to a real fractiousness in the workplace: people are suing each other, all sorts of things are going wrong, and, in many ways, it has clogged up the system. The last thing we need is the Bill adding to that burden, leading to lawfare and people taking matters even further by suing each other.
Either an impact assessment is going to show that some of the concerns raised are overhyped, or in some instances ideological or raised by nay-sayers; or the Government can take the opportunity to say, “We never intended the legislation to do this, but we have seen that in some areas, it needs to be tweaked to make sure that it is not over-regulatory, damaging workers’ rights and wages and so on, in which case we are prepared to be honest and hold our hands up”. That is the very least legislators should do when they introduce a law that is going to bring huge change the whole business and workplace arena.
Lord Swire (Con)
My Lords, as somebody who does business from time to time and tries to encourage business, not least through my deputy chairmanship of the Commonwealth Enterprise and Investment Council, which is trying to grow business right across the Commonwealth, it strikes me that the Bill comes at an unfortunate time. Of course, we should always look at regulation, and there will always be an argument about what is over-regulation and what is under-regulation. But at a time when so many jobs are threatened by AI, we should surely be looking at a low regulatory framework. I urge the Government to take this into consideration during any impact assessment.
The Minister knows about business. He is a businessman and has a successful business, and I too suspect that he identifies with many of the points we are raising, although he cannot say it. But it strikes me that, just at a time when people are very fearful about their future and the uncertainty of having a job at all, let alone when they get older, so they can raise a family, have a mortgage and so forth, we should be looking at ways to encourage businesses to employ more people. The noble Lord, Lord Deben, said that he saw every good reason not to employ more people. That is really bad news. If businesses are now saying it is simply not worth the candle, that will contribute to the unemployment that will surely follow as many of these jobs are replaced by AI anyway. So I urge the Government to look at that.
Equally, at a time when many countries around the world, not least in Asia, are spending much more money, time and effort on advanced mathematics and the other things you need nowadays for coding and so forth, we in this country seem to be lowering the standards, particularly in mathematics—dumbing down at a time when we should be raising up. So by all means, let us properly protect our workers, but let us not overregulate to the extent that we do not have any workers to look after or to regulate.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, I will address Amendments 310, 311, 312 and 319, which collectively seek greater transparency on the economic consequences of this legislation.
Although I am afraid that I take no firm view on the amendments themselves, which were explained in great detail by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and spoken to by other noble Lords, who expressed reservations—obviously, there are reservations—I welcome the principle that they reflect: that we must remain vigilant as to how new laws affect businesses, wages and productivity. No one else has said this, but I appreciate that the Government are already undertaking much of this work, and I would welcome an update from the Minister on how that work is progressing and informing policy development.
Amendment 310 raises a valuable and timely question about how new and small businesses might fare under the Bill. As the noble Lord knows, and as I know from a working lifetime as a chartered accountant, these enterprises often lack the resources, legal support and regulatory expertise of larger firms. It is only right that we ask whether the framework we are putting in place enables them to enter the market, grow and succeed on fair terms.
If the Government are serious about delivering long-term economic growth, they must pay close attention to the conditions facing new business entrants and small start-ups. These businesses, as I hope the noble Lord will agree, are not only a vital source of innovation and competition but key to job creation, skills development and regional regeneration. The barriers they face—and there are increasing barriers—whether through opaque processes or disproportionate compliance costs, can limit their contribution to the economy. By reducing unnecessary administrative burdens and ensuring a fair and accessible regulatory environment, we can help unlock their potential.
Growth will not come from productivity targets or ministerial ambition alone; it will depend on everyday decisions, as the noble Lord, Lord Deben, mentioned, made by entrepreneurs and small business owners around the country. We should support them accordingly. As mentioned previously, I do not readily back these amendments themselves—I do not think I agree with them—but I hope the Government will take careful note of the arguments they raise, particularly the point made in Amendment 310 about the effect on new and small businesses, which deserves further attention and consideration.
There are going to be economic consequences of this part of the Bill, and the Government should tell us how they view the impact of those. Noble Lords have spoken about increased costs. We all know—anyone who has been involved with business knows—that there will obviously be increased costs. Laws that we have put in over the years have added to those costs, but most businesses have managed to increase efficiency to try and mitigate them and make more profits. You have to adjust to what is happening in the world.
These amendments, and this part of the Bill, are about impact assessments and regulatory burdens. Are we putting too many burdens on people, or are those regulatory burdens helpful to the economics of this country? We must do things which increase productivity, and that is part of what the amendments are about. The noble Lord, Lord Deben, said that he had run businesses, and many of us in this Chamber have run businesses or advised them. I hope that he is going to be proved wrong—he asked to be proved wrong. I await the Government’s answer to the comments that he made in this debate.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Leong) (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to every noble Lord for their contribution, and I have listened intently to each and every one of them. I thank noble Lords for their kind words about my previous business career.
We return to the important issue of impact assessments. I appreciate the continued efforts of the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe and Lord Hunt of Wirral, here. It will be no surprise to your Lordships’ House, given the number of separate debates—I think there have been about eight now—we have had on this topic, that the Government view these amendments as unnecessary. Let me recap. We have already published 27 impact assessments, available on GOV.UK, which have been updated where needed as policy has been added to the Bill during passage.
Academics at Warwick University, Oxford University, MIT and UCL all find a positive relationship between job satisfaction and productivity in their research. For example, Simon Deakin, professor of law at the University of Cambridge, said:
“The consensus on the economic impacts of labour laws is that, far from being harmful to growth, they contribute positively to productivity. Labour laws also help ensure that growth is more inclusive and that gains are distributed more widely across society”.
All this evidence is laid out in our impact assessment, which was developed in consultation with external experts. Business supports the view that this will be good for productivity. In a survey undertaken by the Institute of Public Policy, seven in 10 employers said that strengthened employment rights will boost productivity, compared to just 7% who disagreed, and six in 10 employers thought stronger employment rights would have a positive impact on business profitability, while fewer than two in 10 disagreed.
We have worked hand in hand with businesses, trade unions and civil society to understand the impacts of this Bill—
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
There is no doubt that people who are happy at work are likely to contribute positively to the workplace. Nobody, I think, is arguing against that and wants miserable workers with no rights. However, what we are trying to explore is not whether people will have job satisfaction but whether they will have jobs. It is about the unintended consequences of the Bill that might mean that people are not employed; or, indeed, that new jobs are not created because productivity will not go up; or that it becomes too risky to employ, for example, young workers, and so on.
With all due respect to Warwick University’s academics—I went there and I know some of the people who wrote that research, and I am sure that they are happy in their workplace—the truth is that if some piece of legislation ended up unintentionally closing down Warwick University, they would not be happy and productivity would not go up. That is what we are concerned with. It is not a theoretical academic argument about how being happy at work makes you work harder—I know that. But if there is no work, then you are not going to be happy, you are not going to do any work and productivity will go down.
Lord Leong (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for that contribution. If she can be a bit patient, I have some more positive news for her.
We have worked hand in hand with businesses and trade unions, as I said earlier, to understand the impacts of the Bill on industry and will produce further analysis as required under the Better Regulation Framework. It is worth noting that more doors are opening than closing. In the first quarter of 2025, the UK saw 90,000 businesses created, up 2.8% on last year, while business closures fell by 4.4%. This Government are backing British businesses and British workers, and our Modern Industrial Strategy, published yesterday, is making that real. To give one example, we have boosted the British Business Bank’s capacity to £25.6 billion, unlocking billions for innovative firms, especially SMEs. For the first time, the British Business Bank will be able to take equity in fast-growing tech companies. This has never happened before. That is helping crowd in tens of billions of pounds more in private capital, fuelling growth, creating jobs and driving long-term prosperity. I hope that gives comfort to the noble Lord, Lord Deben.
Lord Deben (Con)
I am very pleased with all the research that was done before the Bill and all the research that has been done with it. The only question is: when the Bill goes through, why do not we do the research to make sure that we were right? I cannot understand why we draw the line the moment the Bill is passed, except in the generalities of better regulation. Will the Minister, whose business knowledge is considerable, please accept that businesspeople normally measure by results? Why cannot we measure the results?
Lord Leong (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord. I ask him to bear with me—patience here. We are already seeing the results. Just this morning, Amazon announced a £40 billion investment. This means that it has resounding confidence in the UK Government.
Baroness Verma (Con)
We are talking about small and medium-sized businesses too, and they are not all going to be tech companies; they are not all going to be Amazons. They are small or medium-sized companies that keep most cities and towns going.
Lord Leong (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for that. I, together with my ministerial colleagues, speak to businesses every day, whether they are tech companies, other businesses or whatever. Yesterday, I had a conversation with Small Business Britain, and we talked about this Bill and most of its members have confidence in this Government. We talk to all businesses.
I come back to Amazon: basically, what it means is £40 billion. It is creating 4,000 new jobs across the UK, which is a major boost to our tech and logistics sector. The latest Lloyds Business Barometer survey shows that business confidence is at a nine-month high, with a rise in hiring expectations among businesses. This is proof that our plan for change is working. Britain is open for business, and the world is taking notice. There is simply nothing more I can add to the noble Lord’s argument. This analysis—and we will continue to do impact assessments—will be done, and I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw Amendment 310.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
My Lords, before the Minister sits down, may I just clarify whether he said that 90,000 jobs were created in the first quarter of 2025, or was it 290,000? I missed the exact figure. It is my understanding that, in the first quarter of last year, with which the comparison has been made by the Minister, there were 248,000 new entrants. The Minister spoke of new jobs, but our impact assessment is on new entrants to the market and there were 248,000 in the first quarter of last year. If the 90,000 refers to new jobs as opposed to new entrants into the workforce, that is a different comparison.
Lord Leong (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for giving me the opportunity to say this again. In the first quarter of 2025, the UK saw 90,000 businesses created. Business creation was up by 2.8% over last year, while business closures fell by 4.4%.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, this has been such an important debate. We have been throwing statistics around the Chamber as if they had just been invented. The very latest statistic that I have in front of me, published in Business Matters, is that:
“Britain has recorded its highest number of company closures for two decades, with the final quarter of 2024 seeing 198,046 businesses struck off the official register”.
That is hot from the press. We have really been debating—
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, I must challenge the noble Lord. There are many reasons for business closures. Companies get struck off for all kinds of reasons. Unless we drill deep down into what that figure is comprised of and whether the reasons are insolvency or companies being dormant, it will be difficult just throwing figures around.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
Is that not exactly why we need to measure the impact? That is what this debate has been all about. The Minister has done my job for me, but he has not accepted any of the amendments.
I thank my noble friend Lady Lawlor very much indeed, not only for the facts and figures that she gave us but for how she stressed that there has been, is perceived to be and is taking place an increase in the regulatory burden. Looking ahead, there are more compliance costs to come. Why does the Minister not accept that there is a need for an independent impartial measure? That is what these amendments seek. My noble friend Lord Deben, with all his unrivalled experience in building up businesses, is arguing that we need to check, to look ahead and to ensure that we can measure the impact of this legislation. Who is going to be right? The Government are saying, “Trust us, we’re right, we know what’s best, this will increase growth”. Yet their own impact assessment says that it will not.
Therefore, when you analyse all the facts and statistics that are coming forward, surely there is a very strong argument that we need an independent impact assessment. I agree with my noble friend Lady Verma that, if our roles were reversed and the Minister, with all his experience, was sitting on this side of the House, these are the amendments that he would be pressing for, because he knows how important it is to measure the impact of legislation and regulation. The noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, spoke of measuring what is happening now against what the Prime Minister promised in cutting the amount of regulatory burden and reversing the managed decline. It was good that she reminded us of those key words. Yet, as she said, this legislation is jam-packed with regulation. Her warning that this legislation is a recipe for lawfare is a warning to us all.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Swire that there is a need for a low regulatory framework at a time when our competitors are embracing artificial intelligence and all the new techniques while we are increasing the regulatory burden. I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, got the answer that he was looking for from the Minister. Although he may not agree specifically with each individual amendment, he does believe that there is a clear message here that we must take on board.
Lord Monks (Lab)
I was just sitting here looking at the noble Lord, a member of Mrs Thatcher’s Cabinet, with another one over there, the noble Lord, Lord Deben. When they passed a major piece of legislation, were there were any cases where you went to Mrs Thatcher and said, “Can we have an independent assessment of whether we have done the right thing?” I cannot remember anybody ever doing that, but perhaps the noble Lord can tell me otherwise.
Lord Deben (Con)
Can the noble Lord, Lord Monks, mention any occasion on which the Official Opposition of the time demanded it?
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My noble friend is quite right. I was going to make a rejoinder by demonstrating that, with Margaret Thatcher assessing, when you proposed a piece of legislation, you had to make sure that you had done your homework and carried out every possible impact assessment, as you would be closely cross-examined on each and every piece of legislation. I worry that this Bill has been rushed through in the first 100 days and no one has carried out the sort of test that Margaret Thatcher would have imposed. Therefore, I am so grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Monks, for reminding us of that criterion, which we ought to bear in mind.
Lord Watson of Wyre Forest (Lab)
The noble Lord has lured me into asking a question about impact assessments and the historic impact of the Thatcher Government. Which impact assessment said that there was a legislative decision made incorrectly during that period?
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
We were subject to parliamentary scrutiny each and every day of the 18 years that we were in power. It was good that this accountability to Parliament was treasured by those in Parliament. However, I worry, certainly so far as secondary legislation. The noble Lord served with me on the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee and joined with me in saying, “Please let us make sure that every piece of legislation that we pass has a proper impact assessment”. Perhaps we learn from history that it is vitally important to have that impact assessment always ready there to prove, as my noble friend Lord Deben put it, whether we have got it right or wrong.
I worry that this Government have not done their homework. The fact that they resist these amendments suggests that the cut in regulatory burdens is not going to be pursued with any real determination. That 25% target is destined to remain a headline-grabbing announcement that quietly disappears when submerged under the reality of real-life policy choices. I hope that the Government reconsider, because these issues will come up over the next few years of this Government. For now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
“Social mobility impact reportingWithin 12 months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must publish an independent assessment of its impact on social mobility.”
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, in some ways, we are continuing a theme with Amendment 313 in my name. The Government have talked about supporting those on the fringes of the labour market; this is a goal that I hope we all share. We know that different individuals face different work challenges, whether due to educational background, employment history, health circumstances or socioeconomic factors. The question before us is whether this legislation achieves that laudable objective or whether it inadvertently makes it harder for precisely those individuals whom the Government claim they want to help.
I start with the day-one right concerning unfair dismissal, and I pose a fundamental question: why would any employer take on what might be considered a high-risk hire? Why would they take a chance on a young person seeking their first opportunity? Why would they hire a student who did not attend a top-tier university? Why would they consider a person from a lower socioeconomic background, who may lack conventional credentials but definitely possesses untapped potential? When employers face immediate legal liability for dismissal decisions, they naturally become more risk averse in their hiring practices. They gravitate towards candidates with proven track records, established credentials and minimal perceived risk. This is not callousness; it is rational economic behaviour in response to the regulatory environment.
The Government’s refusal to include a meaningful probationary period at this stage compounds the problem significantly. I have little doubt that, fairly soon, the Government will be arguing that they intend to consult and to continue with a light-touch probationary regime, which, it is suggested, could last for up to nine months. That is all well and good, but what does it mean in practice? What does the phrase “light-touch” mean and how will it be defined? Who are they going to be consulting, and on what? What are the Government thinking about this? It needs to be in primary legislation. Make no mistake: this uncertainty is affecting business decision-making now.
It looks as if the Government fundamentally fail to understand that employment relationships involve mutual discovery. In the short term, virtually all jobs represent a cost to business. Employers hire workers not because they are immediately profitable but because they are confident that, over time, these workers will develop skills, reach their peak performance and productivity, and ultimately become a net benefit to the company or employing organisation. This process of development and mutual learning requires flexibility. It requires the ability for both parties to recognise when a match is not working and to part ways without excessive legal complexity. By removing this flexibility from day one, the legislation creates a powerful incentive to hire only the safest and the most predictable candidates—precisely the opposite of supporting those on the fringe of the labour market.
The same perverse logic applies to the day-one right to sick pay. Consider the position of someone who has been absent from the workforce for an extended period. There are businesses that will make a point of hiring such individuals, recognising their potential and being willing to provide them with opportunities. But now the cost calculation has fundamentally changed. An employer considering such a hire must now factor in the immediate liability for sick pay from day one, combined with an inability to part ways if the employment relationship proves unsuccessful. The rational response is fairly obvious: avoid the risk entirely.
This is not theoretical speculation; it is how labour markets function when faced with regulatory constraints. No amount of academic opinion can state otherwise. I urge the Government to review the impact on social mobility, so that they can adapt the legislation to avoid the unintended consequences I have highlighted. Like my noble friend Lord Deben on the last group, I would like to be proved wrong on this. If I am, I invite the Government to gloat to their hearts’ content about that, but I think we need the evidence. I beg to move.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, I support my noble friend’s excellent amendment, as we reach the end of Committee. Before I get into the substance of that, I will offer some praise. Noble Lords know that, last week, I took issue with the Government Front Bench about the potential lack of response to letters from individual noble Lords who had raised specific points during Committee. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, who is no longer in her place, took some issue with that, resiled from my analysis and said that it was not the case. However, over the last few days, I have received a plethora of epistles from the Government in my email. As Private Eye may have said in the past, are those two occasions by any chance related? That was my praise; I thank the Government for coming forward with those letters and we will hold them to account when we reach Report. I am grateful for small mercies, nevertheless.
I commend to the Government the excellent report of the Social Mobility Commission, State of the Nation Report 2024: Local to National, Mapping Opportunities for All. I probably say this at every juncture, but my noble friend’s amendment is helpful, because there is a cross-party consensus that we should all be working to help young people in particular into work, innovative employment, and skills and training. As we all know, and as has been found by apolitical third parties such as the charity the Sutton Trust, which focuses on improving social mobility, there are disparities across the country. There are sectoral and geographic disparities, and disparities in people’s backgrounds, race, ethnicity, age et cetera. As far as is practicable, we should be designing legislation that tackles issues around improving life chances, training and skills, and innovation.
More fundamentally, we need to be designing legislation that tackles endemic, entrenched inequalities, and that is what this amendment is about. My noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom is absolutely right that this is about opportunity cost. Many employers, given the chance, will try to help young people by giving them a chance to improve their life chances and skills, and by paying for their exams and training, et cetera—via apprenticeships, for instance. But the legislative regime will be such that they are encouraged not to employ that person, because they may have a disability, may be late to the employment market or may not be socialised—they may not understand the protocols of going to work each day, of being on time and of being dressed smartly, which are very basic things that we take for granted. That risk aversity, employers not wanting to employ those people, will have a negative effect as the corollary of this Bill.
Ministers have a chance at least to engage with this amendment and, when we come to Report, I hope to accept it; it would make a real difference to the lives of people who find it tough to enter and stay in the employment market. I encourage Ministers to look at the report to which I referred, and at the work that has been done to support the Bill and its laudable objectives. My noble friend offers this amendment in good faith in order genuinely to improve the Bill. On that basis, I hope that the Minister will look on it favourably and incorporate its ideas into the finished Bill.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
My Lords, I could not support this amendment more; I heartily support it. A social mobility impact assessment is vital.
I want to illustrate this with a few brief words on the retail sector. My noble friends have referred to the many reasons why people are excluded from employment in the retail sector, such as a lack of social mobility. When this Bill was coming forward last year, the British Retail Consortium expressed great concern and doubt about its ability to offer jobs. The BRC indicated that 61% of those consulted said that the Bill would reduce flexibility in job offers, 10% were unsure and 23% said that it would have no effect.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, in a previous life, I used to work in further education with many young people who were non-traditionally successful. In more current times, I have worked on matters relating to prison reform and I am very interested in former prisoners gaining employment. In all the instances of working with young people who did not have traditional qualifications or were trying to get into work, or with former prisoners, you were in a situation where you were talking to local employers and asking them to take a punt—a risk—on people. You would say, “Look, the worst that can happen is that you try this person out, it doesn’t work out and no one’s lost anything, but actually I’ve got every faith they will be brilliant”, and so on and so forth. You had to say, “Take a risk”, and I am afraid that in all the responses from employers they are saying, whether we like it or not, that the Bill—if enacted as it is presently constituted —will mean they become risk averse and will not take risks on a former prisoner or a young person who is a bit of a scally. So it is key to assess social mobility.
In addition to that group of people, one of the key ways in which work contributes to social mobility is often through young entrepreneurs or young people who, again, might not be conventionally the kind of people who will pass the Civil Service exam, will not necessarily fit in as an ideal employee and might be slightly eccentric or risk-takers, but who will set up their own micro-business. We know that they are the kind of people who might well be successful, although sometimes they might not be.
Throughout the passage of the Bill, there have been a lot of amendments tabled about micro-businesses—not SMEs, as they are traditionally still quite large businesses whereas micro-businesses have around 20 staff, or even two, three or four. If you talk to young entrepreneurs—the sort of young men who drop out of college but set up semiconductor manufacturing organisations, like some people I know, a builders’ business or a small hairdressers’ business—they realise that many parts of the Bill, which I have opposed throughout, will affect them. They do not have huge HR departments, they are not lawyers and they do not know what they are going to do, but they will be held liable for swathes of regulatory rules mandated by the Bill about the way they run their micro-businesses.
Those people are part of the great success of social mobility. They start out and make a success of it, but now it might not be worth it. They are not always poor and impoverished people. It can be young people making good through small businesses.
If it is the case that this is scaremongering about the worst fears or people just being paranoid, fair enough. But this Labour Government, of all Governments, should want to assess whether the Bill inadvertently, not intentionally, damages social mobility via employment. I therefore urge the Minister to accept this harmless but important amendment.
Baroness Cash (Con)
My Lords, I support the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, and the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, who covered quite a few of the points I planned to make. I want to speak specifically about young people.
Speaking very recently in front of a committee, Employment Minister Alison McGovern said that
“the situation for young people is a big worry for me at the moment”
and that:
“A lot of our young people—nearly 1 million—are effectively on the scrap heap”.
Those are not words I would have chosen myself; they are her words to a cross-party committee.
We have heard a lot of statistics during today’s debates. I will just add a few more. There are 1 million people not in education, employment or training, which includes a lot of young people. In addition, we have massive numbers of people receiving sickness benefits. All these young people will be a risk for employers.
The Minister is quite right that there has been an uptick in new businesses starting, but there is a serious downturn in the number of jobs created; unemployment is rising year on year, month on month since this Government took power; and the tax rises in the Autumn Budget are beginning to really kick in. We have seen that in the written submissions by numerous business organisations to the Government, other groups and Peers in this Chamber, begging—pleading—with us all to make their case about the significant costs they are already facing due to the national insurance rises. We can see it in real time. This amendment is a request to monitor the situation and come back with an impact assessment on perhaps the most vulnerable people in our society.
To show that these young people really want to succeed and want to have an opportunity, I will read the Committee a couple more numbers that the Minister is probably already well aware of. Some 60% of young people under the age of 30 would love to start a business, 9% of them have done so and 18% more of them would like to do so this year. These are the most vulnerable young people in our society. They are our future, as our demographics are getting older, and we are going to become more and more reliant on the economy that they generate. I have said it before, and I will say it again and again in this Chamber: Governments do not create growth; businesses create growth. We are now looking to these young people to start businesses and take risks on employing others. I urge the Government to, at the very least, come back having monitored that there is no impact on them and no further impact on the loss of employment that could ensue.
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken. I refer to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, about letters. I assure him that it is no coincidence that when we make a commitment and say that we will write, we write. I make sure that my officials write to everyone to whom I have promised a letter within 10 working days. If the noble Lord has not received letters from us, I welcome the challenge of being put on the spot to ask why the letters are not there.
I have a couple of points. I am a firm believer in social mobility. When I exited my business, some 20 years ago, I was very much involved in a social enterprise that went into state schools to ensure that state pupils were able to get out of their shell, be better and make something out of their lives. I am a firm believer in social mobility, and this Government take social mobility seriously. We do not just talk about it; we action it.
To support our commitment to ensuring that everyone, no matter their background, can thrive, we will commence Section 1 of the Equality Act 2010 in England:
“Public sector duty regarding socio-economic inequalities”.
As an example, the socioeconomic duty will require specific public bodies to actively consider how their strategic decisions might help to reduce the inequalities of outcomes associated with socioeconomic disadvantage. We are also now taking forward work to make sure that commencement of the duty in England is as effective as possible in driving efforts across the country to break down barriers to opportunity and making sure that there is no glass ceiling on people’s ambition.
I refer to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe. We debated unfair dismissal and probation periods on day five of Committee, which was 21 May. We debated sick pay on days two and three of Committee, which were 8 and 13 May. We have debated some of these points at length.
I refer to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Cash, about some of the 1 million young people who are not in employment, training or education. We recognise that, and we are doing something about it. Since the general election, 500,000 more people are in work. At same time, we are improving access to NHS appointments; some 3 million people have been seen by medics in NHS appointments.
Baroness Cash (Con)
I would like some clarity regarding the employment numbers, because unemployment has been rising and is higher. We know from a number of City firms that graduates are struggling to get jobs, even in supermarkets. We have 33% fewer jobs for graduates. I just want the Minister to clarify the increase that he referred to and where that is coming from.
Lord Leong (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for that remark. I will get officials to write, setting out the detailed analysis of where this unemployment is and where new jobs are being created. I want to make absolutely sure that we get this right. We have already improved the NHS waiting list, and something like 3 million people have already accessed their appointments.
On the point about the impact assessment, which I will not labour, this analysis, as I have set up in many preceding groups, will be done. That includes social mobility. There is no point me standing here and repeating what I have just said. All this will be done. I therefore ask the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, to withdraw Amendment 313.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I thank the Minister for his answer. I am also grateful to my noble friends Lord Jackson, Lady Lawlor and Lady Cash for their supportive comments and to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, who raised some very interesting points.
I gently suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Leong, that we are not just talking about it either; we are proposing to do something about it. We want to protect social mobility, which is why we have tabled this amendment. He sounded disappointed that we have to keep returning to this debate—so are we, but we do not feel that we are getting meaningful answers on the subject of the consultation, which we have brought up on numerous occasions. Until we get those meaningful answers, we will continue to return to this debate.
The Government may not deem a comprehensive impact assessment necessary for these provisions, but they have not given a satisfactory response to the serious concerns raised about social mobility and opportunity creation. In our opinion, this represents a failure to engage with the economic realities of how the employment market functions, and the Minister knows this as well as I do.
We must judge policies by their results, not their intentions. Results are not dependent on the nobility of our intentions but on the incentives that policies create in the real world. This Bill creates the wrong kinds of incentives. It incentivises employers to become more risk-averse, not more inclusive. It incentivises the hiring of safe, conventional candidates over those who might bring fresh perspectives but lack traditional credentials. It incentivises the protection of those already in employment at the expense of those seeking to enter it. In the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, it disincentivises taking a punt.
Do not just take my word for it, take those of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales. Its most recent survey stated:
“Members say that, at a time when the government needs business to drive growth by taking risks, the Bill, along with these other pressures, will make businesses more risk averse. ‘We worry businesses will start playing it too safe, choosing a “safe pair of hands” over bold, innovative talent that could drive real change’”.
These are not the incentives of a modern, dynamic economy that seeks to maximise opportunity and social mobility. They are the incentives of a system that entrenches existing advantages and fundamentally will make it harder for those without them to break through. We think that is a tragedy. This legislation will be judged a failure because of the standards its proponents have set for it. When employment opportunities for young people decline, social mobility stagnates and those on the fringes of the labour market find doors closing rather than opening, we will see the true measure of these policies, and that will be regrettable. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill
“Guidance for small businesses(1) The Secretary of State must publish a document containing statutory guidance for businesses with fewer than 50 employees on their employment and legal obligations under this Act.(2) The document must include, in particular— (a) an overview of the relevant legal duties placed on employers under this Act, (b) a practical framework outlining how such businesses can meet those duties, and(c) guidance on best practice suitable to businesses of this size.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to publish statutory guidance for small businesses in adhering to the employment and legal requirements of this Act.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, in speaking to this group of amendments I note the sorry absence of my noble friend Lord Fox, whose contributions on these matters have always been thoughtful and constructive. Unfortunately, the Committee has me instead. I will focus in particular on Amendments 317 and 329, both tabled by my noble friend Lord Fox, which aim to provide much-needed clarity and certainty to small businesses as they seek to understand and comply with the provisions of the Bill.
Amendment 317 would require the Secretary of State to publish statutory guidance to support small businesses in meeting the employment and legal obligations introduced by this legislation. This is a modest and reasonable ask that would have a significant practical benefit. For many small businesses, compliance is a question not of good will but capacity. Unlike larger firms, they do not have in-house legal departments or external consultants on retainer. They need clear, accessible, authoritative guidance that they can rely on from day one. This amendment is not about watering down the law, nor is it about shielding firms from responsibility. It is about enabling small businesses to do the right thing without having to second-guess the detail or bear disproportionate cost in trying to interpret it.
Amendment 329 would build on that principle by making the commencement of the Act contingent on the publication and parliamentary approval of such guidance. It is important to say that we on these Benches understand the mandate that the Government won at the last election, and we have no intention of delaying the Bill beyond our duty to scrutinise it. However, this amendment reflects a deep concern about the real-world impact that the legislation may have on small businesses if clarity is not in place from the outset.
It is not necessarily about the measures in the Bill itself but about how they are communicated and implemented. Without clear guidance, there is a risk that well-intentioned businesses will fall foul of the law through no fault of their own. These amendments offer the Government a constructive route to avoid that outcome. I hope that Ministers will engage with them in that spirit. We are just trying to make it so that businesses, like the Minister, would know what they have to do. They need it to be set out. I hope that the Government will feel this is a possibility that they will consider before Report. I beg to move.
Lord Carter of Haslemere (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 326 in this group. I begin by saying again how gracious it was of the Minister to meet me to discuss my amendments in advance a couple of weeks or so ago. My Amendment 326 is on the same theme of the need for impact assessments before provisions are brought into force. It provides that:
“Regulations which would amend primary legislation may not be laid … unless an assessment of the impact … has been laid before Parliament and three months has elapsed”
from that date.
Delegated powers that can amend primary legislation are, of course, known as Henry VIII powers. This derives from the Statute of Proclamations in 1539 when Henry VIII persuaded the Commons to include a provision in a Bill that would permit him to issue decrees having the same effect as an Act of Parliament and thereby bypass the normal parliamentary process.
Henry VIII powers can be draconian and raise real questions as regards compliance with the rule of law. This is not just my view. In his much-lauded Bingham lecture on 14 October 2024, entitled “The Rule of Law in an Age of Populism”, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hermer, the Attorney-General, was obviously right when he said that excessive reliance on delegated powers, including Henry VIII clauses
“upsets the proper balance between Parliament and the Executive. This not only strikes at the rule of law ... but also at the cardinal principles of accessibility and legal certainty”—
issues that
“raise real questions about how we are governed”.
These are wise words indeed and very welcome, but I find it difficult to reconcile them with our Bill. As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, pointed out at Second Reading, there are around 163 delegated powers in our Bill and 12 Henry VIII powers. As he powerfully put it:
“Ministers are, in effect, asking Parliament today to empower them to do whatever they decide to do, whenever they decide to do it”.—[Official Report, 27/3/25; col. 1845.]
The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, in its report of 24 April, described various Henry VIII powers in the Bill as, “overly broad”, “inadequately justified”, and an
“inappropriate use of the … affirmative process”.
As it said, Henry VIII powers are subject to far less scrutiny than primary legislation.
And this is the heart of the problem. Much of the legislation needed is yet to come, but it will not be capable of being scrutinised as it should be because of the reliance on Henry VIII clauses. It is a symptom of a rushed agenda but also, more worryingly, of a growing acceptance that Henry VIII powers are okay. They are becoming the default option.
The Select Committee on the Constitution, in its report, points out that Clause 24, “Dismissal during pregnancy”, and Clause 25, “Dismissal following period of statutory family leave”, both
“contain and extend Henry VIII powers that … act as placeholders while the Government consults further on the specifics of the measures to be implemented”.
This can mean only that
“substantive policy decisions have not yet been taken”
on those issues. But it also means a lack of certainty about how the provisions will operate in practice, which the Select Committee-considered to be “particularly concerning”, given that the provisions enable primary legislation to be modified.
In addition, Schedule 7 contains a list of extensive legislative powers in connection with labour market enforcement, under Part 5, which are passing to the Secretary of State. Paragraph 35 confers on the Secretary of State a Henry VIII power to add by regulations any enactment which affects the rights of employees, trade unions and the duties of employers.
These extensive enforcement powers in Part 5 also need to be considered alongside Clauses 151 and 153. These clauses contain a power to make any consequential provision, which may amend, repeal, revoke or otherwise modify
“any provision made by or under primary legislation passed before, or in the same session as … this Act ... and may make different provision for different purposes or … areas”
or
“contain supplementary, incidental, consequential, transitional or saving provision”.
The Government may respond that the power to make consequential provision is confined to what is purely consequential. That is true, but what is purely consequential turns on the scope of the provisions they are said to be in consequence of. Combining these consequential powers with the wide powers in Part 5, for example, would seem to give the Secretary of State the power to confer on his enforcement officers even wider powers when entering offices to search and seize documents, if they are in some way connected with the operation. I think even Henry VIII would have been impressed. His 1539 Statute of Proclamations allowed him to amend legislation by decree, but even he was not permitted to prejudice
“any person’s offices, liberties, goods”
or “chattels”.
Then there is the power to make provision for different purposes or different areas. What is the need for that power? When I was in government as a lawyer, parliamentary counsel would probe closely as to why we needed this power, and we would have to justify it. My amendment is therefore designed to bring some transparency and due diligence to the use of these Henry VIII powers before they are laid and debated. It would simply provide that, before such regulations could be laid, there would need to be an impact assessment laid before Parliament for three months to enable a bit more parliamentary scrutiny. This would give time for reflection and, if the Government decided to proceed with laying the regulations, it would serve to enhance the level of parliamentary debates on the regulations that subsequently take place under the affirmative procedure.
I give the last word to the great Lord Judge, who spoke strongly against such clauses when he was Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales. He said:
“You can be sure that when these Henry VIII clauses are introduced they will always be said to be necessary. William Pitt warned us how to treat such a plea with disdain. ‘Necessity is the justification for every infringement of human liberty’”.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill and Lord Carter of Haslemere, for their amendments in this group. As the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, commented, it gives us the chance to send further good wishes to the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for a speedy recovery. We look forward to seeing him back in this Chamber to discuss this vital Bill.
Dealing with Amendment 317 first, the Government have already acknowledged that the vast majority of the costs associated with this legislation will fall on smaller businesses, but it is not just the obvious headline of which we must be mindful. As the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, pointed out, there are significant hidden costs too. These include the need to hire legal professionals, expand human resource capacity, and navigate increasingly complex compliance requirements, which many smaller firms simply cannot afford. That is why statutory guidance specifically tailored for small businesses—those with fewer than 50 employees—is not just helpful; I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, that it is essential. These businesses are the backbone of our economy. They do not have in-house counsel, nor the luxury of large HR departments, yet they are bound by the same obligations under this Bill as any large corporation.
Lord Leong (Lab)
I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Carter of Haslemere and Lord Fox, for Amendments 317, 326 and 329, and the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, for moving the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Fox.
Amendment 317 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Fox, is on guidance for small businesses. Ensuring that businesses are supported to implement these reforms is fundamental to the successful delivery of the plan to make work pay. We have committed to providing guidance to ensure that all stakeholders have the information required to make necessary adjustments. We are engaging closely with employers of all types from a range of sectors to understand how the Government can best support them in their preparations.
Support may look different for different sectors, sizes of company, regions and so on. We want to make sure that we properly consider the needs of different employers and respond in the most effective way. This could include a variety of tailored guidance and support. The amendment risks preventing the Government taking the type of tailored approach that we hope will be most effective. Our forthcoming implementation road map will set out our plans for consultation and implementation of the Bill’s measures.
Our Employment Rights Bill delivers the most significant upgrade in employment rights in a generation, creating a modern, fairer labour market. We will continue to consult and engage to make sure we get delivery right. We will produce guidance, provide support, allow time to prepare, and ensure the enforcement landscape works. I make it clear that I agree with the noble Lord that it is in everyone’s interest that small businesses are properly supported to implement the Bill, and the Government are committed to doing so.
Amendment 329 from the noble Lord, Lord Fox, would make commencement of all the Bill’s measures contingent on the approval and publication of statutory guidance. This would unnecessarily delay commencement of measures that can be delivered more quickly. We are committed to supporting small businesses and will ensure that timely and targeted guidance is delivered where relevant.
I turn to Amendment 326 from the noble Lord, Lord Carter. I have read the entire Bingham lecture from my noble and learned friend the Attorney-General. Nowhere in his speech did he say that statutory instruments should not be used. As most noble Lords know, employment legislation uses true statutory instruments because they save parliamentary time, as mentioned in the Attorney-General’s speech, so that we can get more of this on the statute book.
I reassure the noble Lord that the Government have sought to limit the use of the Henry VIII powers within the Bill and believe our approach to their use is proportionate. I can also reassure the Committee that the Government already have robust plans in place to assess and review the impacts of this Bill. The noble Lord’s amendment would add unnecessary bureaucracy to this and other necessary powers in the Bill. It would also, in effect, duplicate work that the Government are already committed to undertaking.
Take, for example, the power in Clause 132(6). This allows the Secretary of State to update, expand or otherwise modify the list of bodies specified in Schedule 9 to the Bill with which information may be shared by the fair work agency. It is a Henry VIII power, subject to the affirmative procedure. The Government believe this is an entirely appropriate use of such power and the DPRRC also raised no concerns.
Specifically on the power in Clause 151, I reassure the noble Lord that, where possible, amendments to other pieces primary legislation that are required as a result of the Bill’s provisions have been made in the Bill itself. This includes amendments in Schedule 1 that are consequential on the provisions regarding zero hours in Clauses 1 to 5; those in paragraphs 5 to 19 of Schedule 3 that are consequential on the changes regarding unfair dismissal; and the provisions in Schedule 10 that are consequential on the provisions in Part 5. However, it is possible that further provisions will be identified that require consequential amendments. Allowing these to be made by regulations will mean they can be made without delay and with appropriate levels of parliamentary scrutiny. The power is constrained as it will allow amendments only where they are consequential on the provisions already made in this Bill.
Supporting employers to understand the requirements of the Bill is key to achieving the objectives of the plan to make work pay. I hope noble Lords are assured of the Government’s firm commitment to effectively and appropriately support stakeholders in preparing for employment rights reform.
This will be my last time speaking in Committee on this Bill, so—
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
If this is the last time the Minister is going to speak, I should point out that he started off by telling us about the road map, which his noble friend promised we would see shortly. In his closing remarks, would he like to tell us when we will see it? Will it be tomorrow, or next week? We would like to see it as soon as possible; indeed, we would love it if he could publish it now, before he finishes his closing speech.
Lord Leong (Lab)
It is tempting, but I can assure the noble Lord that it will be published very, very, very soon. How is that?
Like I said, this is the last time I will speak in this Committee. I want to take the opportunity to express my gratitude to all noble Lords for their extensive engagement and the robust way in which we have debated this stage of the Bill’s passage. I pay particular tribute to the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe, Lord Hunt and Lord Fox, and to the noble Lords, Lord Goddard and Lord Palmer, for standing in so ably for him. Like the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, I wish the noble Lord, Lord Fox, well in his recovery and look forward to welcoming him back.
Let me be clear: this Government welcome scrutiny—that is the purpose of this House—but scrutiny must be grounded in the present and focus on the issues at hand, not lost in the echoes of decades-old political arguments. Some contributions, regretfully, seem to have been more intent on reviving grievances from the 1970s than addressing the needs of today’s Britain.
This Bill delivers on a clear manifesto promise. It is part of our plan for change, built not on rhetoric but on the practical need to provide security for working people and long-term renewal for the country. This is where our focus lies—not on refighting the past but on fixing the future. We continue to welcome serious challenge, and we expect debates to be robust, but we also expect them to be proportionate, honest and forward-looking.
As we approach the end of Committee this evening, we on this side look forward to constructive and collaborative meetings and engagement with all noble Lords ahead of Report. With that said, I respectfully ask the noble Lord to withdraw Amendment 317.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
On behalf of my noble friend Lord Fox, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for his support, which was so eloquently put. I also thank the Minister for his detailed reply.
When the Minister started speaking, I thought he would use his valedictory remarks to say that he was actually going to agree with something. There was great promise that he would agree to the amendments—these reasonable amendments—as all they would do is give guidance to small businesses to show them what the legislation is. Then, I lost: he will step down without going out on a positive note, which is very sad. His argument was that all the amendment would do is delay things. Sometimes, delay is good. Delay can be good if you get it right. Too often things are done precipitately, and delay is the better alternative.
What is the answer from the Minister? We shall have more statutory instruments. I have dealt with statutory instruments in the 15 years I have been in this House. Quite honestly, we discuss them, but we never vote. There has been no vote that I can remember, and statutory instruments are a means for the Government to tell us what they are going to do, and we have to nod in agreement.
Where do small businesses stand in all this, without any real guidance? They are left in a morass. The Minister has gone off in a cloud of glory, but I still do not have an answer as to whether anything will be implemented. Sadly, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment of my noble friend Lord Fox.
Lord Clement-Jones
“Rights of dependent contractorsAfter section 230 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (Employees, workers etc), insert—“230A Rights of dependent contractors(1) A dependent contractor is an individual who—(a) is engaged to perform work or services personally for an employer or contractor of services;(b) primarily or substantially relies on a single employer or contractor of services for their income;(c) is not classified as an employee under a contract of employment, nor as an independent contractor operating a fully autonomous business;(d) is subject to a degree of control by the employer or contractor of services regarding the manner, timing, or conditions under which the work is performed.(2) A dependent contractor, as defined in subsection (1), must be entitled to the following rights statutorily accorded to employees— (a) payment at or above the National Minimum Wage for all tasks performed;(b) paid annual leave and shall be subject to the record-keeping duties as outlined for employees in this Act;(c) statutory sick pay;(d) family leave entitlements including parental leave, and bereavement leave;(e) protection from unlawful deductions from pay and protection against discrimination under applicable equality legislation;(f) the right to request fixed hours after a qualifying period of continuous service with the same employer or contractor of services;(g) the right to and on terms to be defined in regulations, mirroring the rights afforded to zero-hour workers and those on similar contracts.(3) Dependent contractors, as defined in subsection (1), are not entitled to—(a) statutory redundancy pay;(b) minimum notice periods for termination unless otherwise specified in their contract.(4) The Secretary of State may by regulations make further provision in respect of the rights and obligations of dependent contractors, including defining qualifying periods for certain rights.””Member's explanatory statement
This amendment aims to define dependent contractor status by reference to existing employee rights particularly those related to flexible working arrangements and family leave.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I will see my noble friend Lord Fox tomorrow and I will tell him what he has been missing. I think the noble Lord, Lord Leong, is already making history by using the phrase “very, very soon”—or was it “very, very, very soon”? In my experience, I do not think I have heard that, so it is probably arriving tomorrow morning.
Amendment 318 seeks to introduce specific provisions for dependent contractors. It proposes the insertion of a new section into the Employment Rights Act 1996, by way of a new clause after Clause 150. It is intended to address a significant gap in our current employment law by recognising essential rights and extending them to a growing segment of our workforce. This is a serious and rather surprising omission from the Bill; certainly, it is a gap my party promised to fill in its manifesto last year. I feel an obligation to put this amendment forward today.
The Minister spoke about employment rights in a modern labour market. I do not believe we can secure proper employment rights in a modern labour market without addressing the issue of the dependent contractor. We know that the nature of work has changed and is changing. More and more individuals are engaged to perform work or services personally, relying primarily on a single employer or contractor for their income, yet they fall outside the traditional definitions of employee and fully autonomous independent contractor.
These dependent contractors are often subject to a degree of control over how, when and where they work, leaving them in a precarious position, without adequate employment protections. No doubt this Committee will be familiar with many of those who work in the gig economy—delivery workers, contracted drivers, piece-rate workers, home workers and even consultants who work almost exclusively for a single client. Granted, some Uber drivers and Hermes couriers went to court and managed to establish that they are in fact workers and not independent contractors, but more needs to be done. We need explicit statements about the status of such workers and explicit rights set out in this Bill.
The amendment seeks to rectify the situation by defining dependent contractor status clearly within the Employment Rights Act. Crucially, it proposes to extend several key employment rights to these individuals, treating some of the measures in the Bill as applicable to them. Specifically, this amendment would ensure that dependent contractors are entitled to the rights set out in proposed new subsection (2) of my amendment. This includes payment at or above the national minimum wage for all work performed; the right to payment for cancelled, moved and curtailed shifts, which mirrors the vital protections the Bill introduces for zero-hours workers; statutory sick pay from day one of sickness, aligning with the Bill’s improvements to SSP; day one rights to paternity and parental leave, and the new right to bereavement leave.
The amendment also includes a statutory right to disconnect from work-related communications outside of normal working hours, and protection from detriment for exercising this right, as the Bill establishes for other workers. It also includes protection from unlawful deductions from pay, and against discrimination. It further includes an entitlement to guaranteed hours if regular and predictable hours are worked for a defined period, moving beyond just the right to request and aligning with the new provisions for qualifying zero-hours workers.
It is also important to note that this amendment respects the distinct nature of dependent contractor relationships. It acknowledges that, unless specified otherwise in their contracts or by future regulations, dependent contractors would not automatically be entitled to statutory redundancy pay or general minimum notice periods for termination, so there would continue to be a distinction between employment and dependent contractor status.
Furthermore, the amendment would empower the Secretary of State to issue further regulations to define key terms and the specifics of these rights, ensuring flexibility and the ability to adapt to evolving working practices. It would also mandate the issue of guidance, including an online tool to aid in determining dependent contractor status in disputed cases. By accepting the amendment, we would have the opportunity to bring fairness and greater security to a significant and growing portion of our workforce. We could ensure that individuals who are deeply reliant on a single employer received fundamental employment rights reflecting the modern realities of the work. I very much hope that the Government will support this vital addition to the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for his amendment. As we consider this legislation, it is timely to reflect on how it would interact with one of the most significant shifts in our labour market in recent decades: the rise of the gig economy. This sector has delivered considerable benefits, including increased flexibility, new income opportunities and innovative business models. It has allowed many individuals to engage with work on terms that suit their circumstances, whether as a primary or supplementary source of income.
However, with any new form of work comes a degree of legal complexity. Our current employment framework was designed largely in a different era—one where work tended to take place in fixed locations, during fixed hours and under traditional contracts. The gig economy challenges many of those assumptions. For businesses, this complexity can lead to inconsistencies in regulation, administrative uncertainty and litigation risk; for individuals, it can mean uncertainty about rights and entitlements, and for policymakers, it raises the broader issues of whether and how the legal definitions of employment need to evolve to reflect modern working practices.
The Bill, while not focused exclusively on the gig economy, touches on matters such as workplace rights, regulation and the role of secondary legislation that will inevitably affect it. We should therefore consider whether the legislation provides sufficient clarity for businesses operating flexible models, whether it supports fair and predictable frameworks for all parties, and how future regulations will ensure that any changes to employment classifications or entitlements are based on clear, evidence-led analysis.
The question before us is not so much whether the gig economy is good or bad—it is part of the modern labour market, and it will obviously continue to grow and remain so. The more pressing question is whether the labour market is equipped to keep up with that evolution, and whether the Bill provides the right foundation for doing so. In that context, thoughtful and measured discussion about emerging work patterns such as dependent contracting, platform work, freelancing —which we discussed the other day—and other hybrid models are not only appropriate but very necessary. I look forward to further discussions with the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and others, on this subject.
Before I sit down, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Leong, for the great courtesy with which he has always conducted himself in his discussions and deliberations with our side. I enjoyed his valedictory remarks. I felt that he was perhaps slightly irked by the fact that we have had some relatively lengthy debates—perhaps because he did not agree with the premises of some of them. I would say very gently that that is the point of Committee; we are not supposed to agree, we are supposed to probe. As a former Home Office Minister, I have to say that these debates are not long; they are brief. These debates are like Usain Bolt; ours were like Mo Farah.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Information and Technology (Baroness Jones of Whitchurch) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for tabling Amendment 318. He raises an important issue. As we have been discussing, the changing nature of work and the gig economy are a real challenge for us, and we recognise the complexity and shortcomings of the UK’s current employment status framework.
I can reassure the noble Lord that the Government have committed to consulting on a simpler framework for employment status, and this remains our intention. We have been clear that, as a result of the complexity, some of the reforms in the plan to make work pay will take longer to undertake and implement. We want to get the potential changes to the framework right, and we will consult on the fundamental aspects of employment law before taking action. I think that in part echoes the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, who recognised the complexity and the need to think it through before we get it right. We are determined to follow this through and take action.
I am sympathetic towards the noble Lord’s aims to extend the protection of employment law. The self-employed make a huge contribution to the UK economy. As the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, said, while many enjoy being their own boss and the flexibility that self-employment brings, others can find themselves highly dependent on one particular client with little choice, which can bring them challenges and problems.
I appreciate that the noble Lord is seeking to address this with his amendment by introducing a new employment status of “dependent contractor” and extending employment protections to those individuals. However, the amendment would further complicate what is already a highly complex area—one where, as I am sure the noble Lord knows, there have been several high-profile Supreme Court judgments in recent years. We want to avoid introducing an additional employment status before we have had the opportunity to reflect and consult further.
In addition, I can assure the noble Lord that the Government are committed to supporting and championing the self-employed. We have already announced a package of measures to help the self-employed thrive in good-quality self-employment, including measures to tackle late payments to small businesses and the self-employed. I urge the noble Lord to listen to our reflections and our determination to look at the whole issues around the gig economy, and to give us a little bit of space to do that. For this reason, I ask him to withdraw Amendment 318.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
Can the Minister say what the status is of the consultations she mentioned? She offered very reassuring words and said there was a consultation on employment status. Is that under way? Would that mean the idea is to eventually have an Employment Rights (No.2) Bill, which we would all look forward to debating? What is the exact status of what the Minister is reassuring us on?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
This has come up several times in the debates we have had on the different aspects of employment status. We have said that we need to do further work on the employment status elements of the plan to make work pay. I do not think it is intended to come back and put that in this legislation. The consultation has not started yet, but there will be a thorough consultation. We are going to carry out a detailed piece of work on this, and we will come back with further proposals on how we are going to address it in due course. I hope that answers the noble Lord, even if not completely.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, that ministerial “in due course” is not quite as good as “very, very, very soon”. I sense an awful lot of goodwill coming from the Minister, but this is a really important part of the economy. I appreciate the thoughtful comments from the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe. I did not expect a resounding endorsement of my amendment, but what he said about the evolution of employment rights and the need to make sure that our employment law is equipped to keep up with the way the modern economy is evolving is really important.
The Minister clearly recognises that we need to move forward in this area, but it is the pace and the fact that so many people—an increasing number—are now part of the gig economy. We see them passing every day: they do deliveries and are couriers—every form of the gig economy—and they have very few rights unless they have litigated, like Uber drivers or Hermes couriers, to establish them.
“Maximum pay ratio(1) A worker must be remunerated by their employer at a rate which is not less than one tenth of the remuneration made by the employer to the highest-paid employee.(2) The remuneration referred to in subsection (1) includes—(a) salary or hourly pay;(b) bonuses;(c) employer pension contributions;(d) shares, options, or other entitlements;(e) benefits in kind.(3) If a worker receives remuneration which is less than the entitlement referred to in subsection (1), the worker is taken to be entitled under their contract to be paid, as additional remuneration in respect of the period concerned, the difference between their entitlement and the remuneration actually received.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would implement a maximum ratio of 10:1 between the highest- and lowest-paid employees in an organisation.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, my Amendment 320 sits in glorious lone splendour in this group. I am not responsible for degrouping it; that was the way it was arranged. Noble Lords will see that this is a proposed new clause to introduce a maximum pay ratio. I thank the Public Bill Office for assisting me with the drafting.
The noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, took us into celebrity land with Usain Bolt and Mo Farah. I am going further into that space with a forthcoming event from this week: the wedding of Jeff Bezos and Lauren Sánchez in Venice. I am relying here on the interesting reporting in the Guardian from Zoe Williams, who has been spending time with the campaign group No Space for Bezos and finding that in Venice there is considerable resistance to a billionaire taking over a city and totally disrupting the life of that city for three days. Williams quotes one of the local campaigners:
“We really wanted to problematise the ridiculous and obscene wealth that allows a man to rent a city for three days”.
Williams reflects in the article that
“when wealth itself is seen to be acting in its own interests, and it has accumulated to the degree that its impact scars every poorer life with which it comes into contact”,
we have a problem.
This amendment sets out Green Party policy—yes, this is long-time Green Party policy—but I am really aiming to assist the Government constructively here, and to assist the Committee as well as perhaps our national debate, by demonstrating that it is possible to lay down bridges to cross the deep fissures in our society. They are not just in Venice and they do not just involve Amazon—although I note that the Government have been applauding an expansion of Amazon here in the UK. We might think about how many of the small businesses we have just been talking about might go out of business as a result of that. I posit that it is essential to start to bridge these chasms, to tackle the poisonous inequality that so affects our political landscape.
Bringing the context closer to home, noble Lords may perhaps have expected me to cite research out only a week ago from the High Pay Centre, which analysed five years of mandatory pay ratio disclosures across the FTSE 350. This was a previous modest legislative attempt, hoping that shining a light on the level of inequality might have some impact in reducing that inequality. The study clearly showed that the attempt to do that has failed. The figures have basically bobbled around since 2019, and the current ratio of median CEO pay to the median UK employee was 52:1. That has been at a similar level ever since the ratio started to be recorded. I note that it is even worse for the FTSE 100, where the median CEO to median employee pay ratio was 78:1. Those are the middle figures but, if we take the widest measures, we go to the security and catering group Mitie, where 575:1 is the ratio not to the lowest-paid employee but to the median employee. At Tesco it is 431:1. This situation is doing huge damage to our society, and I put it to the Government that they surely have to tackle it.
A 10:1 ratio is Green Party policy. I know from the discussions that the Minister kindly had with me before this debate that she will not leap up and support my amendment, but I hope she may be able to provide some response, at least to acknowledge that we have a problem. The pay differentials also react to the low-pay environment in which those essential to the success of a business are not getting the respect, as well as the pay, that they deserve. Meanwhile, a few at the top are incentivised to chase short-term profits and share price valuation at long-term cost to society but also to the businesses that they head.
The impact on communities is evident in towns and cities, where the vast bulk of workers are now trapped on or very near the minimum wage, while money is shovelled away to faraway company headquarters. Companies defend these sums as reflecting performance, but all too often, as we have seen with the water companies, that is far from the case. Why is it that every worker does not benefit if a company is doing well, as they have all contributed?
I finally note that, yes, this is also an environmental measure. To take just one element of the CEO lifestyle, the wealthiest people in the UK burn through more energy in flying alone than the poorest use in every aspect of their life. Environmentally, as well as socially and politically, we cannot afford a society split between a few have-yachts and the majority have-nots.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak to this amendment and, frankly, to express a degree of disbelief that such a proposal should have been made. With due respect to the noble Baroness, I do not believe that this amendment is a serious contribution to the debate on fair pay or responsible corporate governance. It is a piece of performative and ideological showmanship—a throwback to a worldview that sees profit as a vice, wealth as inherently suspect and enterprise as something to be managed, limited or downright punished. The idea that government should impose a legal maximum pay ratio—a flat arbitrary ceiling of 10:1 between the highest-paid and lowest-paid employees in every organisation—is not just unworkable but, I believe, economically illiterate.
First, this proposal would be a gift to bureaucracy and a curse to business. Every company, from high street shops to high-growth tech firms, would have to monitor and police every single form of pay—salary, shares, bonuses, pensions and benefits in kind—just to ensure that they do not cross an artificial line. Do we really want our job creators to spend their time calculating compliance spreadsheets instead of investing, innovating and employing? Secondly, it would actively disincentivise growth and ambition. High-performing individuals—those who drive investment, lead exports and create jobs—would simply leave and take their talent elsewhere.
The noble Baroness mentioned Amazon. I join the Government in welcoming the further investment that Amazon is making. As a matter of record, Amazon employs circa 75,000 people in the UK. No one is on zero hours, and the minimum annual starting salary is between £28,000 and £30,000 a year. It provides flexible working opportunities from day one, including term-time contracts, which allow parents, grandparents or carers guaranteed leave during school holidays. It offers paid parental and bereavement leave. Amazon also offers guaranteed hours from day one, and employees have the choice of full-time or part-time contracts. It is important to put the record straight. Since 2010, Amazon has invested more than £64,000 million in the UK, and £12,000 million in the last 12 months, and supports a network of around 100,000 UK-based small and medium-sized businesses. I welcome the opportunity that the noble Baroness has given me to put the record straight.
To go back to the noble Baroness’s amendment, it would mean that employers would be forced to avoid hiring lower-paid staff altogether, just to protect the ratio. What would be the result? There would be fewer jobs, less opportunity and more outsourcing—the very opposite of what a fair and inclusive economy should look like, hitting the least well-off, the most vulnerable and those at the margins of the labour market.
My third point is that this is not fairness; it is levelling down. It is virtually saying, “Don’t succeed too much, don’t reward excellence, don’t grow too big or too fast or be too profitable”. That is not fairness—it is anti-growth, anti-aspiration and anti-business. I must tell the noble Baroness that this amendment looks like it would be more appropriate in a Maoist economic manifesto, delivered to his revolutionary cadres, rather than a serious proposal for modern employment legislation. What this amendment reveals is not a serious attempt to solve a policy problem but a mindset that is suspicious of success, dismissive of wealth creation and entirely detached from economic reality. Against that background, I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response, which I hope will agree with mine, that this is an amendment that should not be accepted.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)
My Lords, let accord break out across the Table. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, for tabling Amendment 320. I do not share the disbelief of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, in hearing it, but only because I probably have more than the passing acquaintance with bits of the Green Party manifesto that he perhaps does—and that is the only reason for it.
It is right that companies should be sensitive to wider workforce pay when setting pay for those in the boardroom and other senior leadership positions. Company law and wider regulation already address that point. First, the Companies Act requires that UK listed companies must disclose and explain each year the ratio of their CEO’s pay to that of the company’s lower-paid and average-paid employees. Secondly, under the UK Corporate Governance Code, listed companies are asked to review workforce remuneration when setting directors’ pay and engage with employees to explain how executive pay aligns with wider company pay policy. Taken together, these measures provide important transparency and accountability in how UK listed companies deal with pay and incentives across the whole employee base.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, this has been a short but very clarifying debate on the political divisions in our society. I will be fairly brief in responding, but there are some points that I must pick up.
The response of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, really sounded like something from a debate out of the 20th century. I started with the story of what will happen in the coming days in Venice because we are in the 21st century, where raging pay inequality is a huge political issue. If you are not prepared to acknowledge that that is an issue that is significantly shaping our politics, you really are not in the 21st century.
To pick up some specific points the noble Lord made, he said that the amendment would force people to monitor and police. However, as the Minister rightly said, all this monitoring and reporting already happens in FTSE 100 and FTSE 350 companies. It is the law already, so there is no extra paperwork to be done here at all.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said that the amendment would disincentivise ambition, but ambition exists right across the board in companies. We have millions of cleaners, caterers and new apprentices out there who have huge ambition. Their ambition and the contribution they make absolutely need to be recognised.
I have to pick up the Amazon point. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, missed a couple of things out about Amazon, which I describe as the great parasite. How many jobs has Amazon destroyed? How many ambulances get called to Amazon warehouses, where workers are worked beyond human flesh and blood in trying to keep up with robots? That is the reality of Amazon.
Finally, I come to the point the Minister raised about economic competitiveness and the best business talents. Yes, we need the best talents, but we need them across the board. One person as the leader of the company is a small part of that company. On the idea that this is a pyramid—the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said these are the people who create jobs—I am sorry, but it is the whole of our society that creates jobs. You can put one of these CEOs on a desert island and they will not make a penny. The infrastructure, the workers and the customers—that is where the wealth comes from, and if we do not have a functioning society then we do not have successful businesses.
However, I am aware of the time and that there are some people in the Chamber who are undoubtedly waiting for next business, so I shall restrain myself from going on further. I shall look to come back with perhaps a more moderate amendment, but I will seek to hear from the Government what they plan to do about pay inequality, because I am afraid that I did not hear in the Minister’s response any answer to what they plan to do about that raging problem. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“Review of safe homeward transport for workers(1) Within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must publish a review of whether workers should be entitled to access to safe homeward transport.(2) The review under subsection (1) must include—(a) an analysis of transport options generally available to workers who finish work after 11pm;(b) an analysis of the costs, in absolute terms and as a percentage of pay, to such workers of taking the available transport options;(c) best practice examples of employers who provide homeward transport for workers;(d) proposals to ensure that workers can travel home safely after 11pm without excessive cost.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Government to review the safety and affordability of workers travelling home after 11pm, and make recommendations. It includes reviewing best practice, such as City firms who pay for homeward transport for workers late at night.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, this amendment would require the Government to review the safety and affordability of workers travelling home after 11 pm and to make recommendations, including reviewing best practice. I note that some City firms already pay for workers to travel home.
This is based on work being done by the Scottish Trades Union Congress and the “Safe Home” worker-led initiative launched in 2018 by the Better Than Zero campaign and supported by Unite the Union and the Bakers, Food and Allied Workers Union. It was launched following a women in leadership course in which workers from the hospitality, fast food and retail sectors shared their frightening experiences of getting home after a late shift. They included sexual assault, verbal harassment, violence and stalking.
Large numbers of workers in these sectors are not able to get home safely. Your Lordships’ House is very well aware of how limited late-night public transport can be—perhaps more than we would like to be. We currently have nearly 9 million night-time workers, of whom 15% are in low-paid roles, compared to 10% of employees as a whole. When you take into account restaurants, pubs and entertainment activities, that rises to 38%. Low-paid workers, many of them female, finish work at 11 pm, midnight or 1 am. How do they get home? This is a modest and constructive amendment which seeks to say that, if you are working hours during which society does not provide the transport to get you home safely, your employer has the responsibility to do so. I beg to move.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for bringing forward this amendment requiring a review of safe homeward transport for workers. I also welcome her back from her brief visit to the Maoist utopia on her last amendment. The safety and well-being of workers, particularly those finishing their shifts late in the evening, is a matter of significant importance. Many sectors operate outside traditional working hours, and the challenges faced by employees in securing safe and affordable transportation home after 11 pm are real and varied.
Understanding these issues is crucial, especially for vulnerable groups, including women and girls, for whom late-night travel can present heightened risks. It is also important to recognise that safe transport arrangements can contribute positively to worker morale and retention and may even play a role in reducing crime or accidents. The review has the potential to shed valuable light on current practices and challenges and provide a basis for informed discussion about how best to support workers who face late-night journeys home. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Katz (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, for tabling Amendment 321. We recognise the concern underpinning the amendment and agree that workers finishing late at night should be able to travel home safely and affordably. We are aware that for some workers, particularly those in hospitality, healthcare and security, late shifts can pose challenges when public transport options are limited. We also acknowledge and welcome that some employers, including firms in the City of London, have taken proactive steps to support their staff with safe transport home.
While we do not believe that it is appropriate to legislate for a review at this time, I hope I can reassure your Lordships’ House that we are committed to supporting workers’ well-being and safety. That commitment is evident throughout the Bill. For example, as we discussed on the second day of Committee in early May—another opportunity for a history lesson, it seems so long ago—the Bill strengthens the right to request flexible working from day one of employment. This flexible working provision empowers workers and employers to agree working patterns that better suit individual circumstances, including, where appropriate and reasonable, avoiding late finishes. We are also taking steps to improve enforcement of existing rights and to ensure that employers meet their obligations to provide safe working conditions.
Although it is not the subject of this legislation, the Government are also committed to reviving, rejuvenating and investing in public transport, not least through the Bus Services (No. 2) Bill, the creation of GBR, improvements to rail services and the huge amounts being invested across the country, particularly in the north, in new transport projects, all of which will provide a greater level of options and service for not just people working late but those who want to enjoy the night-time economy and to use public transport more generally.
While we cannot support this amendment, we share the underlying concern and will continue to work to ensure that all workers are protected and supported. I therefore ask the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, to withdraw her Amendment 321.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I thank those who have participated in this brief debate. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, and I can agree that there is an issue here and I thank the Minister for his response. I do not think that offering flexible working will really work with a pub or restaurant—that option will not be available. On public transport, for the workers affected, overwhelmingly we are talking not about grand infrastructure projects but local buses, which have been massively decimated over the last decade. None the less, the point has been made and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Employment Rights Bill
Tuesday 24th June 2025
(9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Employment Rights Act 2025 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 81-XI Eleventh marshalled list for Committee - (20 Jun 2025)
Lord Norton of Louth
“Review of the Act(1) The Secretary of State must—(a) carry out a review of the operation and effect of this Act,(b) set out the conclusions of the review in a report,(c) publish the report, and(d) lay a copy of the report before Parliament.(2) The report must be published before the end of the period of five years beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.(3) The report must, in particular—(a) assess the extent to which the objectives intended to be achieved by this Act have been achieved, and(b) assess whether those objectives remain appropriate and, if so, the extent to which they could be achieved more effectively in any other way.(4) In carrying out the review, the Secretary of State must publish an invitation for interested parties to make submissions on the operation of the Act.”
Lord Norton of Louth (Con)
My Lords, this amendment provides the means to check that the Bill, once enacted, achieves the purposes for which it is intended. It is a more comprehensive amendment than several that have been debated already, which provide for a review of certain provisions within 12 months of the Act coming into force. I shall argue that the relevance of the amendment goes beyond the Bill itself.
Too often in the past, legislative success for a Minister was seen as a Bill receiving Royal Assent. In evidence to the Constitution Committee’s 2004 inquiry into Parliament and the legislative process, former Clerk of the Parliaments Sir Michael Wheeler-Booth and Professor Vernon Bogdanor noted that,
“all too often, Parliament forgets about legislation once it has reached the statute book”.
Legislative success should be seen not as getting a Bill on the statute book but rather as delivering on what Parliament intended it to deliver.
As the then leader of the House of Commons, the noble Lord, Lord Hain, told the Constitution Committee,
“there is no point in passing legislation if it is not having the desired impact or it is having a different impact”.
Recognition of that point led the committee in its 2004 report to recommend that most Bills should be subject to post-legislative scrutiny within three years of their commencement or six years from their enactment, whichever was the sooner. In 2008, the Government accepted that Bills should normally be subject to review three to five years after enactment, a policy reiterated by Ministers in recent months. Indeed, in January this year, the noble Baroness, Lady Twycross, reported that the Cabinet Office had written to departments reminding them of the importance of post-legislative scrutiny.
In practice, not all Bills are subject to post-legislative review by departments. Some have undertaken thorough reviews, but the enthusiasm for completing them appears to differ between departments. Earlier this year, I asked whether the Government would encourage departments to emulate the Home Office, which had engaged in detailed post-legislative scrutiny of the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act 2019. There is a compelling case for ensuring that, in respect of certain Bills, post-legislative review is put beyond doubt through being embodied in the measures themselves.
There are precedents for including within a Bill a provision for post-legislative scrutiny. The most recent incidence is the Football Governance Bill. The Government, to their credit, accepted the argument that the Bill should provide for post-legislative scrutiny and brought forward their own amendment on Report to give effect to that proposal. The wording of my amendment may appear familiar to the Minister as it is taken from the Government’s amendment to the Football Governance Bill.
Bills that meet certain criteria should contain such a provision. The criteria I propose are that the Bill is large, is complex, makes substantial changes to the law, is contested and has not been subject to pre-legislative scrutiny. Bills that meet some but not all of the criteria may be considered for incorporating such a provision. A Bill that is not large but meets the other criteria should normally be considered for embodying provision for such scrutiny.
Each year your Lordships’ House usually appoints a special inquiry committee to engage in post-legislative scrutiny of an Act or group of Acts, such as the Mental Capacity Act or adoption legislation, that generally do not meet any of the criteria I have mentioned. That we select measures of this type for such scrutiny is not an argument against enshrining post-legislative scrutiny in some Bills but rather the reverse. We steer clear of Acts that are large and contentious. We are not likely to select the measure before us for post-legislative scrutiny in a few years’ time. Our scrutiny should complement that undertaken by government of measures covered by these criteria.
The arguments for post-legislative scrutiny of major Bills are several. There is the effect on drafting—knowing that a measure will subsequently be subject to review helps to concentrate the minds of Ministers and drafters in preparing the Bill. It serves to prompt a clear adumbration of purpose—of delineating the basis on which one will know whether the measure has achieved what it was designed to do. Perhaps most importantly, knowing that it will subsequently be reviewed may serve to reassure critics of the measure. That was especially helpful in the context of the Football Governance Bill. I think it applies in the case of this Bill.
Above all, providing the means of checking whether a measure has or has not met its aims and identifying what needs to be done to rectify any problems with its delivery contributes to good law. The Office of the Parliamentary Counsel has previously defined good law as law that is
“necessary, effective, clear, coherent and accessible”.
I have defined it as law that is well intentioned, well drafted and well implemented. Some of these features need to be checked during the Bill’s passage, but others, especially being effective or, in my terms, well implemented, are best tested through post-legislative scrutiny. As one Minister told this House’s Select Committee on the Mental Capacity Act 2005,
“while getting the Act onto the statute book had been a success, ensuring that it was fully implemented and understood was ‘work in progress’”.
This Bill clearly meets the criteria I have outlined. It is large, complex, makes a substantial change to employment law, is clearly contested and was not subject to pre-legislative scrutiny. The Committee has considered more than 330 amendments over 11 days. There are clearly disputes about the principles it embodies and its effect. Putting a provision for post-legislative scrutiny in the Bill, thus ensuring such scrutiny, meets the purposes I outlined.
The Minister may remind us that the Bill will be eligible for post-legislative review in any event, but this amendment puts it beyond doubt. If the Government have confidence in the Bill, they should have no problem in accepting the amendment. Critics may be reassured that, as with the Football Governance Bill, its effects will be reviewed. The amendment sets out the review to be undertaken before the end of a period of five years, and what the review in particular must assess. It also requires the Secretary of State to publish an invitation to interested parties to make submissions on the operation of the Act.
As I say, the provisions replicate those in the Football Governance Bill, omitting only the parts that are specific to football and do not lend themselves to replication in other measures. I urge the Government to build on what they have already achieved in the Football Governance Bill and establish best practice in embodying within this Bill provision for post-legislative scrutiny. Utilising the criteria I have detailed limits the number of Bills that merit such a dedicated provision. This Bill does merit such a provision, and I hope the Minister will demonstrate that the Government have the confidence to embrace it. I beg to move.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth. He is not only a great author and academic, but he is regarded as a world authority on constitutional issues, and he has certainly been described as the greatest living expert on Parliament, so we take very seriously his very constructive suggestion for post-legislative scrutiny.
However, I rise to speak to Amendment 335, standing in my name, which would introduce a sunset clause ensuring that the Act will expire after three years unless the Secretary of State demonstrates that it has led to a net increase in employment. I do so against a background of economic data emerging in recent months painting a deeply concerning picture of the UK labour market. The UK’s jobless rate ticked up to 4.6% in April, while payrolled employment has fallen sharply, according to official figures covering the period when the Budget tax hikes on businesses came into effect.
We had an understanding that some of us would attempt to put together an overall view of what is happening in the jobs market at present, but the response from the business community to this Bill has been unambiguous and deeply troubling. The Institute of Directors has published research showing that more than seven in 10 business leaders—72%—believe that the Bill will have a negative impact on the UK’s economic growth. This is not a marginal concern expressed by a vocal or unrepresentative minority; it represents a clear majority of all those who create jobs in our economy.
Even more alarmingly, half of business leaders reported that they would be less likely to hire new staff as a direct consequence of this legislation. Let that statistic sink in. We are therefore considering legislation that, according to those who make the hiring decisions, will directly reduce employment opportunities for British workers.
These employment figures do not exist in isolation. They form part of a broader pattern of economic decline that, sadly, has accelerated since this Government took office. The combination of increased employer national insurance contributions, the various tax rises announced by the Chancellor and now this additional regulatory burden create a perfect storm of disincentives to business investment and job creation.
We are now witnessing the practical consequences of economic policies cobbled together on the basis of wishful thinking and political prejudice by people with little or no first-hand experience or understanding of how businesses operate in practice. When costs rise, businesses must respond. They cannot simply absorb infinite increases in regulatory compliance, tax obligations and employment-related expenses. The rational response is to reduce costs where possible—and, unfortunately, employment costs are often the largest element in business operations as well as the most unpredictable.
Throughout the debates on this Bill, both the Ministers opposite and their colleagues in the other place have maintained that it will not harm employment. They have repeated this assertion with remarkable consistency, despite mounting evidence to the contrary. This represents either a fundamental misunderstanding of basic economic principles or a deliberate choice virtually to ignore inconvenient evidence.
The Government appear afflicted by a sustained delusion that they can simultaneously increase the costs and complexity of employment while maintaining that employment levels will be unaffected. This surely defies both economic logic and empirical evidence. It is rather like claiming that one can increase the price of a product while ensuring that demand will remain unchanged, simply by insisting that it must be so.
We have to entertain the possibility that we on these Benches are wrong. Perhaps the business community is wrong. Perhaps the Office for Budget Responsibility is wrong. Perhaps the employment statistics are, at best, misleading. Perhaps the correlation between increased business costs and reduced hiring is merely coincidental. Perhaps economic theory and established business common sense are for the birds. My amendment is designed to test the Government’s confidence. If Ministers are indeed confident that this Bill will benefit workers and boost employment, they should graciously accede to this amendment and demonstrate to us all their unshakeable iron confidence that this is not, after all, an unemployment Bill.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
My Lords, I will pick up on a few of the points made by my noble friend Lord Hunt to support Amendment 335 wholeheartedly. In principle, I am in favour of sunset clauses because they help us to focus on a Bill not once but twice, as they will pass legislative scrutiny twice over, and they encourage us to make better law. There are very practical reasons for Amendment 335. We have a 4.4% unemployment rate—or we did up to November last year—and it is increasing, with 1.7 million people in this country unemployed.
This Bill, as we have heard time and again—I know the Government disagree, but the figures speak for themselves—will increase the cost of and burdens on employing people, restrict job entry and limit new posts being advertised. The number of job vacancy adverts is decreasing. Since the Government came to power, the tally I mentioned earlier—I am sorry to repeat it—is 115,000 jobs lost. At this rate, there is a very good reason to support such an amendment. I hope the Government will take on board that we must consider a sunset clause in case unemployment rises and employment levels go down significantly in three years’ time.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Information and Technology (Baroness Jones of Whitchurch) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Norton, for tabling Amendment 323C and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for Amendment 335. I pay tribute to the expertise of the noble Lord, Lord Norton, in this area. I reassure the noble Lord that, despite Amendment 323C’s positive intentions, it effectively repeats what the Government already intend to do.
Our impact assessment sets out a clear plan to monitor and evaluate the effects of the Bill and its secondary legislation, following standard government practice. This approach will help us assess how well the measures are delivering on their objectives, inform future policy-making and review the real-world impact on all stakeholders, whose contributions we recognise as vital to the strength of our economy. As is standard practice, in line with our Better Regulation Framework obligations, we also intend to conduct a post-implementation review of the Bill within five years of Royal Assent. This will provide sufficient time to assess the policy’s effectiveness and gather sufficient data for evaluation purposes.
In the case of the fair work agency, ongoing oversight of employment rights enforcement is provided for in Clauses 91 and 92. They require the Secretary of State to publish a three-year labour market enforcement strategy and annual reports, which must be laid before Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly. Secondary legislation made under the provisions in this Bill will also be subject to the requirements in the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015 regarding proportionate monitoring and review.
In addition, where further detail will be set out in secondary legislation, the majority of statutory instruments will be subject to the affirmative procedure, allowing both Houses to consider them in detail and providing Parliament with sufficient opportunity for scrutiny and debate. Furthermore, the Government will consult on many of the details to be set out in secondary legislation, listening to the expertise of business, trade unions and civil society to ensure that the details of the regulations are appropriate to the current needs of the labour market.
On Amendment 335, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, we want to ensure that workers have these rights for life and not just three years, as the noble Lord proposes. As a result, we oppose his amendment. As is typical with employment legislation, further details on many of the policies in the Bill will be provided through regulations after Royal Assent. We will begin consulting on these reforms in 2025, seeking significant input from all stakeholders. We anticipate this meaning that the majority of reforms will take effect no earlier than 2026. We are committed to getting the detail right. This means listening to and incorporating a wide range of views into our policy development.
While headline statistics, such as employment and unemployment rates, may appear strong by historical standards, millions of workers are stuck in low paid, insecure and poor-quality work that is detrimentally affecting their financial stability and health. The UK’s productivity slowdown is more severe than in other advanced economies. A fragmented labour market and too much insecure work are holding back growth and investment. We also lag behind the OECD average on employment protections, and we have paid the price. The UK economy has not grown at the average rate of other OECD economies in the last 14 years, missing out on £171 billion-worth of growth. Average salaries have barely increased from where they were 14 years ago, and the average worker would be over 40% better off if wages had continued to grow as they did leading into the 2008 financial crisis.
This Bill will ensure a fairer, more equal labour market and deliver wider benefits to the business environment by improving well-being, incentivising higher productivity and creating a more level playing field for good employers. Consider a few of the changes it will bring: over 10 million workers in every corner of the country will benefit; increased well-being alone could be worth billions of pounds a year; there will be less workplace conflict, which costs UK employers about £30 billion a year; and up to 1.3 million employees will gain a new entitlement to statutory sick pay, increasing total sick pay by £400 million per year.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, spoke about the way businesses are perceiving this, but, as my noble friend Lord Leong said, business confidence is actually rising. The latest Lloyds Business Barometer survey shows business confidence at a nine-month high, with rising hiring expectations among businesses. I have to say to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, that a sunset clause would create business uncertainty at the very time when we want to build on that confidence. The industrial strategy, which we published yesterday, has been welcomed by all sectors of business and will help to build that long-term strategy for growth.
Given the benefits the Bill will bring for workers over the long term, we oppose the noble Lord’s amendment and will continue to promote growth for businesses and the level playing field for good employers. With this in mind, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Norton, to withdraw Amendment 323C.
Lord Norton of Louth (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral and the Minister for their contributions to this short debate. Obviously, I am very grateful for their opening comments; it seems to be something on which I have united the two Front Benches.
I am very grateful for the Minister’s considered response. I would prefer it to be in the Bill for the reasons I have given, but I feel I have achieved something this evening as she has come to the Dispatch Box and made the commitment she has, which is valuable because it ensures the Bill will be subject to a review of the kind I seek. Although I would have preferred that to be in the Bill, this short debate has achieved something.
If the Bill is subject to post-legislative review, it picks up on the points made by my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral because, with the claims he has made about the Bill, it will be a chance to test whether it has delivered. It is important that post-legislative scrutiny is thorough in the way that some departments most definitely have done it for some Bills, which I welcome. My whole point is to encourage that. It is something I will return to, not necessarily on this Bill but on others, to ensure we achieve the same result. I am grateful to the noble Lord and to the Minister for what they said and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Berkeley
“Substitution clauses and the definition of “worker” in app-based work(1) The Employment Rights Act 1996 is amended as follows.(2) After section 207B, insert— “Substitution
207C Prohibition of substitution clauses in platform-based logistics work(1) A relevant company must not include a clause in its contractor agreements that permits substitution in the performance of services, unless—(a) the company can demonstrate that such substitution is operationally viable and genuinely offered to all contractors, and(b) the identity of any substitute is subject to the same training, vetting and approval standards as a directly contracted individual.(2) A clause purporting to allow substitution that fails to meet the criteria in subsection (1) shall be unenforceable and void, and the individual shall be treated as a worker under section 230(3).(3) In this section—“dependent contractor” means a person who—(a) performs services arranged through the company’s platform;(b) is paid per task or service delivered;(c) is not classified as an employee or worker by the company;“relevant company” means a company that—(a) provides services in relation to food and beverage delivery, postal and courier operations, or private hire transport via a digital or app-based platform, and(b) engages more than 250 workers or dependent contractors globally.(4) A clause purporting to allow substitution that fails to meet the criteria in subsection (1) shall be unenforceable and void, and the individual shall be treated as a worker under section 230(3).”(3) In section 230 (employees and workers), after subsection (3), insert—“(3A) For the purposes of subsection (3)(b), a requirement to perform work personally shall be deemed to exist unless the right to substitute—(a) is genuine, exercised in practice, and not fettered by contractual or practical limitations imposed by the contracting entity,(b) is not subject to prior approval or vetting by the company, either directly or indirectly, and(c) forms a meaningful part of the way in which services are actually delivered.(3B) Where the work involves the use of a digital platform to allocate real-time, location-based tasks in sectors including—(a) food and beverage delivery,(b) postal and courier services, and(c) taxi and private hire operations,any contractual clause purporting to allow for substitution shall be treated as void and of no effect, unless the company can demonstrate that the right of substitution is genuine, practical, and routinely exercised.(3C) A substitution clause in a contract for services of the type described in subsection (3B) shall not, by itself, be sufficient to establish that an individual is not a worker.””
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, the new clause proposed in Amendment 323E in my name has been given the rather surprising title “Substitution”, and one or two noble Lords may be wondering what that means, so I will try and explain. It refers to the substitution of people with the intention of avoiding paying tax, national insurance or anything else. It is a problem that has grown like Topsy over the last five years.
Noble Lords will remember how many times in the last year we have debated whether electric scooters should go on the road or the pavement and whether we should have electric bikes. More recently, we have been debating electric bicycles with big trailers behind them, usually pulling Deliveroo or something like that. While many of us think that it is a great idea to have green transport, when you start looking behind the way that this part of the industry is created, it does not look quite so good.
I am not going to go into the road safety element, because we are not in a road safety debate tonight, but there are other safety implications concerning the people who drive these vehicles. There are questions concerning, first, the extent to which they should be in the country at all and, secondly, whether they are paying the right amount of tax—and that is before we get into any other thing that might be driver related.
Noble Lords may have read a big spread in the Sun today, which I think is coincidental. It reads:
“Asylum seekers are cheating the taxpayer—with illicit Deliveroo and Just Eat accounts offered to them within ten minutes of asking”.
It goes on to explain that there are people selling Deliveroo driver accounts to migrants even while they are on the rubber dinghy coming across the channel from Calais. That makes it very nice for them, because they know they are being taken on and do not have to look for a job. That is one problem. I am not going to repeat the rest of the article as it will take all night, but it is well worth reading the reasons behind this.
The other issue is that these drivers riding the bicycles seem to be very adept at getting their friends to substitute for them. The friends may have no qualifications, driving licence, residence or anything else, and are probably not recognised, so they carry on driving these things, frankly, illegally. That is before we get to the questions of why there is no enforcement in relation to these people’s driving ability or whether they should be here at all. I am not going to go into any greater depth on what is wrong. As we all know, this is a serious problem in London, but it is also a problem elsewhere.
The amendment is quite complicated, but then employment law is complicated. My friends in the cycling and walking community, who are really fed up with this, look upon this amendment as a matter of safety, but they also are asking, “Why should people get away with doing this when they probably are not paying tax or anything else?”
The wording of the amendment is designed to cover the most popular parts of the industry, such as food and beverage delivery, postal and courier delivery, and taxi and private hire operations, as well as probably many others. It is to make sure that, if people are hired by one of these companies to drive these vehicles and go on particular routes, they actually do it rather than subcontract the work to somebody else who has no qualifications at all. I have not yet seen any convictions for people found guilty of what you might call substitution, but I expect it will happen soon.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
As a loyal member of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Cycling & Walking—with an emphasis on the cycling rather than the walking—I support the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, on this, and I will explain why. As he indicated, what is behind this amendment is partly what is leading certain noble Lords around the Chamber to pepper the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, with a series of curveballs about e-bikes in all sorts of shapes and illegal forms.
The All-Party Parliamentary Group for Cycling & Walking has just issued a rather alarming report called Unregulated and Unsafe: The Threat of Illegal E-Bikes. It has a specific chapter in it called:
“The role of delivery platforms and the gig economy”.
This evening, we are talking about two intertwined issues. First, there is an employment law issue. At the heart of the Bill is a wish by our new Government to rebalance what they view as an imbalance that has occurred during successive Conservative Administrations between the rights of workers, particularly unionised workers, and the rights and freedoms of employers. Whatever your view on that, what we are talking about today is a good example of an area of employment that is using slightly questionable tactics to avoid recognising its rights and responsibilities towards its workforce.
Your Lordships may recall that, a few years ago, when the phenomenon of Uber started taking over and assailing the black cab business here in London, there was a long debate and a big issue around Uber claiming again and again that the people who were driving for it were not its employees. In successive cases, it was taken to court and eventually it had to admit that the people who drive for it are actually employees and have some rights as employees.
We have a very similar situation with delivery platforms. These are the delivery platforms where, if you have a craving for a peanut butter and pineapple pizza at 3 o’clock in the morning—which, being married to an Italian, I certainly hope you do not—you can simply reach for your smartphone and it will be delivered to your door fairly quickly.
Those large platforms are basically doing what Uber did originally. They do not recognise the people who are driving for them as employees; they are said to be contractors—indeed, they allow the contractors to nominate people to substitute for them, people who have no commercial or contractual relationship with the company whatever. One of the larger delivery platforms, related to Deliveroo, successfully managed to win a case in the Supreme Court brought by the Independent Workers Union of Great Britain, which was aware that this particular arm delivered food around London and other cities, largely using unregulated and very fast e-bikes. The company successfully argued against the union that these were not employees, and it used the fact that the people who ride for it could substitute others as part of its defence, which was accepted by the High Court. So we clearly have a strange loophole here that is harmful for those workers and is driving all sorts of unfortunate behaviour.
In evidence, I turn back to the report of the all-party group and the issue about the role of delivery platforms and the gig economy. In its written evidence, London Councils said:
“Many delivery companies are set up as Platform companies, with riders classed as self-employed so companies are therefore not required to provide health and safety measures. Platform companies only take an advisory role in safety standards for riders, not mandating vehicle mode or collision reporting, therefore avoiding any financial implications. This means there are no checks and balances in place for the safety of the vehicles used for deliveries, the riders themselves and the impacts on other road users”.
In respect of evidence from one of the platforms—Just Eat, which noble Lords may have seen written on the back of mopeds with L-plates on or illegal e-bikes—the report said:
“Pay for riders per drop has declined in recent years, requiring ever longer shifts with ever more deliveries per hour in order for a rider to earn sufficient money”.
We see vehicles or e-bikes constantly jumping red lights, narrowly missing pedestrians and weaving in and out of traffic, but they are doing it because the way in which they are compensated requires them to make the maximum number of deliveries in the shortest possible time, which obviously encourages speeding and avoiding road traffic laws, red lights and things like that. I suspect that many noble Lords or members of their families have had experiences of looking around rather nervously even when they cross a zebra crossing because of what may suddenly assail them.
Lastly, this is written evidence—and it is a tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Blake of Leeds, who is not in her place because this is not a Bill that she is involved in—from Leeds City Council, which has the same problems. It says:
“In addition to the safety of e-bikes, we would like to work with government to improve the industry’s employment and verification practices to address account sharing, where couriers can substitute deliveries to others who may not have a right to work in the UK. FDC [food delivery companies’] business models currently rely on riders themselves to confirm their eligibility to work, and this can enable illegal working. Alongside this, we would like to cover how to reduce the time pressure on riders to make deliveries, driving hours, and platforms’ responsibility for their riders’ safety”.
The councils have made a compelling case for this, as has the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. I suggest that for the Government to look at this would align with much of their intent in this Bill.
Lord Hendy (Lab)
My Lords, I feel obliged to add a word to my noble friend Lord Berkeley’s amendment, because I was counsel for the union in the Deliveroo case which the noble Lord, Lord Russell, has mentioned. The issue in that case was slightly tangential to that raised by my noble friend; the question there was whether Deliveroo riders were among those entitled to the trade union rights and benefits of Article 11 of the European convention. We need not go into that.
The Supreme Court held that the presence of a right of substitution in the contracts between the Deliveroo riders and Deliveroo meant that they were not entitled to those trade union rights. That reflects the situation in English law under the definition of a worker in the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act and the Employment Rights Act, which requires personal service. The courts have held that that excludes workers who have the right to engage a substitute, even in situations such as that with Deliveroo where the Central Arbitration Committee held that its use was rarely if ever put into operation. It was never used by those who brought the case.
The relevance of all this is that, as the noble Lord, Lord Russell, mentioned, the categorisation of workers—whether they are an employee, a limb (b) worker, which Uber drivers are and the Deliveroo riders wanted to be, or an independent contractor—determines what rights they are entitled to under the various statutes. I accept that my noble friend the Minister will say that the status of workers will be consulted on in future. I completely agree that it should be approached holistically. As someone who has put up two Private Members’ Bills on the status of workers, both of which succeeded in this House with all-party support, I am happy to offer him my drafts. The matter has to be dealt with holistically. However, my noble friend Lord Berkeley has a point. This use of substitution clauses is a device to deprive workers of the statutory rights that Parliament intended them to have. It is an abuse that could be addressed now in this Bill before we get to the consultation on the status of workers generally.
The noble Lord, Lord Russell, and my noble friend Lord Berkeley indicated some of the consequences of the abuse of these substitution clauses. I will articulate two more. First, as I have mentioned, where platform companies insert a substitution clause in the contract between the rider or the contractor and the platform company, the effect is to deprive them of all employment rights. When I say that the platform company inserts the clause, that is what happens—there is no agreement, consultation or collective bargaining; they are simply told, “If you want to work, you agree to the substitution clause”. It is a device. In the Deliveroo case, it was, in effect, accepted that that was the purpose of the insertion of the clause.
Noble Lords have already articulated the second problem. Since the Deliveroo case, substitution clauses have become extremely widespread and the use of actual substitutes, which was rare in the Deliveroo case, has now become very frequent and involves illegal working and so on. But—this is the final point I want to draw to your Lordships attention—think of the workers who are engaged as substitutes: they are being paid even less than the contracted riders; they are being exploited. They are the people who, as the noble Lord, Lord Russell, pointed out, speed through the traffic, risking their lives to make as many deliveries as possible. It is an abusive situation and this might be a moment to deal with it, in advance of the general consultation and the legislation that will be required to regulate the status of workers generally.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, and the thoughtful contributions from the noble Lords, Lord Berkeley and Lord Russell of Liverpool.
I think I was responsible for some of the curveballs on illegal e-bikes and e-scooters that have peppered this Chamber in recent years. I regard their operation as dangerous, especially for elderly people and the disabled—“a Wild West” is the phrase I used before I became a Minister and learned my P’s and Q’s.
I hope the Minister will agree to the request from the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, for a discussion on what can be done to tackle the current loopholes, even if nothing can be done in this Bill. It is an important matter and we should try to progress a solution.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, Amendment 323E, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, is a curious but important proposal, addressing a very real challenge in the evolving world of work. The noble Lord, Lord Russell, pointed this out, as has the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, and the noble Lord, Lord Hendy.
The amendment seeks to clarify that substitution clauses in app-based platform work, such as food delivery, courier services and private hire transport, are valid only where the right to substitute is genuine, viable and actually used in practice. As many of us will know, much of our employment legislation was developed in an era when the labour market looked very different. The rise of app-based platforms and the gig economy has created new forms of work that do not always fit into the traditional categories of employment or self-employment, as has been said by previous speakers.
This amendment seeks to clarify one such grey area: the use of substitution clauses in platform work. It rightly asks whether these clauses are, in practice, genuine and workable, or whether they are being used to deny individuals the worker status that they would otherwise be entitled to. The noble Lords, Lord Russell and Lord Hendy, and others have explained in detail how that works in practice.
The broader point is that the Government must ensure that our workers’ rights framework is not stuck in the past. It must be up-to-date and dynamic enough to reflect the modern patterns of work and provide reasonable security for those engaged in them.
Too often, the flexibility of gig work is celebrated without enough attention being paid to the insecurity that can come with it: uncertain hours, low pay—which has been mentioned, including lower pay than the normal driver—and limited recourse to rights. Ensuring that the legal definitions we rely on are not open to exploitation is a vital step in protecting workers and maintaining fairness in the labour market. As other noble Lords said, this amendment may not be the final word on the matter, but it makes an important contribution to a conversation—the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, used the word “discussion”.
I give my compliments to the noble Lords, Lord Hendy and Lord Russell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, and others for this conversation—or discussion. I hope that the Minister and the Government will see that there is a gap in employment legislation that needs to be looked at. We ought to deal with people, such as couriers and drivers, who are substituting to people paid even lower wages—and then scooting in front of you at the traffic lights, trying to push up the number of deliveries or collections they are making—in primary legislation, not in a statutory instrument somewhere down the line. I hope that the Government will look at this before we get to Report.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, with whom I agree pretty much entirely.
This has been a much more fascinating debate than I was anticipating, and that says a lot more about me than it does about the debate. I was particularly struck by the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Hendy; I had no idea that such practices had been accepted by the courts. That seems to be one of the cases, as we discussed in an earlier group, where the gig economy workplace is evolving rather faster than the law. That clearly needs to be looked at, otherwise we will end up with what seem to me, as a lay man, relatively perverse situations.
I have to say to the noble Lord, Lord Russell, that the thought of a peanut butter and pineapple pizza sends a rather nasty shiver down the spine. Do people really eat that? I would seriously hope not.
The gig economy and platform-based work are obviously integral parts of the modern labour market. We should not forget that the sector offers flexibility that many workers value, because it allows people to choose when, where, how much and how they work. For some, that flexibility is vital; it means they can balance their work with other commitments or supplement their income in ways that traditional employment models do not allow.
I completely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, who introduced his amendment so eloquently, that there seems to be an incentive to come to this country. If we were able to control this, there would be an opportunity to help at least stem the flow of the boats, which is something that used to occupy a lot of my time.
On the amendment before us, which seeks to regulate the substitution clauses and redefine certain worker classifications, at this stage, we approach it with some caution, while acknowledging that it is clearly a subject to which we should all return and which demands further consideration. The intention to protect gig economy workers is commendable, but we should not make regulatory changes that unintentionally undermine the entire industry. With that in mind, I look forward to the Minister’s comments, but I do not believe that this subject will go away any time soon.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Berkeley for tabling Amendment 323E and everyone who contributed to this short but important debate on the issue of substitution clauses.
To be absolutely clear, the Government are very alert to the risks that my noble friends Lord Berkeley and Lord Hendy and the noble Lords, Lord Russell of Liverpool and Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, all raised on substitution. We recognise that substitution in the platform economy is an issue, and we share the concerns about the impact that it can have on working conditions and the prevalence of illegal working.
Some of the critiques that my noble friend Lord Berkeley made about e-bikes and e-scooters, and some of the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, fall a little outside what we are talking about tonight. One only has to be in the Chamber at Oral Questions on a regular basis to understand that noble Lords across the whole House share concerns about the impact that e-bikes and e-scooters are having on general society, as well as their attitudes towards the noble pursuits of cycling, walking and sharing public spaces.
There is growing awareness of substitution clauses and their use to deny workers core protections, including the national minimum wage and holiday pay, as set out by many noble Lords this evening, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool. Clearly, in extremes this can lead to abusive and exploitative treatment of workers, and we are looking at it closely.
My noble friend Lord Berkeley raised the issue of illegal working as reported in today’s edition of the Sun. It is important in considering this issue to realise that the Government recently introduced an amendment to the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill on Report in the other place to extend the scope of the requirement on employers to carry out right to work checks on limb (b) workers or individual subcontractors, such as those working in the platform economy.
We must remain in step with modern labour market models. The purpose of these changes is to require businesses that employ individuals in new labour markets to check that only those with a right to work in the UK are eligible to participate in these arrangements, and to enable Immigration Enforcement to issue penalties where they are not. This ensures that compliance is equivalent for traditional employers. That, as I understand it, is the core of the issue raised in the newspaper report described by my noble friend Lord Berkeley.
The links between substitution and employment status demonstrate how complex this area is. As my noble friend Lady Jones said earlier this evening in discussing Amendment 318, we are committed to consulting on a simpler employment status framework. My noble friend Lord Hendy said that we should look at this holistically. I am confident that this will provide an opportunity to hear views from a wide range of stakeholders on the use of substitution clauses and the interactions with employment status. This is an important issue, but I am also aware that there is a complex interplay with measures we are going to discuss shortly in Committee on the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill. In that context, it might be useful for me to take this back to colleagues in the Home Office and see how best to pursue it further.
I therefore ask my noble friend Lord Berkeley to withdraw Amendment 323E. In so doing, as this will be my last opportunity to speak in Committee, I would like to take this opportunity to thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the wonderful 11 days in Committee on this Bill for their constructive engagement and, indeed, at times, stimulating debates—who would have thought we would get so many days in Committee? I take note of what the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, said earlier about the pace of progress during immigration legislation. As I am going to be on the Front Bench for the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill later this week, all I can say is: I simply cannot wait.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I am really grateful to noble Lords who have taken part in this short debate and made many contributions, which indicate that it is a difficult subject and it would the better if the whole thing went away. But of course, it will not go away. When my noble friend the Minister said that this is his last appearance on the Bill, I thought, “Well, is it a sinking ship or is it going to the next stage?” I hope it is not a sinking ship, and that there is going to be another good stage.
Lord Katz (Lab)
To be clear, we are in Committee. Who knows what comes next?
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
We had a problem up in the Committee room last week with the mice eating through the electric cables. We have got a few problems here.
More seriously, it is a big problem. We only covered probably a small fraction of it tonight, but I would be very grateful if the Minister agreed to meet those of us who are interested, sometime between now and Report, to see how we can take it forward in one way or another. I am not sure which way “forward” would be; but otherwise, it is very tempting to put another amendment down on Report and have another debate like this. It would be much better if we could all sit around a table for half an hour and hear what the Government want to do, and hopefully agree—or hopefully not. Is my noble friend about to say yes to that?
Lord Katz (Lab)
Over many years now, I have had lots of interesting discussions with my noble friend, in different guises. It is always a pleasure to meet with him—and indeed with any other noble Lords who wish to engage on this important issue.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
I am most grateful to my noble friend. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Hunt of Wirral
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, I rise to move Amendment 324A and to speak to Amendments 324B and 324C on behalf of my noble friend Lady Coffey; I will also speak to my opposition to Clause 151 standing part of the Bill.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for giving notice of his opposition to Clause 151 standing part, which gives me the chance to set out the purpose of that clause, and for speaking to Amendments 324A, 324B and 324C, which, as I understand it, are probing amendments.
Clause 151 grants the Secretary of State a power by regulations to make amendments to other legislation which are consequential on any provision made by the Bill. Consequential amendments are fundamental to ensuring that the statute book remains coherent and workable. It is a Henry VIII power similar to the ones used in previous legislation of similar size and complexity. It allows the amendment of Northern Ireland legislation, as it does Acts of the Scottish Parliament and the Senedd Cymru. This is necessary to allow the statute book across all UK jurisdictions to be maintained effectively.
None the less, the power in Clause 151 is appropriately constrained because it allows only amendments which are consequential to the substantive amendment already made in the Bill itself. For these reasons, we consider it both necessary and proportionate. I also remind noble Lords that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee did not raise concerns about the power in Clause 151 in its report, to which we will reply in due course.
I reassure noble Lords that, where possible, amendments to other pieces of primary legislation that are required as a result of the provisions made in this Bill have been made in the Bill itself, as my noble friend Lord Leong set out earlier. However, it is possible that further provisions could still be identified that require consequential amendment. Allowing these to be made by regulation will mean that they can be made without delay and with an appropriate level of parliamentary scrutiny. This is a standard power in a Bill of this size and complexity. There are multiple examples in legislation from recent Conservative Governments that took the same approach, including the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 and the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023.
Amending the clause so that any exercise of the power would be subject to the affirmative procedure would result in debates on every consequential amendment, which we believe would be disproportionate. For these reasons, the Government oppose these amendments, and I hope that I have reassured the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, that the power this clause vests in the Secretary of State is proportionate. I therefore ask him to withdraw Amendment 324A.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response to the concerns that I raised during this debate. However, I remain unconvinced by the Government’s justification for these sweeping powers. As we have said on several occasions already, there are far too many delegated powers in the Bill as it stands. To extend this approach to all consequential future provisions represents a qualitative leap in executive authority that goes well beyond what is necessary or constitutionally appropriate.
I recognise that the Minister has given assurances about responsible use of these powers, which, no doubt well-intentioned, cannot substitute for proper parliamentary oversight built into the legislative framework itself. We are being asked to sign a blank cheque, drawn on the account of parliamentary sovereignty. The breadth of these consequential powers, combined with the minimal oversight mechanisms, represents precisely the kind of constitutional overreach that this House exists to prevent.
I remind Ministers—like many noble Lords, I have painful first-hand experience of this—that the powers may not be indefinitely in the hands of Ministers of any one party. Power changes hands from time to time, and they ought possibly to reflect on the extraordinary legacy of centralised executive power they may find themselves bequeathing to a new Administration that is not of their political persuasion. Governments change, Ministers change and political priorities evolve. Constitutional safeguards must be designed to protect parliamentary sovereignty, regardless of who holds executive office. I urge noble Lords across the Chamber to reflect carefully on whether we are prepared to accept such a substantial erosion of parliamentary authority in the name of administrative convenience. Some principles are surely too important to compromise, and parliamentary sovereignty is surely paramount among them. But, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
“(3A) The Secretary of State must have regard to the following objectives when making any regulations under this Act—(a) the international competitiveness of the economy of the United Kingdom, and(b) its growth in the medium to long term.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to have regard to the objective of the international competitiveness of the economy and its growth in the medium to long term when making any regulations under the Act.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendments 325, 326A and 329B, and briefly allude to Amendments 330BA and 330E, tabled by my noble friend Lord Leigh of Hurley.
The Government have stated that this Bill represents the biggest upgrade to workers’ rights in a generation. Given the tremendous importance that the Government have placed on this piece of legislation, one would reasonably have expected them to have conducted a comprehensive and thorough impact assessment. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Leong, argued earlier that the Government had done just that. However, the fact remains that Regulatory Policy Committee has awarded the Government’s impact assessment a red rating, which encompasses several critical areas, including the Trade Union Act 2016 repeals, day-one rights provisions, flexible working arrangements, and measures addressing harassment by third parties. Such a rating indicates fundamental deficiencies in the Government’s analysis of this legislation’s potential consequences—a point that has been argued from this side of the Chamber on a number of occasions.
I will illustrate precisely how inadequate this impact assessment is by examining one particularly striking example. It states that:
“There could also be wider impacts on society, including … a reduction in days lost to strike action if Trade Union reforms lead to better industrial relations, which will prevent significant costs on the economy. Rail strikes alone are estimated to have cost the UK economy at least £1.7 billion over the eight-month period to January 2023”.
This statement exemplifies the superficial and speculative nature of the Government’s analysis. Rather than providing concrete evidence and detailed economic modelling, they have resorted to hypothetical scenarios and broad generalisations. They suggest that their reforms might lead to better industrial relations, which could potentially reduce strike action and in turn prevent economic costs. However, this chain of assumptions lacks any of the rigorous analysis which legislation of this magnitude demands.
Furthermore, although the Government cite the economic impact of rail strikes, they fail to provide a comprehensive analysis of how their specific proposals would address the underlying causes of industrial disputes. They offer no detailed examination of the potential unintended consequences of their reforms, nor do they adequately assess the costs that businesses and workers might face during the implementation of these new rights. The mention of implementation affords me an opportunity to again remind the noble Lord, Lord Leong, that we will very soon be delivered an implementation plan.
On Amendment 325, we have heard Ministers trumpet on a number of occasions PwC’s global CEO survey, which ranked the UK as the second most attractive destination for international investment. Unfortunately, that claim collapses under scrutiny. The survey was conducted before the current Chancellor’s first Budget and before the Government began systematically dismantling the pro-growth, pro-enterprise environment that we left in place. Since then, the UK’s position has collapsed to 29th in IMD’s world competitiveness rankings. We are now considered less competitive than Oman, Saudi Arabia and the Czech Republic. We are barely ahead of Kazakhstan and Kuwait. That is not a global powerhouse. What is the Government’s response? Instead of halting the slide, they are doubling down with a raft of measures that will make the UK even less attractive to investors, less hospitable to entrepreneurs and less viable for businesses that are looking to grow.
At the centre of this is the Employment Rights Bill. This legislation threatens to make Britain one of the most rigid and punitive labour markets in the developed world. Let us be clear: the Bill introduces day-one rights for employees to bring legal claims, dramatically increasing the litigation risk for employers from the moment a contract is signed. It expands rights around dismissal, probation and workplace disputes, turning even small staffing decisions into potential courtroom battles. It removes key flexibilities that employers rely on to respond to changing economic circumstances. This may all sound very appealing in the abstract. The Government will say that it is modernising employment rights, but in practice job creation will slow, entrepreneurial risk will drop and, crucially, offshoring will accelerate, because businesses can choose to hire in other jurisdictions —and they will.
We are already seeing warnings from business leaders that the cost of employing in Britain is simply becoming too high, not just financially but legally and procedurally. A recent survey by Saffery and Ward found that employers are planning layoffs and the relocation of operations abroad in direct response to increasing national insurance contributions and regulatory burdens, and now the spectre of hostile employment legislation. EY has warned that high energy costs and slow growth are deterring investment, while major employers are now reviewing UK operations due to the cumulative cost of doing business here.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 326A on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, who apologises that she is unable to be here.
The amendment is simple: it would require the Secretary of State or the relevant devolved counterpart to have regard to the impact of any regulations made under the Bill on the economic growth and competitiveness of the United Kingdom. It is very similar to Amendment 325, just introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, which itself mirrors the wording of the secondary objective for financial regulators, which was introduced in the Financial Services and Markets Act 2023. I would support either one; they ultimately have the same goal.
As we heard on many occasions in Committee—we are reaching the end, at long last—this is a skeleton Bill, where an enormous amount of the detail will be added later by regulation. I counted 173 regulation-making powers in the Bill—a quite staggering number. Call me old-fashioned, but I rather think that we should do the work first and then legislate, not the other way around.
We also have an impact assessment that accompanies the Bill that, as we were just told, was described by the Regulatory Policy Committee as not fit for purpose. In many cases the impact assessment makes no effort at all to quantify the costs or benefits, precisely because it is not yet known what will be in the final regulations that follow the Bill. The Government themselves concede in the impact assessment that many of the measures in the Bill will have negative consequences. For example, the Government expect that, overall, the measures in the Bill will impose costs to business of around £5 billion. They also state very clearly that these costs will fall disproportionately on small businesses. The potential negative impact on growth and competitiveness from that is obvious.
Some of the negative aspects could be minimised if the regulations are well designed. To give just one example, I have been concentrating my efforts on the Bill on the introduction of day-one unfair dismissal rights. The impact assessment is very clear on the potential negative impacts from that on businesses and, in particular, on the potential hiring of employees who are seen as higher risk, such as younger people. That is my top concern in that respect.
After describing the potential negative consequences, the impact assessment rightly says:
“The impact of hiring and labour mobility will ultimately depend on the final regulations on what is permissible in the ‘initial statutory period’ of employment”.
I agree; a well-designed probationary period could negate many of the impacts that the Bill could cause, which is something that I hope the Minister will be prepared to discuss before Report. However, at the moment, we have no idea what the final regulations will be and neither, it appears, do the Government. They still have not carried out the relevant consultation.
That is a really good example of the importance of this amendment. The final consequences of the Bill will depend on the detail that is to be added later or amended by regulation. We should not just take that on trust. Although I of course have the greatest faith in the Minister, this Government cannot speak for or bind future Governments.
The Government have consistently stressed the importance of growth and competition, although it is fair to say that their actions have not always followed their rhetoric. To quote the Chancellor in January this year:
“Economic growth is the number one mission of this government … most of all … without economic growth … we cannot improve the lives of ordinary working people”.
Surely that last point is the main point of the Bill: to improve the lives of ordinary working people. It must be essential, and I assume agreed, that where the measures in the Bill could have negative impacts on growth, those negative impacts should be identified and taken into account when adding the details to the Bill by regulation.
In the same speech, the Chancellor went on to say:
“The strategy that I have consistently set out … is to grow the supply-side of our economy … recognising that first and foremost … it is businesses, investors and entrepreneurs who drive economic growth … a government that systematically removes the barriers that they face—one by one and has their back”.
It is hard to disagree with that, so surely we should ensure that the Bill does not do the opposite and create barriers for business.
There is a good precedent for including a growth and competitiveness objective in a Bill such as this. The Financial Services and Markets Act 2023 introduced a secondary objective for financial service regulators to facilitate international competitiveness and growth, something that the current Chancellor has been vocal in her support of and has rightly put pressure on regulators to follow, including through the issuing of new growth-focused remit letters to the regulators.
Having such an objective, or in the case of these amendments just to have regard to, is not new and is entirely consistent with stated government policy. Given the potential negative impacts the Bill may have—by the Government’s own admission—the sheer volume of detailed regulation that must follow and the difference that could be made to the consequences of the Bill if those regulations are well designed or badly designed, we must surely have some clear objectives for those regulations. All that these amendments would do is ensure that growth and competitiveness must be taken into consideration. Surely that is not too much for us to ask.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lord, I have added my name to Amendment 326A in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Penn. I agree with all that has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Vaux of Harrowden, in introducing it, and, indeed, with the convincing analysis by my noble friend Lord Sharpe.
Noble Lords may recall that I come to the scrutiny of the Bill constructively, having worked for Tesco for many years and enjoyed excellent relations with the USDAW union, the noble Lord, Lord Hannett of Everton, and with the trade unions in general, under the noble Lord, Lord Monks, at that time. We always tried to treat people well, and the success of the business was a testimony to that. We complied with the law.
However, the law is now changing, and I am afraid that this Committee has shown that the Bill needs further work. As drafted, it will be a huge check on growth and will undermine the competitiveness of which we have rightly been very proud in the UK. My noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral mentioned earlier the worrying research by the Institute of Directors that reveals that seven in 10 business leaders surveyed believe that the Employment Rights Bill will have a negative impact on UK economic growth.
I have two particular examples, which I hope the Minister will look at again. First, Ministers—or rather their civil servant agents, and possibly even the trade unions—will be able to take a legal case where an employee is unwilling to pursue a complaint. That is inappropriate and unfair; consent is such an important principle. It also risks putting further pressure on the already struggling tribunal system.
Secondly, and I apologise that this example has already been mentioned, the Bill will radically reduce the effectiveness of the labour market by giving employees the right to claim unfair dismissal from day one of their employment. Other employees will be disadvantaged, as those who are slack, do a poor job or play the system will not be able to be dislodged without a long tribunal case. This will hit good employees who need to cover for their fellows.
The Minister has very helpfully agreed that there should be a probation period during which suitable arrangements can be made in such circumstances, but we have no detail. All of that will go into regulations, which we will not be able to reverse. That is why I feel so strongly about this evening’s amendment on growth and competitiveness. This would apply when regulations were being made by Ministers. There is, unfortunately, a plethora—a cornucopia—of powers in the Bill. It is essential that Ministers, here and in the devolved Administrations, to which our amendment refers, should be required to look at the impact on UK economic growth and competitiveness when they are making regulations. Otherwise, I fear that the growth objective of this Government is for the birds.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to the amendments in my name and in so doing support the other amendments in the group, all of which have been most eloquently described by my noble friends, Lord Sharpe of Epsom and Lady Neville-Rolfe, and the noble Lord, Lord Vaux. My noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom is right that the Government’s stated objective of growth, which is a commendable objective, is hampered by some aspects of this Bill. All I am asking for is some time for the real effect and impact of this Bill to be assessed, particularly in respect of small and medium-sized businesses, each and every one of which that I have spoken to to explain what is in this Bill is very unhappy about the consequences that it will have for their business, be it small or medium.
All credit to the Labour Government that, when instructing regulators and creating new regulations, particularly in the financial services market, they have been very clear to the regulators that they must not impede economic growth, and I commend them for that—it is absolutely right. I encourage them to take their own advice and allow this Bill to have an overriding principle that anything and everything in it is intended to promote and help growth. There does not seem to be anything controversial to be afraid of in that respect, and therefore I encourage them to accept the amendments tabled by my noble friends Lord Sharpe and Lady Penn.
My amendments are just asking for time to consider matters. They cover two areas: business and union funding. Very many small and medium-sized businesses will have read the Times comment a few days ago, which I will repeat to your Lordships because it is bang on. It points out that:
“Four in five businesses expect their costs to rise in the wake of the reforms, though ministers have shown little interest in their views. The inevitable result will be a wave of redundancies, hiring freezes, curbs on training and a rise in automation”.
A rise in automation is, of course, a good thing, but it will inevitably lead to greater unemployment. There is no question about it. Every single business I have been talking to has said it is freezing hiring people until they get to understand this Bill better. As the Times points out:
“That is a counterintuitive way to buttress workers’ rights, to say the least”.
and the fact that, as my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe explained,
“taxpayers will be called upon to foot the bill, size yet unknown, for the FWA’s operations adds insult to economic injury”.
The Times points out that:
“It is an irony that Labour’s reforms will harm the very individuals they are designed to help. Labour should recognise that in requiring the taxpayer to potentially underwrite the activities of trade unions, they are not only recklessly introducing unnecessary frictions to the labour market, but making inappropriate demands on public money”,
because that is where it will fall. The Times is quite clear when it says:
“Labour ought to think again”.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, and all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate.
I begin with Amendment 326B in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, which was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe. In accordance with procedure, the other place has passed a money resolution authorising the payment, out of money provided by Parliament, of expenditure incurred as a result of this Bill by any government department. In practice, the authorisation of any additional government expenditure, for example in relation to the fair work agency, will be approved by the elected Chamber in accordance with its Estimates procedure. As noble Lords will know from the previous debate, our impact assessment for establishing the fair work agency set out the current running costs of the enforcement bodies and initial estimates of set-up costs for the fair work agency.
I turn to Amendment 329A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Leigh. As your Lordships’ House will be aware, the Government have committed to ongoing, detailed engagement with businesses of all sizes as we develop the details of regulations under this Act. In addition, our published impact assessments evaluate a range of evidence on the impacts on small and medium-sized enterprises. They also outline a plan for monitoring and evaluating the impact of the Bill and subsequent secondary legislation, which will involve reviewing how the reforms have impacted SMEs.
The Government value the insights that SMEs and their representatives can bring in ensuring the particulars of this Bill strike the right balance. To recognise that, Ministers and officials have hosted and continue to host a range of SMEs and their representatives, including and beyond those stipulated by the noble Lord’s amendment, to discuss the Bill. Such engagement and consultation will continue following Royal Assent, and SMEs will always feature in such engagement and consultation without the need for a formal requirement.
Amendment 329B from the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, and Amendments 330BA and 330E from the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, cover impact assessments. I will not repeat the points made earlier by my noble friend Lord Leong on the steps the Government have and will continue to take to ensure impacts are properly understood and assessed. The Government have noted the Regulatory Policy Committee’s opinion on our impact assessments, but it has always been our intention to refine our analysis as policy development continues, working closely with external experts, businesses and trade unions.
To reassure the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, on political funds, I reiterate the point that the Bill will ensure that political funds operate in a transparent manner that is clear to union members. Sections 32 and 32A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 will not be amended via this Bill. It will continue to require that unions provide details of their total income and expenditure in their annual returns to the certification officer, which are made publicly available, and that all members of a union receive information on the total income and expenditure of a political fund through the annual statement to members.
Members of a union are also part of a collective of workers, and political funds should be considered in that light. If a union has a political fund, its members have control over how it is spent through the democratic structures of the union. Unions put considerable effort into raising engagement in their democratic processes, which any member is free to participate in, meaning they are able to decide how their political fund is used. If union members want more information on political fund expenditure, or if they disagree with how that expenditure is being directed, they can take steps to change it. Union members are ultimately members of a voluntary organisation and are free to opt out of political fund contributions if they have objections to how a political fund is operated.
The amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, and the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, would require the Secretary of State to have regard to the UK’s international competitiveness and UK growth when making any regulations under the Bill. First, it is worth noting that the UK already lags the OECD average on most employment protections, yet the UK economy has not grown at the average rate of other OECD economies in the last 14 years, missing out, as I said earlier, on £171 billion in growth. The Government’s impact assessment notes that the Bill could have a “direct and positive impact” on economic growth and
“will help to raise living standards across the country and create opportunities for all”,
supporting the Government’s mission for growth. We will continue to pay close attention to the potential impacts as we develop regulations to implement the measures in the Bill and produce further impact assessments in line with our Better Regulation requirements.
This Government know the impact of the UK being internationally competitive. Our country has great strengths, but we have lacked the dynamism required to seize new opportunities, and businesses have needed long-term stability. Meanwhile, the global trading environment has become unpredictable, supply chains fragile and other economies more assertive in protecting their security and promoting their strategic strengths. That is why we have a clear goal: driving growth domestically. Making work pay is just one aspect of our mission to boost growth and break down the barriers to opportunity which have been holding our country back.
Our plan for change is already delivering benefits. We had the fastest growth in the G7 at the start of the year. Interest rates have been cut by the Bank of England four times since the election. A record £63 billion of private investment was announced at the investment summit last year, with £40 billion announced by Amazon just today, and 500,000 more people are in work. We have three trade deals with global economic powerhouses, and business confidence is at a nine-month high. This is a Government delivering for working people, and this Bill will help more people stay in work, support workers’ productivity and improve living standards across the country.
To wrap up this lengthy Committee stage, I want to say that it is with great pleasure that I conclude our final group of this Committee. The Government were elected on a manifesto that committed to implementing Labour’s plan to make work pay in full, in order to put more money into working people’s pockets. Our first mission as a Government is to deliver economic growth in every part of the country. However, securing that growth can only be worth doing if working people actually feel the benefits. While workers are subject to unethical fire and rehire practices, exploitative zero-hours contracts or last-minute shift cancellations, that certainly will not be the case. That is why this Bill is at the centre of the Government’s plans. It will protect workers from these practices and provide economic safety for the lowest paid in the labour market.
Just consider a few of the changes it brings. It means that 9 million employees will gain protection from unfair dismissal—not after two years, but from day one. It means that workers in some of the most deprived parts of the country will be spared up to £600 in lost income from the hidden costs of insecure work, and it means that at least 900,000 workers every year will benefit from bereavement leave following the death of a loved one.
In conclusion, my noble friends Lord Katz and Lord Leong and I very much look forward to engaging with noble Lords further on the Bill as it progresses to Report. I thank the Official Opposition, the Liberal Democrat Front Bench and noble Lords across the Committee for their contributions throughout this Committee. I must ask the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, to withdraw Amendment 325.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
Before the noble Baroness sits down, I thank her for her answer. Clearly, the feedback from the organisations she has met is not in parallel with the feedback I have had from similar organisations. I appreciate that the meetings she has had may have been in confidence. But if not, would it be possible to publish the notes of those meetings and of any future meetings with representative organisations such as those in my amendment, and of meetings with the other organisations that, I am pleased to hear, she has also met?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
We on these Benches meet with members of the SME sector all the time for various purposes. As well as the formal meetings, we meet them in all sorts of guises—for example, to discuss the industrial strategy and some of the digital growth policies. I do not think it practical to do what the noble Lord has asked, but I can assure him that the more formal consultation meetings happen regularly.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I thank the Minister for her response. It is clear that there is significant disagreement on this subject. Indeed, there is a degree of disagreement on the statistics. We seem to be quoting statistics that contradict each other. I have to say that I think ours are rather more up to date—but I would say that.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Vaux of Harrowden. I completely agree with everything he said, as I do with everything said by my noble friends Lord Leigh of Hurley and Lady Neville-Rolfe. It is very concerning that, in the other House, the Government tabled further amendments with no meaningful assessment of their economic or practical impact, and no proper consultation with the stakeholders that this will affect. This is not how good legislation is made. It is not the standard Parliament or the country should accept.
The Minister just described the Bill as the biggest upgrade to workers’ rights in a generation. If that is the case, one might reasonably expect a thorough and credible impact assessment, not one that is rated red by the Regulatory Policy Committee. That is not a minor procedural footnote; it is a warning and a signal that the economic, legal and operational consequences of this legislation have not been properly understood.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Morris of Bolton) (Con)
My Lords, there is an error in the page numbering of Amendment 334A, which means that it was marshalled incorrectly. It should have been marshalled as Amendment 330DA, so I will now dispose of Amendment 334A, which was already debated. The noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, will just have to trust me on this one.
Employment Rights Bill
Monday 14th July 2025
(8 months, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Employment Rights Act 2025 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 113-I(a) Amendments for Report (Supplementary to the Marshalled List) - (11 Jul 2025)
16:27 - Division on Amendment 1 - Ayes: 264 / Noes: 158 - Amendment 1 agreed.
16:57 - Division on Amendment 10 - Ayes: 267 / Noes: 153 - Amendment 10 agreed.
18:44 - Division on Amendment 31 - Ayes: 65 / Noes: 170 - Amendment 31 disagreed.
19:23 - Division on Amendment 42 - Ayes: 232 / Noes: 137 - Amendment 42 agreed.
20:17 - Division on Amendment 43 - Ayes: 161 / Noes: 191 - Amendment 43 disagreed.
Lord Goddard of Stockport
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment changes the provisions in the Bill from a requirement for an employer to offer guaranteed hours to a right to request guaranteed hours by an employee.
Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)
My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to open the debate on this group. I intend to be brief, as is appropriate on Report—I have said it, Minister, I cannot do any more. I begin by saying that there is clear cross-party agreement that exploitative zero-hours contracts must come to an end. Indeed, we on these Benches unequivocally believe in the need to address the problems of exploitative zero-hours contracts, which leave too many workers in precarious employment circumstances. That said, our amendment reflects that shared objective, while offering a more practical and balanced view.
The amendment would change the obligation under the legislation to offer guaranteed hours to a right to request them. Further, it maintains that when such a request is made, the employer must grant it. This would allow workers to acquire guaranteed hours if they wish, providing greater security and stability, while enabling them to make a personal choice. At the same time, it would reduce the administrative burden on employers, especially in sectors that rely on flexibility.
Although we recognise that some workers do not want precarious zero-hours contracts, this should not come at the expense of sectors where flexibility is essential and many workers are content with those arrangements. This would balance security for workers with necessary flexibility for employers in sectors that rely on flexibility. These include seasonal, tourism-related and agricultural workers, as well as hospitality, retail, theatre and other industries where work patterns are inherently dynamic and demands fluctuate. The amendment would ensure that the new provisions are adaptable enough to function effectively across all those employment settings.
In Committee, Members raised understandable concerns about what would happen if a request for guaranteed hours were simply denied. Let me be clear: under this amendment, if a worker makes a formal request, the employer must make a guaranteed hours offer. It would not be optional or discretionary; all workers who wanted greater certainty would be empowered to secure it. At the same time, the amendment avoids placing a universal obligation on all employers to offer guaranteed hours in every instance, which could place undue strain on sectors that rely on that flexible staffing model. In doing so, it would deliver a fair and workable solution that respects the rights of workers while acknowledging the operational needs of these industries.
We also recognise the Government’s amendments since Committee. In particular, we welcome the steps taken to clarify how new obligations will apply to agency workers once the legislation is enforced. These changes will help, and the framework is clear, consistent and better understood by all those affected.
That said, the Government are asking industry and business, whose support is vital for this, to prepare ultimately to comply with this provision and with the wider Act without providing any critical detail, such as reference periods for guaranteed hours and other key elements. This lack of clarity, which seems to run throughout the Bill, makes it challenging for employers and workers to understand their rights and obligations. Hindering effective implementation and planning is not acceptable. Such clarification, particularly for reference periods for guaranteed hours, is critical if the industry is expected to prepare. We on these Benches have consistently raised concerns throughout the Bill about the uncertainty caused by leaving key details, such as qualifying periods for guaranteed hours, to be declared by some later regulation. Although we agree that some flexibility is needed, it is a question of how it is implemented. We believe that clearer rules in the Bill itself will help both workers and employers to better prepare for the challenge.
Finally, as I stated at the beginning, we fully recognise the damage that exploitative zero-hours contracts can cause. However, addressing this issue must not come at the expense of sectors where flexibility is essential and many workers are content with arrangements. Our amendment seeks a fair balance, protecting workers from exploitation while preserving the flexibility that is crucial for many industries to function. I look forward to the Minister’s response and I beg to move.
Baroness Carberry of Muswell Hill (Lab)
I will make a brief comment on Amendment 1, which would replace a right to have guaranteed hours with a right to request. I very much fear that it undermines the purpose of the Bill, which is trying to deal with the problem of zero-hours contracts where employees do not have predictability over their hours.
I appreciate that the desire of the amendment is to reduce the burden on employers in working out what the guaranteed hours would be, only to find that an employee declines the offer. However, I do not think that that is likely to happen very often. Obviously, it is impossible to know what proportion of employees would turn down such an offer, but we do know from surveys—and most recently from a poll that the TUC did last year—that the majority of workers on zero-hours contracts consistently say that they would prefer to have guaranteed hours. It is therefore very unlikely that large numbers of them would turn down an offer once it has been made.
Perhaps more seriously, the amendment does not take account of the imbalance of power in workplaces and the characteristics of employees who are working on zero-hours contracts. The latest figures from the ONS tell us that zero-hours contract workers are much more likely to be young and to work in elementary occupations. They are much more likely to be working part-time and in low-paid sectors. These are the least empowered workers in the workforce; they are unlikely to understand their rights, even if the employer has complied with the requirement to find information. They are the least likely to be represented by a union and the least likely to know how to exercise their rights. The right to request guaranteed hours, in those circumstances, is not a real right at all.
How many of those workers, vulnerable as they are, might come under pressure not to press for guaranteed hours? The vast majority of employers do right by their employees, but many do not. The formulation of the amendment leaves open the path for some of the worst employers not to offer guaranteed hours to workers on zero-hours contracts. I do not think that the amendment does the intention to serve those workers any favours at all.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I support all the amendments in this group, but especially Amendment 1. As we start Report, and the first of several groups focusing on zero-hours contracts—although I will speak only on this group—I want to emphasise why getting the wording and balance right in this part of the Bill is important for proportionality and to avoid unintended consequences.
Many of us were originally supportive of the Bill’s commitment to tackle the rise of zero-hours contracts, especially in retail and hospitality—and tackling the way in which they have been used exploitatively is certainly welcome. But in Committee the Government acknowledged that there needs to be the offer of some flexibility, which is what certain cohorts of workers want.
On Amendment 1, the TUC briefing on the Bill complains that the vast majority who ask for guaranteed hours are turned down. Surely the point of Amendment 1 is the requirement that they will not be turned down. What is actually happening here is that there is a shift to a right to request guaranteed hours on to the employee, which I would have thought reassures the TUC. It empowers the employee but avoids an overrigid imposition of the Bill’s requirements on businesses, regardless of the situation. These sorts of details matter, now that we are finalising what will be in the Bill. I am not sure how helpful it is that, for example, some in trade union and government circles have briefed recently that getting into the details amounts to being, to quote the Deputy Prime Minister,
“on the side of bad bosses, zero-hours contracts and fire-and-rehire”.
We are here to make law, not to make headlines, and law means accepting that the devil is indeed in the detail. The Government know that there are lots of worries about unresolved aspects of the Bill. Indeed, Jonathan Reynolds, the Business Secretary, quoted in the FT recently, assures us that he is “absolutely certain” of addressing businesses’ concerns over the statutory probation period. Pertinent to this group of amendments, he says there is “more than enough room” to reach an agreement on guaranteed hours. He says:
“I have to have the bill passed first before we go into the implementation”,
but I suggest that is the wrong way around. If there is more than enough room to reach agreement on things such as guaranteed hours, let us put this in the Bill.
In other words, in trying to pin down how a new right to guaranteed hours should be framed in regulations, these amendments bring clarity. They are meant to help the Government. I am worried that too many important details are being kicked down the road, hence avoiding democratic debate and scrutiny and creating a real mood of uncertainty among employers. We have had warnings from business about the Bill harming an already fragile economy and so on, but these kinds of concerns are trickling down to workers too.
I work with a lot of young people at the Academy of Ideas, and the initial warm enthusiasm for the Bill has gone rather cold. I have been talking to one young man who wrote a missive for us on hospitality and how much it has done for him. Omar is concerned that what he thought was going to be in his interests might turn out not to be. He says: “Hospitality is an industry that has been flexible enough to rely on youth employment and allowed many of us a way into work. It has taught me many useful lessons, and has built my confidence as a person. Now I fear that the legislation will reduce the opportunities and misses the mark”. On this amendment, he just wants the right to be able to ask for hours, but he does not want anything that disrupts the flexibility of hospitality in doing so. That echoes the balanced way in which the noble Lord, Lord Goddard of Stockport, moved the first amendment in this group.
Lord Ashcombe (Con)
My Lords, this first group of amendments, in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Goddard of Stockport, and my noble friends Lord Sharpe of Epsom and Lord Hunt of Wirral, is significant and I am pleased to support it. I declare my interest as an employee of Marsh Ltd, a large insurance broker. Noble Lords might think that this will therefore not have much effect on me. They would be right, but I have other views.
Many individuals, for a wide variety of reasons, do not wish to have a permanent contract with guaranteed hours. While the Government might like to think that everyone wants guaranteed work, that is simply not the case. Flexibility for employees who desire zero-hours contracts is surely what everybody wants. In my experience, happy employees inevitably are more productive than those who are not. This goes directly to the heart of what the Government are trying to achieve—growth.
At the same time, many others would welcome the certainty and stability of fixed-hours contracts. It is essential, therefore, that we provide clarity in this legislation where ambiguity might otherwise lead to dispute or, worse still, legal action. That is why I welcome Amendment 2, which introduces a clear definition of a threshold below which it is not reasonable for an employee to request a guaranteed-hours contract. Setting this threshold at eight hours a week—essentially a day’s work—offers helpful clarity. It strikes a sensible balance between flexibility and fairness.
On Amendments 3 to 5, there also needs to be fairness in any arrangement, otherwise it will not stand the test of time. Therefore, it is entirely reasonable to allow a reference period during which both parties can assess the suitability of the arrangement before any request for a fixed-hours contract is made. This period of mutual assessment is not only practical but necessary. Mistakes can be made on both sides, and both employer and employee should have the opportunity to part ways without undue burden if the relationship is not the right fit. The 26-week period proposed in these amendments is an appropriate length of time for such assessments to take place.
As mentioned before, unhappy or mismatched employment arrangements serve no one. They can harm the individual’s well-being and morale and, in time, may undermine the company’s productivity, particularly for smaller businesses, where every member of staff has a significant impact—the smaller the company, the bigger the impact. We must remember, as we were reminded in Committee, that small businesses make up the majority of the companies in this country, unlike those I work for. For these reasons, I support the inclusion of a minimum number of hours’ work per week for a clearly defined reference period before the employee may request a guaranteed contract. I believe these amendments strike a fair and practical balance that will benefit both employers and employees.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, in this group I have Amendments 9 and 22, both of which seek to amend government amendments in identical ways. I shall speak to Amendment 9, which seeks to amend government Amendment 8, but my remarks apply equally to Amendment 22, which seeks to amend government Amendment 21. Before doing so, I offer my support to the other non-government amendments in this group; other noble Lords have already spoken well in favour of them.
My Amendment 9 is based on the premise that the Government should be trying to balance employee rights with the need of businesses to be successful and to grow. The Government want to end what they call “one-sided flexibility” but that would not be a good thing if the outcome was to destroy the labour market flexibility which is the hallmark of the UK’s international competitiveness and has been a major contributor to the country’s overall economic resilience.
Government Amendment 8 amends the provisions of Clause 1 which would have allowed the Secretary of State to create exemptions from the duty to offer guaranteed hours on a very broad basis. That power was a glimmer of light in a part of the Bill that was otherwise quite dark, especially for those employers whose businesses could be harmed by the new duty. It is clear that the Government wanted to use that new power very sparingly but it was drafted in a broad way and would therefore have offered the Government an elegant solution if they discovered that certain types of businesses simply could not stay in business if the duty applied to them.
Unfortunately, the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee of your Lordships’ House, for which I generally have a high degree of respect, declared that this power was “inappropriately broad”. I suspect that if the DPRRC had attended some of the debates on the Bill earlier in its passage, it would not have been quite so quick to damn this power. Even more unfortunately, the Government have chosen to respond to the DPRRC’s recommendation by making the power virtually useless.
My little glimmer of light has been virtually extinguished by the Government’s Amendment 8. This now requires that when the Government try to use the regulations to create exemptions, they have to take account of two things. The first is the benefits of workers receiving a guaranteed-hours offer. I would have absolutely no problem with that if it were balanced by an equivalent need to avoid having adverse effects on employers, but Amendment 8 goes further and says that the needs of the employers concerned can be taken account of only if they are dealing with “exceptional circumstances”. I do not know what “exceptional circumstances” means but it is probably something like a pandemic; it would not deal with those businesses which face fluctuating demand patterns as part of their natural business model. Unpredictable work demands are therefore difficult to see as exceptional circumstances.
When we debated this clause in Committee, my noble friend Lady Verma, who is not in her place, talked about the need for employers providing domiciliary or home care to be responsive to the actual fact pattern of demand for care. I suspect that would not count as exceptional, even though it is an intrinsic part of the business model of those who provide home care; nor would it, I suspect, apply to any of those businesses that are affected in any way by seasonal demand patterns, as has already been mentioned. Therefore, the ordinary everyday needs of businesses will be ignored if Amendment 8 is accepted without amendment. In practical terms, all the Secretary of State can take account of is the benefits to workers of receiving a guaranteed-hours offer.
Therefore, my Amendment 9 removes the constraint of needing to satisfy the exceptional circumstances limb; the Secretary of State would simply be having regard to, on the one hand, the benefits for employees and, on the other, the adverse effects on employers. I hope in that way a proper balance would be achieved in the Bill and that the Government will be prepared to rethink their Amendments 8 and 21.
Lord Wolfson of Aspley Guise (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 2 stands in my name. I declare my interest as a shareholder and the chief executive of Next plc, a job I have held for 24 years. I should add that Next employs nearly 50,000 people in the UK, of whom around 20,000 are part-time.
I hasten to add that the company I work for does not use, and never has used, zero-hours contracts. I am not in favour of them. As the noble Lord, Lord Barber, said at Second Reading, eliminating bad employment practices serves the interests of good employers. He was right. As I said in Committee, I support the Government’s aim of eliminating the unfair practices associated with zero-hours contracts. The problem with this section of the Bill is not the tight regulation of zero-hours contracts; nor is it the understandable intention to extend those protections to low-hours contracts, preventing employers from circumnavigating zero-hours provisions by offering token contracts. The problem is the failure to define what low-hours contracts are for the purposes of the Bill or give any hint as to what that limit might be.
Amendment 2 aims to address this problem by placing a reasonable cap on the discretion of the Secretary of State to define what low-hours contracts should be at eight hours a week. This is important because it materially changes the nature and scope of the Bill; if this number is set too high, the provision will profoundly change the working arrangements of 8.5 million part-time workers in the UK.
I can assume only, having read through the provisions of the Bill, that the Government have not really understood the near impossibility of managing the process they are proposing if it extends to millions of people. Employers will have to track their low-hours employees’ extra hours every day of the year, and at the end of every employee’s individual reference period, businesses must offer those employees a new permanent contract. These hours will have to be offered in a compliant way, with no hint as to how you comply with the Bill itself. They will have to be offered the hours regardless of whether those hours are actually needed.
This process creates two problems. The first is the problem of complexity of implementation, and the second is that businesses, if they comply with the Bill, risk being chronically overstaffed. To start with complexity, I estimate that in the company I work for, it will take us at least a year and several million pounds of systems development to develop a system to adequately cope with the implementation of the Bill. I work for a company that has more than 1,600 systems and software professionals. Small businesses will find this process almost impossible to manage. I would be very grateful if the Minister could share any details as to the cost and scope of work that will be required to be undertaken by councils, hospital trusts and other public sector employers for the purposes of developing these systems.
The second problem is that, even if an employer successfully implements a system, they will have to offer contracts regardless of whether there is any work for those people going forward. Your Lordships will not be surprised to hear that restaurants, shops and pubs simply cannot afford to have the same number of people working in their establishments in February as they have in December. Nor can we take the risk that the extra hours required to cover many different seasonal peaks and sale events become permanent costs for the rest of the year.
The complexity of implementation, along with the risk that businesses leave themselves overstaffed, will mean only one thing, and it is very important that the Government understand this: businesses simply will not be able to offer additional hours to workers on low-hours contracts. Instead, they will be forced to employ temporary staff to cover those peaks, depriving loyal and skilled employees of income at times when they need it. Whose interest does this serve? Neither business nor employees, and certainly not a Government that I believe are genuinely interested in promoting growth.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, it is a genuine pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Wolfson, who speaks with genuine authority and deep experience on this important subject.
Amendments 2, 3, 4 and 5 stand in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Hunt. I shall start with Amendment 2, about which we have just heard, which is also signed by my noble friend Lord Wolfson. Clause 1 requires employers to offer guaranteed-hours contracts to low-hours workers after a reference period, but, as we have heard, the Government still have not defined what low hours actually means. That is not a minor technicality, because at this stage it makes the policy unworkable.
We are hearing that the Government prefer to define low hours as 16 hours per week, but we have also heard that is too high. We saw some different data. According to the British Retail Consortium, only 5.5% of retail workers are on below eight-hour contracts, while nearly 20% work between eight and 16. Raising the threshold to 16 hours would mean that employers are forced to repeatedly make contractual offers to one in five workers, most of whom are in regular, stable, part-time work. It is a dramatic expansion, with, as we have heard, very major consequences. As we have also heard, some of those consequences are higher employment costs, increased complexity, particularly for small businesses, and, inevitably, job losses.
Retail, hospitality and leisure businesses will respond rationally to risk. That means fewer short shift roles, fewer flexible contracts and less tolerance for marginal labour hours. Some will restructure and some will reduce headcount, but others—especially small businesses—will just close. If the Government define low hours at 16, they will directly accelerate redundancies and reduce employment opportunities for those with caring responsibilities, students and others who depend on part-time jobs. We have also just heard very powerfully about the effect on entry-level employment, illustrated with some very stark statistics.
This is not speculation; it is how businesses operate. A badly defined threshold forces risk-averse behaviour and the effect will be the opposite of what is intended. An eight-hour threshold would limit the burden to genuinely casual contracts. That is a workable, proportionate and sensible approach. Anything beyond that is unmanageable and would be economically reckless. The Government need to listen.
On Amendments 3, 4 and 5, the Government have indicated that they are considering setting the reference period for guaranteed hours at 12 weeks. During Committee on 29 April, I asked the Minister which businesses support a 12-week reference period; at that time, she was unable to name a single business. It is now nearly two and a half months later, and I am confident that she will still be unable to provide an answer as to how many businesses, particularly small businesses, support a 12-week reference period.
The reality is that no meaningful business sector has endorsed this 12-week period. It is simply out of touch with the realities of running a business, especially in sectors such as retail, hospitality and leisure, where work patterns fluctuate widely with the seasons, weather and customer demand.
A 26-week reference period is far more practical. It would better capture seasonal cycles, provide clarity and stability for employers and employees alike and significantly reduce the administrative burden of constantly reassessing guaranteed hours. Without a longer reference period, employers will simply reduce hiring on 12-week contracts to avoid triggering this costly and complex obligation. That will not protect workers; it will diminish their opportunities and increase their precarious nature. I therefore urge the House to support the amendments put forward by me and my noble friends. We have set the reference period at 26 weeks. This is sensible, it is a workable compromise, and it will protect workers’ rights while respecting the operational realities of businesses.
To turn lastly to Amendment 1 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, which my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral and I were happy to sign, it makes no sense to require employers to offer guaranteed hours to employees who do not want them. The Government appear to misunderstand or simply disregard the autonomy of the individual worker. Imposing this administrative burden, especially on small employers, to calculate and offer guaranteed hours where they are neither wanted nor needed is an unnecessary and unavoidable cost. We therefore strongly support the right to request amendment proposed by the noble Lord, which better respects worker choice and employer flexibility.
Lord Londesborough (CB)
My Lords, I support all the amendments in this first group, but I shall speak briefly to Amendment 9 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, which, as she explained, is an amendment to the Government’s Amendment 8, and Amendment 22. I want to interrogate the wording of the Government’s Amendment 8. We have a 309-page Bill. There is a lot of concern outside, at the coal face, from businesses about definitions and what the Bill means. This is a good example:
“In exercising the power under subsection (6) the Secretary of State must, in particular, have regard to … the desirability of preventing this Chapter from having a significant adverse effect on employers who are dealing with exceptional circumstances”.
Can the Minister explain how these exceptional circumstances are defined, and how significant does the adverse effect need to be for it to be regarded by the Secretary of State?
I ask that mindful of the latest survey from the Federation of Small Businesses, just a couple of days ago, which surely signals significant adverse effects for the majority of small and micro-businesses. For the first time in its history, the FSB reports that more UK small firms expect to shrink, sell up or shut down over the next 12 months than anticipate growth. The FSB’s Q2 small business index shows that 27% of small businesses expect to contract, close or be sold, outstripping the 25% which are planning for growth, and it marks the first time that the balance has tipped towards pessimism since the index began. As the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, points out in her amendment, there is no need to layer “exceptional circumstances” on to already significant adverse effects on employers. It would be far neater, of course, to exempt small and micro-businesses from Clause 1, as I and many others argued throughout Committee.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Information and Technology (Baroness Jones of Whitchurch) (Lab)
My Lords, I first thank your Lordships’ House for the extensive engagement, debate and scrutiny that this Bill received throughout Committee. Indeed, we have held over 50 engagements with noble Lords from across your Lordships’ House since the Bill left the other place. As we progress Report, I need to remind noble Lords that the Government were elected on a manifesto commitment to make work pay. This Bill marks the first phase in delivering that commitment. Once implemented, it will raise the minimum floor of employment rights, provide a level playing field for businesses which are already engaged in good practice and raise living standards across the country. Alongside the new industrial strategy, the Bill will support our mission to increase productivity and create the right conditions for long-term, sustainable, inclusive and secure economic growth.
Turning to the amendments, I have listened carefully to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, on Amendment 1. I remind noble Lords that as of March 2025, there are around 1 million people on zero-hours contracts in the UK. About 33% of them have been with their current employer for less than 12 months and 51% for less than two years. These are the most vulnerable individuals in the workforce. The Government are therefore committed to ending exploitative zero-hours contracts, which the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, quite rightly describes as “precarious employment”.
Lord Wolfson of Aspley Guise (Con)
Would the Minister accept that setting a cap on the number of hours still gives the Secretary of State flexibility to determine exactly what the number of hours is, while giving industry the security, comfort and certainty it needs to carry on investing in its shops, pubs, restaurants and care homes?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, we intend to consult on this, and of course we will take the comments and concerns of business into account; it is our absolute intention to do that. What we do not want to do is pre-empt that by setting out the conclusions of the consultation in advance. I hear what the noble Lord says, but I do not think that fits with our model of wishing to take this and consult further on it. But of course we will take business views into account.
I turn to the amendments tabled in my name. We listened to concerns raised by parliamentarians and business stakeholders, and responded promptly by amending the Bill. The Bill allows regulations to specify circumstances in which the duty to offer guaranteed hours does not apply or for a guaranteed offer once made to be treated as withdrawn. We expect that this power will be used narrowly in response to changing circumstances to address situations where the measure would have significant adverse impacts. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee recommended restating this power with greater precision.
In response, we have tabled amendments to constrain the use of this power. Our amendments require that, in exercising this power, the Secretary of State must have regard to both the benefit to workers of receiving a guaranteed-hours offer and the desirability of preventing the provisions having a significant adverse effect on employers who are dealing with exceptional circumstances. Where this power is exercised and the duty to offer guaranteed hours does not apply, a further amendment clarifies that the exception will operate in relation to a single reference period, rather than being open-ended.
Circumstances specified in regulations would need to be specific, factual and narrow enough so that it is crystal clear that the duty then does not apply or no longer applies. There will be no room for discretion from the employer or the worker. The Government will consult on any use of this power. This way of constraining the exercise of the power still allows flexibility to determine the specific circumstances once all interested parties have had a chance to input.
Corresponding amendments are made to the provisions for agency workers. In addition, under the Bill’s current provision, an agency worker who accepts a guaranteed-hours offer from an end hirer becomes directly engaged by the hirer. The worker could then be entitled to another initial reference period as a directly engaged worker. Amendments 6 and 23 clarify that agency workers who accept a guaranteed-hours offer will not benefit from a new initial reference period. This aligns their rights with directly engaged workers and eases employer burdens.
Regarding Amendments 12 to 19, the Bill usually requires a guaranteed-hours offer to be made to a qualifying agency worker on no less favourable terms and conditions taken as a whole than those under which the agency worker was engaged during a relevant reference period. We have heard concerns about instances where agency workers are paid a significant premium in recognition of, for example, the temporary and insecure nature of their work. As the Bill stands, such pay premiums could be carried over into a guaranteed-hours offer, putting those agency workers at an unintentional advantage compared with directly engaged workers in similar roles. This could also cause employers to move away from hiring agency workers in the first place. These amendments will allow less favourable terms and conditions relating to pay to be proposed in guaranteed-hours offers to agency workers, to ensure alignment with comparable directly engaged workers, maintaining flexibility for businesses and supporting consistency in treatment of the workers.
I turn to Amendments 9 and 22, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, which seek to amend the amendments in my name that I have just justified. I listened carefully to the noble Baroness’s points, but accepting her amendments and removing the reference to employers dealing with exceptional circumstances would not address the DPRRC’s criticisms regarding the breadth of the power. It would also not be clear what the Secretary of State would need to consider when setting out the specified circumstances. I reassure the noble Baroness that, once the Secretary of State has considered these matters, he can still decide to make regulations to set out the circumstances in which the duty to make guaranteed-hours offers does not apply, which may not relate to exceptional circumstances.
I therefore ask the noble Lord, Lord Goddard of Stockport, to withdraw his amendment. We very much share his objective to address the imbalance of power, and I hope he has heard our case about why we believe that what is currently in the Bill is the best way to do that. I also commend to the House Amendments 6 to 8, 12 to 21 and 23 in my name.
Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)
I thank noble Lords who took part in this debate. The number of amendments in this group shows the depth of feeling on zero-hours contracts. I think it was the same story from the noble Baroness, Lady Carberry of Muswell Hill—for whom I have the highest regard—and the Minister. It was not a defence; it seemed to me that they were saying that giving employees this extra power would somehow not help them in asking for those contracts, as the employer might not like it.
That is the point of it. The Bill is supposed to address what employers and employees like. This is not an either/or; it is an “extra for”—an extra protection for workers. As the Minister herself said, 1 million people are on zero-hours contracts, many of which are exploitative. That should not remain after all this debate has taken place. All we are asking for is clarity and detail and all we are getting is consultation and manna tomorrow. That is not acceptable. There are 1 million people looking at this today, wondering what we are going to do. In my mind, what we should do, which I wish to do, is test the will of the House.
The Deputy Speaker (Viscount Colville of Culross) (CB)
I need to warn your Lordships that if Amendment 3 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments 4 to 6 by reason of pre-emption.
“(6A) See paragraph 5(3A) of Schedule A1 for provision about when the initial reference period is not a reference period in relation to a worker who is a former agency worker and that worker’s employer.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to Schedule 1 at page 160, line 33.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies that, where the power in new section 27BD(6) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 is exercised so as to make provision for the duty in new section 27BA(1) not to apply, the exception will operate in relation to a reference period.
“(6A) In exercising the power under subsection (6) the Secretary of State must, in particular, have regard to—(a) the benefit to workers of receiving a guaranteed hours offer under this Chapter, and(b) the desirability of preventing this Chapter from having a significant adverse effect on employers who are dealing with exceptional circumstances.” Member's explanatory statement
This amendment sets out a non-exhaustive list of matters that the Secretary of State must have regard to in exercising the power in new section 27BD(6) of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
Lord Goddard of Stockport
“(5A) Where notice of cancellation has been given in advance of the short notice period as defined by subsection (6), the employer is not required to make payment under subsection (1).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment and another in the name of Lord Goddard defines “short notice” as at least 48 hours before a shift is due to start, and clarifies that if this notice is given, the employer will not be required to make a payment under section 27BP.
Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)
My Lords, coincidentally, both the amendments in this group are mine. They seek to address the rights of workers to receive payments following a short-notice shift cancellation and provide clarity. I would like it on record that we recognise what the Government are trying to achieve with these provisions and that workers should be compensated when shifts are cancelled at short notice. In recognition of that provision, I have Amendment 11 in my name. This is especially important, given that such cancellations often disproportionately impact those workers in hospitality, retail and other sectors where shift incomes can be crucial to meeting everyday financial needs.
My amendment seeks to address this by defining “short notice” as at least 48 hours before a shift is due to start. By doing so, they would provide much-needed clarity and certainty, helping people and businesses, particularly smaller businesses, without expensive legal and administrative resources to plan for and effectively implement their requirements.
Importantly, the amendment would maintain the principle that, if a shift is cancelled within 48 hours of that window, the employer is still required to provide compensatory payments to the worker. That would protect workers from a sudden loss of income caused by last-minute cancellations, which can be devastating for those relying on shift work to support themselves and their families. The amendments would strike a fair balance, ensuring that workers are compensated fairly for genuinely short-notice cancellations while supporting practical and manageable implementation by employers across the sector with fluctuating and dynamic working patterns.
This amendment is important because a persistent problem with the Bill is a lack of clarity in key provisions such as short-notice cancellations. The Bill does not define what constitutes “short notice” and instead leaves this Government to determine that through future regulation. This creates uncertainty for businesses and workers alike. It appears that the Government wish to maintain flexibility on this provision by leaving the definition of regulation, but for businesses of this kind that causes limbo, leaving them uncertain and unable to adapt for practical efficiency.
Without clear rules, employers, especially small businesses, face real difficulties in preparing for their legal obligations, which could lead to inconsistent application and confusion in the workplace. I sincerely ask the Minister why this important detail has yet to be clarified. We are on Report in this House and the Bill has already completed its Commons stages. Given that we have numerous government amendments here, just as we had in Committee, I hope the Minister will be able to provide some clarity and answers on these important questions. I beg to move.
Lord Ashcombe (Con)
My Lords, I support Amendments 10 and 11 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Goddard. We all understand that in shift-based work there is an expectation that, if someone is on the rota, the shift will go ahead, but life is not always so predictable. In my experience, unexpected changes happen, often without warning or obvious reason. So the question we must ask is: should an employer still be obliged to pay a worker when there is no work available? I can already hear the instinctive response “Yes”, and I understand why, but we must also ensure that the rules we put in place are fair and reasonable for all parties.
The amendments propose a balanced solution. If an employer needs to cancel a shift, they should provide notice. I entirely agree with noble Lords opposite that, if notice is given only an hour before the shift begins, that is clearly unreasonable. By that time, the worker will likely have made arrangements, be they childcare, travel or even turning down other opportunities to be available for work. In such cases, they deserve to be paid as if they had worked the shift.
As it stands, the Bill does not seem to specify a minimum notice period before a shift is cancelled. That gap needs addressing. The proposed 48-hour period in the amendments would strike a reasonable balance. It would give workers enough time to make other plans and give employers and, particularly importantly, the small business community some flexibility, while avoiding the unfairness of telling someone at the last minute, “You’re not needed today”, and leaving them unpaid. With that in mind, I am happy to support the amendments.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Goddard of Stockport, for his amendments. I agree very much with the approach my noble friend Lord Ashcombe has taken. We are fully in agreement that workers deserve reasonable notice of shifts. That is a fair and modern expectation. What we cannot accept or support is the way the Government have approached this issue. It is, in effect, vague in definition, burdensome in practice and, yet again, deeply disconnected from the operational realities faced by employers.
The term “reasonable notice” has been left entirely undefined in the legislation. That is not just an oversight; it creates legal uncertainty and leaves both workers and employers unclear about their rights and responsibilities. The result is a framework where expectations are high but there is no guidance; guidance is absent. I hope of course that the Minister will reassure us on this. It would be a very good move on the part of the Government to accept Amendments 10 and 11.
The real concern is how all of this interacts with other government-imposed obligations, especially, as the noble Lord, Lord Goddard of Stockport, pointed out, for small businesses, which form the backbone of our economy. The Minister knows this well as he has unrivalled experience in that sector. Let me just spell it out. The current proposals amount to what is virtually a threefold financial cost to the employer in the event of an unavoidable change, such as an employee calling in sick on the day of their shift. First, the employer will be required to pay statutory sick pay from day one—a new obligation introduced without sufficient support or transition for small businesses. Secondly, under these proposed rules, the original shift could not simply be cancelled without consequence. The employer would be expected to pay the sick worker for the shift they can no longer cover, even though it is not worked. Thirdly, and most significant of all, the employer would then need to pay another employee to come in and cover the shift. In effect, the employer is paying twice for the same shift, on top of sick pay. That is not just inconvenient; it is, for many small businesses, financially unviable.
Let us take a common example of a pub with a garden space, with staffing that depends very much on the weather forecast. If rain is expected, the manager may need to scale back staffing. Under these rules, they may be required to pay the original shift, notify the worker within a fixed timeframe and compensate them if notice is too short. These decisions are often necessarily made on the morning of a shift, based on changing conditions. The flexibility that currently exists, therefore, is lost and replaced with what amounts to bureaucratic process and financial risks.
These are not hypothetical scenarios. In hospitality and retail, rotas are often agreed through informal co-operation: workers swapping shifts with each other, or managers responding to customer demand or staff illness in real time. What the Government now propose would stifle that practical environment, replacing it with a rigid system that suits neither party. Yes, we of course support the principle of fair notice, but fairness must apply to both sides. Businesses need clarity, practicality and financial sustainability; workers need predictability and respect. These goals, surely, should not be mutually exclusive. They will be undermined, not advanced, by unclear obligations and rules that are unworkable. That is why we support a clearer, more defined approach to notice periods: one that will give employers confidence, support workers’ rights and reflect the real dynamics of modern shift work.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Leong) (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Ashcombe and Lord Hunt of Wirral, for their contributions and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Goddard of Stockport, for tabling Amendments 10 and 11.
The Bill currently sets out that eligible workers will be entitled to a payment when their shifts are cancelled, moved or curtailed at short notice. Setting the short notice period for cancellation at 48 hours, as stated in the amendment, would mean that only workers whose shifts are cancelled less than 48 hours prior to starting will receive payments for short notice. Our analysis showed that 2.4 million workers could be eligible for zero-hours contract rights. Furthermore, analysis from the CIPD—the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development—suggests that approximately 48% of the UK’s employers do not provide compensation to a worker if they cancel their shift with less than 24 hours’ notice. The Government remain concerned about the impact that this may have on an individual’s ability to plan their life—as we all do—and knowing what money they will have for fundamental things such as housing costs, travel and paying for childcare and commuting.
We intend to set up the period of short notice in regulations following consultation. I recommend that all noble Lords read our road map for implementing this Bill, which sets out exactly what we intend to do. However, we have said in the Bill that “short notice” will not be more than seven days. The Government are committed to continuing to work closely with businesses and trade unions in carefully considering the right approach to this matter. It is right to consult on this in order to fully establish the impact of different proposals. For example, a 48-hour requirement could have the effect of a worker not being entitled to a payment if they found out late on a Friday evening that their Monday morning shift was cancelled. The impact and fairness of different options must be assessed.
We believe that seeking views on this and setting out the position in regulations is the right approach. This will allow the Government to minimise the amount of administrative detail in the Bill, while retaining the flexibility to respond to changing circumstances, in the light of the novel nature of this measure, without the need for further primary legislation. This approach also allows the Government to account for other important provisions in the Bill, such as a potential super-short notice period, without pre-empting consultations, so decisions can be taken together.
It is worth emphasising that a short notice cancellation period will only be due when the employer cancels a shift. A payment would not be due if a worker called in sick. Noble Lords should also be aware that there is a power in the Bill to make exceptions under new Section 27BR so, in some circumstances, an employer would not be required to make any payment.
The Government cannot promise to cover all the circumstances that have been raised by noble Lords, as we are keen to further engage with stakeholders before making the final call, but we hope this provides some reassurance. Further, Amendment 10 is not needed, as the Bill already provides that payment is due only where short notice is given, and therefore payment is not due when longer notice is given.
In response to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, about business uncertainty, I can safely say to him that we are in regular contact with business representative organisations. Businesses know about our implementation road map, so they know when certain provisions in the Bill will come into force. This particular section of the Bill does not come in until 2027.
I turn to reasonable notice, asked about by the noble Lords, Lord Ashcombe and Lord Hunt. After consultation, we will set in regulations what period of notice should be presumed unreasonable. We will also set out factors for tribunals to take into account when considering whether a notice is reasonable. On this basis, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)
I thank the Minister for making another manly fist of that defence from the Government. I genuinely think that they are doing their best. I have met Ministers in this House many times, and I get the feeling that they are dealing with one hand tied behind their back. There are people in the other place who have a different agenda than this revising Chamber, which has tried to make something more fair, honest and transparent than perhaps what has come from the other place. I feel for the Minister in trying to pass that to us. However, there are far wiser minds than mine in this Chamber today, and they can see the blindingly obvious: the number of people looking to us to ensure that the Bill is treated with respect and clarity.
As we say up north, what is in the tin is what it says on the front of the tin, and that has to be that people are protected. With this 48-hour short notice, we are dancing on the head of a pin. Why do the Government not just accept this as a starting point and move forward? This would remove doubt and worry, not for the big companies—the Nexts of this world—but for the small companies employing five, 10, 15, 20 or 25 people, which are now are in limbo again because it is all about legislation coming in 2026, 2027 and 2028. They need to know and plan now. They cannot afford an HR department or lawyers; they just want to run companies, make modest profits and employ people. I thought that was the name of the Bill: it is an employment law working in partnership to deliver benefits for all. On that basis, I wish to test the will of the House.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
I understand that it has been agreed that Amendment 11 is consequential on Amendment 10.
Amendment 11
Lord Goddard of Stockport
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment and another in the name of Lord Goddard defines “short notice” as at least 48 hours before a shift is due to start, and clarifies that if this notice is given, the employer will not be required to make a payment under section 27BP.
“(b) must propose terms and conditions of employment relating to pay that comply with paragraph 2A, and(c) must propose terms and conditions of employment relating to additional matters—(i) that, taken as a whole, are no less favourable than the terms and conditions relating to additional matters that the qualifying agency worker had when working for and under the supervision and direction of the hirer during the relevant reference period,”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to Schedule 1 that inserts a new paragraph 2A into new Schedule A1 to the Employment Rights Act 1996.
“(7A) For the purposes of sub-paragraphs (6)(b)and (7B), terms and conditions of employment relate to “pay” if they relate to any sums payable to a worker in connection with the worker’s employment, including any fee, bonus, commission, holiday pay or other emolument referable to the employment, whether payable under contract or otherwise.(7B) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (6)(c), terms and conditions of employment relate to “additional matters” if—(a) they are not terms and conditions that are required by or under sub-paragraphs (1) and (2) or sub-paragraphs (1) and (4);(b) they do not relate to length of employment;(c) they do not relate to pay.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to Schedule 1 that inserts a new paragraph 2A into new Schedule A1 to the Employment Rights Act 1996.
“Requirements relating to a guaranteed hours offer: terms and conditions relating to pay
2A (1) Terms and conditions of employment relating to pay that are proposed by a guaranteed hours offer made by a hirer to a qualifying agency worker in respect of a relevant reference period comply with this paragraph if any of conditions A to D is met in relation to those terms and conditions.(2) Condition A is that the terms and conditions of employment relating to pay are no less favourable than the most favourable terms and conditions relating to pay that the qualifying agency worker had when working for and under the supervision and direction of the hirer during the relevant reference period.(3) Condition B is that—(a) the terms and conditions of employment relating to pay do not meet condition A but are no less favourable than the least favourable terms and conditions relating to pay that the qualifying agency worker had when working for and under the supervision and direction of the hirer during the relevant reference period, and(b) the proposal of those terms by the hirer constitutes a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. (4) Condition C is that the terms and conditions of employment relating to pay are no less favourable than—(a) where there was only one comparable worker in relation to the qualifying agency worker at the end of the relevant reference period, the terms and conditions of employment relating to pay that the comparable worker had at the end of that period, or(b) where there was more than one such comparable worker, the most favourable terms and conditions of employment relating to pay that a comparable worker had at the end of the relevant reference period.(5) Condition D is that, where there was more than one comparable worker in relation to the qualifying agency worker at the end of the relevant reference period—(a) the terms and conditions of employment relating to pay do not meet condition C but are no less favourable than the terms and conditions of employment relating to pay that at least one comparable worker had at the end of the relevant reference period, and(b) the proposal of those terms by the hirer constitutes a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.(6) If a hirer relies on any of sub-paragraphs (3) to (5) when making a guaranteed hours offer to a qualifying agency worker, the hirer must give a notice to the qualifying agency worker that—(a) states that the hirer has done so, and(b) where sub-paragraph (3)(b) or (5)(b) applies, explains how the proposed terms and conditions constitute a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.(7) A notice under sub-paragraph (6) must be given by no later than the same day, and in the same form and manner, as the guaranteed hours offer (see paragraph 2(8)).(8) For the purposes of this paragraph a worker is a “comparable worker”, in relation to an agency worker who works for and under the supervision and direction of a hirer, if—(a) the worker is employed by the hirer to do the same or broadly similar work as the agency worker, having regard, where relevant, to whether the worker and the agency worker have a similar level of qualification and skills, and(b) the worker is employed by the hirer to work at the same place as the agency worker or, where there is no worker employed by the hirer at that place who does the same or broadly similar work as the agency worker, at any other place.(9) Paragraph 2(7A) (when terms and conditions of employment relate to pay) applies for the purposes of this paragraph as it applies for the purposes of paragraph 2(6)(b) and (7B).(10) References in this paragraph to terms and conditions relating to pay that an agency worker had when working for and under the supervision and direction of a hirer are references to any sums payable to the agency worker in connection with that work, including any fee, bonus, commission, holiday pay or other emolument referable to the work, whether payable under contract or otherwise.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment inserts a new paragraph into new Schedule A1 to the Employment Rights Act 1996. It sets out requirements for the terms and conditions of employment relating to pay that are proposed by a guaranteed hours offer made by a hirer to a qualifying agency worker.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to Schedule 1 that inserts a new paragraph 2A into new Schedule A1 to the Employment Rights Act 1996.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to Schedule 1 that inserts a new paragraph 2A into new Schedule A1 to the Employment Rights Act 1996.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to Schedule 1 that inserts a new paragraph 2A into new Schedule A1 to the Employment Rights Act 1996.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to Schedule 1 that inserts a new paragraph 2A into new Schedule A1 to the Employment Rights Act 1996.
“(5) Paragraph 2(7B) (when terms and conditions of employment relate to additional matters) applies for the purposes of this paragraph as it applies for the purposes of paragraph 2(6)(c).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to Schedule 1 that inserts a new paragraph 2A into new Schedule A1 to the Employment Rights Act 1996.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies that, where the power in paragraph 4(6) of new Schedule A1 to the Employment Rights Act 1996 is exercised so as to make provision for the duty in paragraph 1(1) not to apply, the exception will operate in relation to a reference period. It is equivalent to my amendment to clause 1, page 9, line 34.
“(6A) In exercising the power under sub-paragraph (6) the Secretary of State must, in particular, have regard to—(a) the benefit to agency workers of receiving a guaranteed hours offer under this Part of this Schedule, and(b) the desirability of preventing this Part of this Schedule from having a significant adverse effect on hirers who are dealing with exceptional circumstances.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment sets out a non-exhaustive list of matters that the Secretary of State must have regard to in exercising the power in paragraph 4(6) of new Schedule A1 to the Employment Rights Act 1996. It is equivalent to my amendment to clause 1, page 9, line 36.
“(3A) Where, by virtue of sub-paragraphs (2) and (3), a qualifying agency worker and a hirer are treated as entering into a worker’s contract on a day, and accordingly from that day the qualifying agency worker becomes a worker and the hirer becomes that worker’s employer, Chapter 2 of Part 2A applies in relation to that worker and that employer as if in section 27BA (employer’s duty to make a guaranteed hours offer) subsections (4)(a) and (5) (which provide for the initial reference period to be a reference period and define the initial reference period) were omitted.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment produces the effect that where a qualifying agency worker accepts a guaranteed hours offer from a hirer under Part 1 of new Schedule A1 to the Employment Rights Act 1996, so that (respectively) they become a worker and an employer for the purposes of new Chapter 2 of Part 2A of that Act, there will not be a new initial reference period in relation to the former agency worker.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
“(3A) For the purposes of this Chapter, references to a “relevant collective agreement” shall be treated as including an agreement in writing between an employer and an employee representative body or staff association that—(a) has been formally established for the purposes of consultation or negotiation with the employer,(b) represents either a defined group of the employer’s workers or the workforce generally, and(c) operates independently of the employer in its decision-making.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that, for the purposes of this Chapter, agreements made with independent employee representative bodies or staff associations — where formally constituted and independent — may be treated as equivalent to collective agreements.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 24 and 25 standing in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral. As we highlighted in Committee, the Government appear to hold an implicit bias in favour of the trade unions, as though they are the only legitimate bodies capable of making rational decisions on behalf of workers. That is clearly not the case. One needs only to look at the chaos of the Birmingham bin strikes to see that unions are not always acting in the best interests of employees, and nor are they always representative of them.
In Committee, during the debate on Clause 5, the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, remarked that
“the whole point of a trade union is that it is a democratic organisation of working people”.—[Official Report, 8/5/25; col. 1744.]
If that is so, surely workers should be free to choose whether to be represented by a union or by another independent body—choice is the essence of workplace democracy. If the noble Baroness and the Government are so committed to democratic representation, I wonder whether she also supports the Government’s proposal to remove the 50% ballot threshold for strike action—a move that clearly undermines democratic standards rather than upholding them.
On Amendment 25, the law must have no gaps, no shadows and no hiding places where the old habits of industrial bullying can take root and flourish. Every loophole we leave open becomes a wound in the body politic of free employment. Every ambiguity we permit becomes a tool for those who would turn the noble art of collective bargaining into a weapon of exclusion. That is why I speak in support of this amendment and why I urge the Government not to dismiss it on the tired ground that closed shops are already unlawful.
Yes, closed shops are illegal on paper, but we are not here to legislate for the perfect world of statutory textbooks; we are here to legislate for the real world and, in the real world, pressure to join a union can exist. This amendment simply states what most of us would regard as common sense: that no worker should be treated differently under a collective agreement based solely on their union membership status. It would prohibit making membership a condition for the agreement’s terms to apply. It would ban imposing any disadvantage on non-members and prevent contract terms being automatically imported purely because someone happens to hold a union card. In other words, it restores balance. It would ensure that collective agreements function as they ought to—as negotiated protections for the workforce—not as a gatekeeping tool for union organisers. It does not therefore weaken unions; it strengthens fairness. I beg to move.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, I will speak very briefly to Amendment 25 in the name of my noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom. I reiterate his key point that the imperative is to make it clear that the closed shop is not coming back and that the Government are committed to free but fair bargaining.
Let us remember that the closed shop has never actually been that popular. In the United States, the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947 outlawed the closed shop, and in the UK—even before I was born—in 1964 Rookes v Barnard involving the British Overseas Airways Corporation began the fightback against the closed shop when that organisation sacked a worker who refused to join a trade union. As noble Lords will know, in effect the closed shop was made illegal by the Employment Act 1990 and the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.
The fact that we accept that the closed shop is damaging and an anachronism is, as much as anything, a reflection of the different working regimes in which the 40-odd million working people, or potentially working people, in this country exist. The closed shop was very much of a time when heavy manufacturing, manual labour and a heavily unionised workforce were prevalent, and that is now different. The working environment of young people particularly is a much more modern, diverse, dynamic and disaggregated labour market where the closed shop is a throwback and an anachronism.
There are good reasons why it is important to put in primary legislation that even this Government—who are legislating in a very negative way, which will cost jobs and opportunities and force people not to hire workers—will not go back to the bad old days of the 1970s and institute a closed shop. Labour market flexibility is reduced by the closed shop because the capacity of employers to employ the best-qualified candidates—regardless of union membership—is reduced. That inevitably leads to a misallocation of labour resources, higher business costs, higher prices and, ipso facto, a lower number of jobs.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
My Lords, I support Amendment 25 in particular, although I also support Amendment 24. This is about the freedom to be represented by people who represent you and your stance. Only 22% of employees in this country belong to a trade union, so surely it is right, as my noble friends Lord Sharpe of Epsom and Lord Hunt propose, that a relevant collective agreement for the purposes of Clause 5 will be invalid unless it is open to being struck with a body which is independent of a trade union and which is not just a trade union. Given that many workplaces, particularly small businesses, do not have trade union representatives and some 80% of employees do not belong to a trade union, there really is not a case, in terms of freedom, for restricting who should conduct the collective bargaining. It is important to send a signal that we believe in a free workforce and respect the freedom of working people to join, or not to join, a trade union.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I have listened to the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, and his explanation for Amendments 24 and 25, and note that these are similar to the amendments he tabled in Committee, but with some of the safeguards and requirements removed. While I respect the noble Lord’s views in this area, I feel this is going in the wrong direction. Staff associations and employee representative bodies can of course be a very positive way for staff and employers to engage. However, we are not convinced they are the suitable vehicle for deciding whether to modify or opt out of statutory employment rights. While many maintain a good balance between positive engagement and constructive challenge, we are not persuaded that they will, in all cases, argue as robustly as a trade union on behalf of workers. In addition, without a trade union representing them, workers will not have as many protections if their employer does not deliver promised benefits.
This is nothing to do with a closed shop or industrial bullying. Under our proposals, employees will continue to have the right to be, or not to be, a member of a trade union. The issue here is the right to be represented by a body that is truly independent. We remain of the view that agreements of this type are best made by trade unions which have been through all the steps to become listed and certified as independent. I would encourage any staff association or employee representative body that wants to negotiate on behalf of its members to register as a trade union and go through the steps to obtain a certificate of independence from the certification officer.
The second part of the noble Lord’s amendment sets out that a relevant collective agreement shall not be treated as valid if it meets conditions such as imposing detriment or disadvantage on a worker who is not a member of a trade union and terms being incorporated into a worker’s contract solely by reason of union membership status. We believe that these provisions are unnecessary. The Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 already provides sufficient protection by ensuring that workers cannot be subject to detriment for the purpose of compelling them to join a trade union. Furthermore, the application of the terms of collective agreements to workers generally depends on incorporation of them into their contracts, either expressly or by implication, in line with well-established contract law, rather than on the basis of a trade union membership.
I turn to Amendments 26 and 27 in my name. Currently, when the terms of a collective agreement cease to be incorporated, the worker’s initial reference period and initial information period recommence the next day. However, in some cases, there could be quite a gap between these terms ceasing to be in force and the worker next being employed by the employer to work. We heard the strength of feeling around business burden in Committee and, where it is possible to make tweaks, we will do so. In this case, we believe it makes more sense for the reference period to start the next time the worker is employed by the employer. This avoids businesses having to consider making a guaranteed-hours offer before it is sensible and necessary to do so.
We are also tabling a minor and technical amendment to new Section 27BY(8) to reflect that the duty relating to the information right in the existing provisions will be on agencies to inform potential eligible agency workers about the right to guaranteed hours in any relevant information period.
Finally, Amendment 27 ensures that the zero-hours measures in the Bill apply as appropriate to special categories of workers. This follows a long-standing precedent that these categories of workers should be treated as distinct, as they do not have a typical employment relationship or undertake a unique type of work. In line with this precedent, the amendment ensures that House of Commons and House of Lords staff, Crown employees and mariners benefit from the crucial protections the Bill provides on zero hours. It also ensures that duties made under provisions in the Bill do not apply where this would not be appropriate; namely, in relation to service personnel in the Armed Forces and police officers. I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw Amendment 24 and commend Amendments 26 and 27.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I first thank my noble friends Lord Jackson of Peterborough and Lady Lawlor for their comments. Employee representation must be plural and not monopolised by trade unions. There are many workplaces across the country where independent staff associations or employee bodies are trusted, respected and effective. These organisations are not lesser simply because they are not unions. In fact, they are often more in tune with their colleagues’ needs, less politicised and more flexible in resolving workplace issues—yet disappointingly, the Minister says they are not “suitable”.
The idea that only a union can be trusted to negotiate terms is a fiction—we just have to look at Birmingham to see the results of that belief. This amendment simply recognises reality: that employee voices come in many forms and the law should not shut out legitimate and independent associations.
Secondly and just as crucially, we cannot allow this legislation to leave space for any form of closed shop, not in name or in practice. It is true of course that compulsory union membership is already unlawful, as the Minister pointed out, but this amendment would ensure that there were no back doors. We do not think the law should have any ambiguity on this. No agreement should ever impose a detriment on a worker simply because they choose not to join a union, and as my noble friend Lady Lawlor pointed out, the majority choose not to—in fact, in the private sector, I think that the proportion who choose not to join a union is 87.7%. No terms should be granted only by virtue of membership. That is not freedom; that is coercion.
We therefore say again that collective bargaining should not become collective exclusion. These amendments would uphold freedom of association in both directions: the right to join and the right not to, but for now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“(b) in relation to a worker and the worker’s employer—(i) section 27BA(5)(a) has effect as if for sub-paragraphs (i) and (ii) there were substituted—“(i) where the worker is employed by the employer on the day (“the effective day”) after the day on which terms cease to be incorporated as mentioned in section 27BY(7)(b), the effective day, or(ii) where the worker is not so employed, the first day after the effective day on which the worker is employed by the employer, and”, and(ii) section 27BF(3) has effect as if for paragraphs (a) and (b) there were substituted—“(a) where the worker is employed by the employer on the day (“the effective day”) after the day on which terms cease to be incorporated as mentioned in section 27BY(7)(b), the effective day, or(b) where the worker is not so employed, the first day after the effective day on which the worker is employed by the employer.”,(c) in relation to an agency worker and a hirer for and under the supervision and direction of whom the agency worker works, paragraph 1(5)(a) of Schedule A1 has effect as if for sub-paragraphs (i) and (ii) there were substituted—“(i) where the agency worker is working for and under the supervision and direction of the hirer on the day (“the effective day”) after the day on which terms cease to be incorporated as mentioned in section 27BY(7)(b), the effective day, or(ii) where the agency worker is not so working, the first day after the effective day on which the agency worker is working for and under the supervision and direction of the hirer, and”, and(d) in relation to an agency worker and the work-finding agency with which the agency worker has a worker’s contract or an arrangement by virtue of which the agency worker is (or is to be) supplied to work for and under the supervision and direction of a hirer, paragraph 6(3) of Schedule A1 has effect as if for paragraphs (a) and (b) there were substituted—“(a) where the worker’s contract or arrangement is in force on the day (“the effective day”) after the day on which terms cease to be incorporated as mentioned in section 27BY(7)(b), the effective day, or(b) where it is not in force on the effective day, the first day after the effective day on which it is in force.””Member's explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that the gloss in new section 27BY(8) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 operates effectively.
“18A In section 192 (armed forces), in subsection (2)(e), after “103” insert “, 104BA, 104BB”.18B (1) Section 194 (House of Lords staff) is amended as follows.(2) After subsection (2)(a) insert—“(aza) Part 2A, apart from Chapter 1 of that Part,”.(3) In subsection (2)(c), for “and 47E” substitute “, 47E and 47H”.18C (1) Section 195 (House of Commons staff) is amended as follows.(2) After subsection (2)(a) insert—“(aza) Part 2A, apart from Chapter 1 of that Part,”.(3) In subsection (2)(c), for “and 47E” substitute “, 47E and 47H”.18D (1) Section 199 (mariners) is amended as follows.(2) In subsection (8), for paragraph (b) substitute—“(b) Part 2,(bza) Part 2A, apart from Chapter 1 of that Part,(bzb) Parts 2B, 3 and 5,”.(3) After subsection (8) insert—“(9) In the application of subsection (7) to the provisions mentioned in subsection (8)(bza), the reference in subsection (7)(b) to a contract of employment is to be read as a reference to a worker’s contract.”18E In section 200 (police officers), in subsection (1)—(a) after “8 to 10,” insert “Chapters 2 to 4 of Part 2A,”;(b) after “47C,” insert “47H,”.”Member's explanatory statement
The paragraphs inserted into Schedule 2 by this amendment make amendments of Chapter 1 of Part 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (particular types of employment) that are consequential on clauses 1 to 5.
Lord Hunt of Wirral
“(b) in subsection (2), for “four” substitute “two”.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment preserves a minimum one-day waiting period for statutory sick pay, by reducing the qualifying threshold from four days to two, rather than introducing a day-one entitlement.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 28 simply asks for a degree of common sense. It would preserve a minimum one-day waiting period for statutory sick pay by lowering the qualifying threshold from four days to two, rather than removing the threshold entirely, as the Government now propose.
We have heard a great deal from the Benches opposite about bad employers, and indeed there are some, but the Government must also acknowledge the other side of the coin. Just as some employers abuse the system, so, too, do some employees. To pretend otherwise is disingenuous and undermines the credibility of the entire framework.
In fact, before the Government’s recent and embarrassing U-turn on benefits reform, Ministers rightly spoke about the perverse incentives created by aspects of the welfare system. The logic there was sound, and the same logic applies here. If we remove all barriers to claiming statutory sick pay, even for a single day, and do so without checks or balances, we create a system that is not only vulnerable to abuse but risks becoming a disincentive to return to work.
Let me be absolutely clear. This is not about denying support to people who are genuinely unwell. It is about preserving the integrity of statutory sick pay so that it remains sustainable, trusted and workable for businesses, particularly small ones. A one-day waiting period is a modest safeguard, not a punishment. It would discourage spurious claims, uphold personal responsibility and give smaller employers a fighting chance in a tight and unpredictable labour market.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, I support Amendment 28, which has been so well moved by my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral. My main problem with the statutory sick pay clauses in this Bill is that the Government are proceeding without a reliable evidence base. The Government do not collect data on sick leave taken by employees. Instead, they have relied on some modelling by the Department for Work and Pensions, and that modelling in turn rests on some surveys that are carried out by the DWP. Those surveys have some problems, which the DWP itself owns up to, in terms of statistical quality. The Office for National Statistics also published some data on sickness absence. These data are labelled “statistics in the course of development”, and we all know that the ONS currently has major problems with its labour market statistics.
Nevertheless, the Government have used these data and made some challengeable assumptions of their own, such as that there will be no increase in sickness days taken off if the changes in Clauses 10 to 14 go ahead. They have come up with an additional cost to business of £420 million, which they then calculate as £15 per employee. I do not think that £15 passes the common-sense test. It implies that employers will bear the cost of not much more than an extra half a day of statutory sick pay at the rate that is specified in the Bill.
Part of the problem is that the Government’s calculations average those costs over 24 million employees, which is roughly the size of the whole private sector workforce. Within that, nearly a half of employees are employed in large businesses, many of which have their own sick pay arrangements and do not rely on the statutory sick pay arrangements that my local friend Lord Hunt outlined. I tried to find the complete set of costs for small and micro businesses. It looks as if the costs for the smaller end of the scale of businesses are roughly double the amount per employee, but it is very difficult to tie it down, because the dataset is incomplete—certainly the one that is available in public. As my noble friend has already pointed out, the Government’s own assessment has owned up to the fact that these costs will disproportionately bear on small and micro businesses.
Even if we double the £15 per employee to £30, I am not sure that even that is a realistic estimate of the costs that will fall on individual businesses, because it amounts to just a bit over a day of statutory sick pay at the new rate in the Bill. That does not seem to me to make any sense at all. The Government should have done proper studies of current sickness patterns and costs for the various businesses that are affected by these clauses before going ahead. In particular, I believe that the costs to small and micro businesses should have been evaluated before the clauses were proceeded with. The only thing that we know for sure about these clauses is that the impact on small and micro businesses will be disproportionately large.
However, I recognise that the Government would probably have gone ahead with these provisions even if they had gold-standard data and analysis, and even if that analysis showed that the cost was 10 times the amount that the Government currently estimate. That is the reason I support my noble friend’s Amendment 28, with a one-day waiting period and a qualifying threshold of two days, which would go some way towards reducing the impact on smaller firms. Survey data shows that nearly 60% of sickness absences are for one or two days. The small change that my noble friend’s amendment seeks could have a major impact on businesses and the bureaucratic burdens that they would have to bear.
I support Amendment 30, which would reintroduce a statutory sick pay scheme. I would have confined it to small and micro businesses, because that is where the greatest harm is, but, in this uncertain economic environment, with costs being piled on businesses in all directions, businesses deserve protection from the Government’s policies. For that reason, I support Amendment 30.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 30, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Goddard of Stockport, which builds on something that I raised in Committee. I have been asked to do a statement for the Covid inquiry regarding the economic response and so have been going through a variety of notes from five years ago. One of the most successful things that we did then was to support employers in the deployment of statutory sick pay by ensuring that people could stay at home and not be spreading coronavirus at work.
For me, that reinforced something that made sense for the country as a whole and its public health and was fair. It was fair to businesses that, while the country was being asked to do something and they were being asked to do something as employers, the Government helped with the cost.
Part of this entire debate is the fair work agency and it being fairer for employees—and apparently it will be fairer for employers, around productivity. I do not want to repeat all that I have said on this but I recall that, when there used to be a rebate, it was recognised that this was the bare minimum, with many employers paying a lot more than the statutory sick pay rate. It was about co-working and recognising that, as a mature country, we believe that people should continue to be paid when they are off ill, and that the Government have an interest in that too. That is why I was particularly keen to sign Amendment 30, although I am conscious that some of its finer details could be worked out further.
Amendment 28 was tabled by my noble friends on the Front Bench. Of the variety of changes that are happening through this Bill—many of which, I remind the House, could have been done through statutory instruments—statutory sick pay from day 1 has come up time and again with most of the employers that I have met or heard from. The impact is genuinely worrying, particularly for people in the hospitality sector, the retail sector and so on. Going straight to day 1 is a step too far backwards. That is why I am supporting my friends on the Front Bench.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, in the evidence and analysis document that the Government very helpfully gave us last week, it notes that up to 1.3 million employees will get a new entitlement to statutory sick pay and that that will increase the amount of sick pay that workers receive by around £400 million a year. At face value, this is in many ways a very positive step forward. However, that same document brought up some cultural issues. I would like the Minister to reflect on whether day 1 statutory sick pay will help to tackle those issues.
The document notes that
“stress, depression or anxiety accounted for 17.1 million working days lost in 2022/23, equivalent to a loss of £5.2bn in output per year”.
Is there a danger that an unintended consequence of day 1 sickness pay would be people being encouraged to too easily see themselves as not fit for work? Can the Minister answer that? The same document says that:
“Measures to improve worker wellbeing will result in happier, healthier and more productive workers, which could be worth billions of pounds a year”.
That seems rather far-fetched. It might mean that people will more easily go on the sick, not because they are shirkers but because we are creating a culture where that is the norm.
Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)
My Lords, I will speak on the important topic of statutory sick pay, particularly in relation to amendments in this group. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, for signing the amendment. I listened to her very closely in Committee; she may have got a flavour of what I am about to say, because she has an excellent overview of these matters, and I think the House does listen. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, for her forensic examination of the financial cost, which should never be underestimated—these things are emotional, but there are costs to anything that anybody does. It is important that we understand where the balance lies.
I will speak predominantly to my Amendment 30, which is a probing amendment. We recognise that there are challenges in creating a two-tier employment system with different obligations depending on business size. For that reason, we will not press for a Division on this amendment. However, this amendment highlights the importance of recognising the potential impact that this might have on small and medium-sized enterprises due to the costs that they incur from statutory sick pay. SMEs form the backbone of our economy. It is essential that government policy takes full account of the financial pressures that businesses face.
Expanding statutory sick pay is an important and welcome goal, but it must be done with careful consideration of how the additional costs affect the viability and growth prospects of SMEs. That is why meaningful consultation with these businesses throughout the implementation process is critical. The Government should actively engage with SMEs to ensure that their concerns are understood and addressed, so that any changes to statutory sick pay are substantial and do not inadvertently place undue burdens on the very common businesses and people who are trying to drive the economy.
I will ask the Minister to confirm that, as the Government continue their thorough consultation as part of the implementation of the Bill, they do so directly and in close alignment with small and medium-sized businesses, not during the passage of the Bill but throughout its full implementation. Can the Minister provide reassurance that SMEs’ voices will be heard, and their concerns addressed, as the policy is rolled out? Because it is only through partnership with the SME community that we can ensure the statutory sick pay system is both fair for workers and sustainable for business. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed. I will start with Amendment 28, which looks at retaining the waiting period for one day. The Government believe that removing the waiting period is essential in ensuring that all eligible employees can take the time off work they need to recover when sick. That is why we committed to it in the manifesto. This is particularly true for employees with long-term or fluctuating conditions, who should feel able to take a day of sickness absence to manage their condition or prevent it worsening. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said that the one-day waiting period that he was proposing should not be a punishment, but that is exactly what it would be under the proposals before us.
It is also worth saying that 25% of all employees receive only statutory sick pay, and many are forced to choose between their health and the genuine financial hardship during the first three days of sickness absence when they are not paid. Removing the waiting period will make a tangible difference to ensuring that the safety net for sick pay is available to those who need it most.
I understand that the noble Lord is concerned about the wider impacts on businesses of these changes, but, without the removal of the waiting period, many employees will be forced to continue to come into the workplace when they are sick. The pandemic exposed how damaging this can be for businesses and individuals, with WPI economic modelling telling us that presenteeism can lead to up to 12% of the workforce becoming sick from the illness of a single employee. By reducing such presenteeism, businesses may benefit from the overall productivity increase, which can also contribute to a positive work culture that better helps recruit and retain staff.
Of course, as we have debated before, employers will need to manage sickness absence, as they do at the moment. I listened to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, on the cultural issues, and, yes, some of the things she identifies are real issues. We are addressing them across government, and she will have heard many of my ministerial colleagues set out how they plan to do that. But that does not alter the fact that, in this Bill, what we are proposing makes good sense for the lowest paid.
I also remind noble Lords that the additional cost to business of the statutory sick pay reforms is about £450 million annually—a relatively modest £15 per employee. It was quite rightly pointed out that these figures were modelled by the DWP, but it does have a reasonable track record of doing such modelling, and I do not think that the figures should be dismissed.
Amendment 29 seeks to exempt employers from having to pay the rate of statutory sick pay outlined in Clause 11 if they already provide a contractual scheme that pays at least 80% of normal weekly earnings. The rate of statutory sick pay is set out in the Bill as the lower of 80% of an employee’s weekly earnings, or £118.75. This already means that no employer will have to pay more than 80% of an employee’s normal weekly earnings. Therefore, an employer already paying 80% of an employee’s weekly earnings would be compliant with the statutory minimum set out in the Bill. As such, I am unclear on the intended impact of this amendment on employees or employers, as it does not appear to change the statutory sick pay entitlement.
I turn to Amendment 30 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, and I appreciate what he said about it being a probing amendment. As I have mentioned, the changes we are making to statutory sick pay will cost businesses around £15 per employee. This relatively modest amount compares with projected costs of up to £600 million a year to government of a rebate for the full amount of statutory sick pay for SMEs. I accept the arguments made by the noble Lord that this cost will of course depend on the size, scope and complexity of a rebate scheme. However, we have experience of administering such schemes. We previously delivered statutory sick pay rebate schemes such as the percentage threshold scheme. A review found that the employers underused it and found it was complex and time-consuming to administer. Any rebate system that maximises opportunity for business take-up, which I envisage would be the noble Lord’s intent in this amendment, would collectively be costly for the taxpayer as well, whereas the cost saving for individual employers would be small and a new administrative burden would be placed on them.
Previous statutory sick pay rebate schemes also did not incentivise employers to support their employees back to work or invest in their health and well-being. This, in turn, can affect overall productivity and staff retention. We know that employers have responsibility for paying sick pay, and that helps maintain a strong link between the workplace and the employee, with employers encouraged to support employees to return to work when they are able. I would also like to add that the Government have asked Sir Charlie Mayfield to lead the Keep Britain Working review, which will consider recommendations on how employers and the Government can work together to promote healthy and inclusive workplaces. A final report with recommendations is expected in the autumn.
I therefore do not believe that a rebate scheme is the best way to support our SMEs at this time, but, in response to the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, I say that of course we are continuing to have a dialogue with SMEs, and we take their concerns very seriously. I therefore ask the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe and Lord Goddard, not to press their amendments.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, I would like to thank all noble Lords for their contributions to this important debate. I am particularly grateful to my noble friend Lady Noakes for reminding us all that one of the great difficulties we have in debating a subject such as this is the lack of a reliable evidence base, and that is particularly relevant to the debates on these amendments. The noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, quite rightly drew our attention to the unintended cultural issues, which worry us all so much and to which the Minister has just referred.
I remain wholly unconvinced by the Minister’s response when debating the removal of the waiting period for statutory sick pay. To remove any waiting period at all, and to introduce a day one entitlement without qualification, is not just a step too far but an unnecessary one. Having at least one waiting day does not undermine the Government’s stated intention to support those who are genuinely unwell. It is a modest safeguard that reflects the balance they claim to seek, and its removal creates perverse incentives at a time when we should be doing all we can to encourage people back into work.
On the issue of agency work and statutory sick pay, the Minister’s response is equally unconvincing. I did try to outline a scenario where individuals go off sick, claim SSP and then begin new assignments, while continuing to receive sick pay from another employer. I do not believe that the Minister adequately addressed that point. I suggest that perhaps we ought to put our heads together and try to find another solution. Having listened carefully to the debate, a system-wide mechanism, possibly administered by HMRC, to cross-check SSP claims across employers could serve as a much-needed safeguard. Perhaps she might reflect further on that on that idea, because I believe that such a mechanism would not target those with legitimate dual employment. We recognise that some workers genuinely hold more than one job in a given week, but it would introduce a basic layer of validation—a simple tool to distinguish between valid and dishonest claims. Without it, businesses, particularly small and agency employers, would remain exposed to fraudulent or inadvertent overclaims that could cost them thousands of pounds, all in the name of a policy that currently lacks real oversight.
I thank my noble friend Lady Coffey and the noble Lord, Lord Goddard of Stockport, for their important probing amendment. It has been a useful and interesting debate, but we still search for the solutions that will meet the problem. I urge the Government, in their phased consultation, to listen to businesses from across the board as they highlight their concerns. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill
“Kinship care leave(1) The Employment Rights Act 1996 is amended as follows.(2) After section 80EI insert—“Chapter 5AKinship care leave80EJ Kinship care leave(1) The Secretary of State must make regulations entitling an employee to be absent from work on leave under this section if the employee satisfies conditions specified in the regulations as to an eligible kinship care arrangement with a child.(2) The regulations must include provision for determining—(a) the extent of an employee’s entitlement to leave under this section in respect of a child;(b) when leave under this section may be taken. (3) Provision under subsection (2)(a) must secure that—(a) where only one employee is entitled to leave under this section in respect of a given child, the employee is entitled to at least 52 weeks’ leave;(b) where more than one employee is entitled to leave under this section in respect of the same child, those employees are entitled to share at least 52 weeks’ leave between them.(4) An employee is entitled to leave under this section only if the eligible kinship care arrangement is intended to last—(a) at least one year, and(b) until the child being cared for attains the age of 18.(5) For the purposes of this Chapter, “eligible kinship care arrangement” means—(a) special guardianship,(b) a kinship child arrangement,(c) a private fostering arrangement, or(d) a private family arrangement,within the meaning given by section (Meaning of “kinship care”) of the Employment Rights Act 2025.(6) The regulations may make provision about how leave under this section is to be taken.(7) In this section—(a) “special guardianship”, “kinship child arrangement”, “private fostering arrangement” and “private family arrangement” have the same meanings as in section (Meaning of “kinship care”) of the Employment Rights Act 2025.(b) “week” means any period of seven days.80EK Rights during and after kinship care leave(1) Regulations under section 80EJ must provide—(a) that an employee who is absent on leave under that section is entitled, for such purposes and to such extent as the regulations may prescribe, to the benefit of the terms and conditions of employment which would have applied but for the absence,(b) that an employee who is absent on leave under that section is bound, for such purposes and to such extent as the regulations may prescribe, by obligations arising under those terms and conditions (except in so far as they are inconsistent with subsection (1) of that section), and(c) that an employee who is absent on leave under that section is entitled to return from leave to a job of a kind prescribed by regulations, subject to section 80EL.(2) The reference in subsection (1)(c) to absence on leave under section 80EJ includes, where appropriate, a reference to a continuous period of absence attributable partly to leave under that section and partly to any one or more of the following—(a) maternity leave;(b) paternity leave;(c) adoption leave;(d) shared parental leave;(e) parental leave;(f) parental bereavement leave.(3) In subsection (1)(a), “terms and conditions of employment”—(a) includes matters connected with an employee’s employment whether or not they arise under the contract of employment, but(b) does not include terms and conditions about remuneration. (4) Regulations under section 80EJ may specify matters which are, or are not, to be treated as remuneration for the purposes of this section.(5) Regulations under section 80EJ may make provision, in relation to the right to return mentioned in subsection (1)(c), about—(a) seniority, pension rights and similar rights;(b) terms and conditions of employment on return.80EL Special cases(1) Regulations under section 80EJ may make provision about—(a) redundancy during or after a period of leave under that section, or(b) dismissal (other than by reason of redundancy) during a period of leave under that section.(2) Provision by virtue of subsection (1) may include—(a) provision requiring an employer to offer alternative employment;(b) provision for the consequences of failure to comply with the regulations (which may include provision for a dismissal to be treated as unfair for the purposes of Part 10).80EM Chapter 5A: supplemental(1) Regulations under section 80EJ may—(a) make provision about notices to be given, evidence to be produced and other procedures to be followed by employees and employers;(b) make provision requiring employers or employees to keep records;(c) make provision for the consequences of failure to give notices, to produce evidence, to keep records or to comply with other procedural requirements;(d) make provision for the consequences of failure to act in accordance with a notice given by virtue of paragraph (a);(e) make special provision for cases where an employee has a right which corresponds to a right under section 80EJ and which arises under the person’s contract of employment or otherwise;(f) make provision modifying the effect of Chapter 2 of Part 14 (calculation of a week’s pay) in relation to an employee who is or has been absent from work on leave under section 80EJ;(g) make provision applying, modifying or excluding an enactment, in such circumstances as may be specified and subject to any conditions which may be specified, in relation to a person entitled to take leave under section 80EJ;(h) make different provision for different cases or circumstances;(i) make consequential provision.(2) The cases or circumstances mentioned in subsection (1)(h) include—(a) more than one child being subject to the same eligible kinship care arrangement, and(b) a child being subject to an eligible kinship care arrangement on two or more separate occasions,and regulations may, in particular, make special provision regarding the applicability and extent of the entitlement to leave in such circumstances.(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for some or all of a period of kinship care leave to be paid.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment inserts provision which sets out an entitlement to kinship care leave.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, Amendments 31 and 32 in my name relate to the often-ignored subject of kinship care. The amendments seek to introduce—at last—kinship care leave as a paid entitlement and to establish a legal definition of kinship care, which is something many people do not even think about. It is time to address the current lack of formal employment rights and protections for kinship carers.
It is long overdue that we legally recognise and reward the grandparents, aunts, uncles and other relatives who step in as carers. More than 130,000 children in the UK are in kinship care, which is, amazingly, three times the number who are in foster care. When family crises occur—and they do occur—it is often kinship carers who step up to the plate, preventing children from being swept up into the formal care system.
Amendments 31 and 32 would allow families breathing space in order to adjust and, most importantly, support the well-being of the child. Support of kinship care is cost effective, as it reduces pressure on an overtasked care system. It is time to be compassionate for everyone’s long-term benefits—and I may well ask your Lordships to vote on this at the end of the group.
The Government’s Amendment 34 extends bereavement leave to include pregnancy loss. I commend this amendment to the House.
We are not debating or voting on Amendment 97 now, because it has been degrouped. It is in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, and gives a statutory right to paid leave for working parents who are forced to stop working to care for a critically ill child over 28 days old. This is described as Hugh’s law, after one who suffered in this way. I commend this amendment, which we will get to when we get to its degrouped place; it was originally in this group.
The other amendment in my name, Amendment 104, is on statutory carer’s leave. We owe a great deal to unpaid carers, who are the backbone of our society. Their support is worth a staggering £184 billion a year to older, ill or disabled relatives or friends—support without which society would collapse. The reality, however, is that this comes at a cost to them. Around 600 people a day give up work to care, and 1.2 million face poverty and financial hardship. Research shows that the majority do not have a choice about caring, because there are no care alternatives available. Employers are losing skilled labour every day because of caring, at a cost to their productivity. For some small employers, which we have spent a lot of time talking about, losing skilled workers can have an even bigger impact.
This amendment in my name would provide for the Government to publish regulations that would recompense employers, particularly small employers. There is insufficient social care and health services to plug the gap. Supporting carers to stay in employment is cost effective, and many carers have told Carers UK that they want to stay in work. Polling carried out by Carers UK found that 88% of unpaid carers of working age said that they needed paid carer’s leave.
The amendment that we brought forward in Committee has been refined, I hope for the better, having received comments from the Minister that the original drafting would have been different to that for other entitlements. We have therefore aligned the entitlements to pay for statutory carer’s leave with other similar statutory entitlements. This is very modest and yet would reflect a critical step forward for unpaid carers. The modest entitlement would normally be up to only five days of paid leave. It is described as a week, and a week is—amazingly—described as up to five days. This is how it is set out in the Carer’s Leave Act.
The Government could set the rate of statutory pay. The cost of statutory carer’s leave, based on estimates from Carers UK, is between £5 million and £32 million per annum. That is based on actual take-up rates of carer’s leave with employers. Centrica has two weeks of paid carer’s leave at full pay, with a further two weeks of matched leave. The Carers UK report says that just 3.4 days, on average, are taken by employees as carer’s leave. The Government’s estimate of the cost of carers’ inability to work is £37 billion. The personal cost is even greater if carers have to give up work, as they do, in order to care.
In advance of the Bill, Carers UK has been talking to carers about what paid carer’s leave would mean. One carer, who is a bus driver, has not had a holiday in seven years because of caring. He takes annual leave first, because it is paid, then unpaid leave if he has to. Work is extremely important to him, as he said that it “keeps him going” but that it is hard caring for two people without a break. He has been to his council, but does not get much support. He is still waiting, because the more trained care workers who his son needs are not available.
Another carer, who works in the NHS, is struggling to work and care, but she does not have paid carer’s leave. This leaves her burned out and exhausted, and she has to take her annual leave. We cannot afford to lose valuable NHS staff as a result of providing unpaid care. Paid carer’s leave is vital for those who cannot afford to take unpaid leave. What hope can the Government give to people like this who juggle every day and who need support such as paid carer’s leave, so that they can keep caring and working?
Will the Government go one step further and commit to building on the Carer’s Leave Act 2023 in introducing paid carer’s leave? Given that a parental leave review has been published for consultation and engagement, can the Minister tell the House what the Government’s message to unpaid carers and the review of carer’s leave are? Will the objectives, timetable, report and engagement be published? Carers are a valuable resource, but they are not appreciated. It is time that we in this House started appreciating them. I beg to move.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I speak to the two amendments that I have tabled. The loss of any foetus or potential child is a massive grief, and I entirely understand why this provision has been brought forward. My right honourable friend Jeremy Hunt commissioned the independent review into pregnancy loss several years ago, and a variety of actions have taken place, particularly in thinking of people with miscarriages. By law, a stillbirth is anything from 24 weeks onwards, but being able to register a birth such that, in effect, people who lose their foetus after 24 weeks can have a birth certificate in the same way was a good thing to do.
I am speaking today to try to get clarity on what the Government are proposing. If the Bill specifically mentioned miscarriage or ectopic pregnancy or molar pregnancy, I would not be speaking, although I would still want to get some understanding through Amendment 35. Perhaps I will start with that first.
I would be very grateful if the Minister could explain the new Section 80EA(3A)(b) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, to be inserted by Amendment 34. It says that a person is bereaved if
“the employee satisfies specified conditions as to relationship with … a person who has suffered a pregnancy loss … or … a child who had been expected to be born had a pregnancy loss of a specified kind not occurred”.
It would be useful to understand why it is not being put in the Bill who it is expected that this will extend to—I do not know whether it is the father, a donor, a sibling, a grandmother, a grandfather and so on. I completely understand why, at such a difficult moment, we might want to extend bereavement leave, and not just for the mother, but it would be useful to get a further sense of that from the Government.
The main reason I am speaking today is my Amendment 41. It is an amendment to Amendment 40, which inserts a new paragraph into Clause 18 that defines “pregnancy loss” as
“the ending of a pregnancy after less than twenty-four weeks of pregnancy in any way other than a live birth, or (b) the failure of an embryo to become implanted following a transfer carried out in the course of providing treatment services within the meaning of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990”.
I am conscious that these recommendations were made by a Women and Equalities Select Committee report, but I want to understand what is in the Government’s mind today. It is quite a moment to choose to, in effect, use the Employment Rights Bill to define what a pregnancy is, particularly with regard to IVF. I know many people who have been through IVF, who of course have disappointment if it does not work that month or that year, and will try again. The fact that roughly 30% of IVF treatments are successful—I have shared those statistics previously—leaves a whole range of situations where a transplant has not happened. As I said, I am somewhat concerned at what is almost the redefinition of “pregnancy” when we are considering the body of a woman.
Furthermore, when it comes to
“the ending of a pregnancy … in any way other than by a live birth”,
the latest statistics published by the Department of Health and Social Care stated that there were around 250,000 abortions in this country in 2022. That was up 17% from the year before. Meanwhile, although I can entirely understand aspects of foetal anomaly or risks to the health of the mother, according to Department of Health and Social Care statistics that were published and referenced in the Commons Select Committee report, there were around 3,300 abortions for those reasons. There is a very significant difference between 3,300 and 250,000 but, as it stands, anyone who had a legal abortion will be counted in that statistic. I am not aware that the Department of Health and Social Care has yet decided how it will count in its statistics the number of abortions from pills through the post. At the moment, it does not even count the number of pills issued.
I am trying to get clarity from the Government. Is it really their intention that a person who has an abortion—up to 250,000 people a year—will be entitled to bereavement leave? That is what this primary legislation is saying.
On other issues in the Bill, all sorts of things are put into Henry VIII powers or regulations or other conditions. I seek to understand why the Government feel that this should be in the Bill. Obviously, every loss undoubtedly brings horrific grief. I know that, having had had to care for people in that situation and similar, and I understand why this is going ahead. Despite the potential for sickness leave being open, I recognise that under the Equality Act any discrimination would be against the law. I understand the steps the Government are taking, but I would be grateful for a genuine and huge level of detail on what they are setting out today in primary legislation. I commend my amendments to the House.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 104, to which I have added my name. I do not intend to repeat the case I made in Committee for paid carer’s leave, and which was put very fully by the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, but I am still unclear as to why the Government now, in effect, question that case, having made a commitment to paid leave on a number of previous occasions, as was demonstrated by the various quotes from Front-Bench spokespeople that I and the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, presented in Committee.
My noble friend Lord Katz rejected an earlier amendment in Committee, as we have heard, on the grounds of the costs to business, especially small business, and that it would create a situation of differential treatment. The present amendment, although detailed, simply commits the Government, as I understand it, to the principle of paid carer’s leave—a principle that had previously been accepted. It leaves to regulations the details of how paid leave would be designed. As regards the costs to business, as I said in Committee, many employers are very supportive and a CIPD consultation of its members found that support among SMEs was not much lower than among large employers.
Although it is welcomed that the Government are reviewing carer’s leave to see whether further support is needed, surely there is already more than enough evidence that, to be effective in supporting carers, the leave needs to be paid, and thus any review needs to focus on how that is best done rather than on whether it is needed. That said, can my noble friend the Minister tell us more about the review? To echo in particular the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, what are its terms of reference and objectives? What is the timeline? Will the outcome be published and debated in Parliament? The paucity of information about the review contrasts poorly with the recent Statement about the parental leave review.
In conclusion, if my noble friend the Minister is unable to accept the amendment, will he—I am not quite sure which Minister will reply—at least put on the record the Government’s commitment to paid carer’s leave as set out in Labour’s New Deal For Working People? Will he provide us with the requested information about the review of the Carer’s Leave Act?
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, in speaking to Amendment 104, in the name of my noble friend Lord Palmer, to which I too have added my name, I must apologise that I have been unable to speak at earlier stages of the Bill. I also strongly support Amendments 31 and 32 regarding kinship carers. I have spent a lot of time on the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, where we have spent a lot of time talking about the importance of kinship care. We need to see join-up between that Bill and this Bill, so that kinship carers, who play such a critical role, get the support they need.
On Amendment 104 and the proposal for paid carer’s leave, which was set out admirably by my noble friend Lord Palmer, it is clear that it is both a modest proposition and incredibly important to unpaid carers trying to juggle work and caring. As we have heard, it would, in effect, turn the current provision—normally up to five days leave within 12 months, as set out in the Carer’s Leave Act and so already a clearly defined right—into a statutory pay entitlement. If you have supported a relative who needs care and worked at the same time, which many of us have, including me, you will know how time poor you are, that it is an incredible juggling act, and that paid carer’s leave can make a real difference.
I have spoken directly to carers who do not have paid carer’s leave in the workplace. They say that taking annual leave is exhausting and they never get a proper holiday. Unpaid leave was a useful step forward and it is right and important, but the unpaid nature of the leave can be challenging. As we have heard, a number of employers have already voluntarily embraced paid carer’s leave because they understand the beneficial impact it has, particularly on productivity and staff retention.
There are all sorts of examples of good employer practice. We have already heard about Centrica. The Phoenix Group offers two weeks of paid carer’s leave and recently added five days of unpaid leave. Some 6% of colleagues took up the offer, with an average rate of 2.64 days. We are not talking about an open cheque here. The employer said: “We have had extremely positive feedback from our colleagues and there have only been benefits to the business as a whole”. Paid carer’s leave would support workers of all ages, from young carers to adult carers and older workers. It would be a positive all-age and all-gender policy, but the reality is that women are more likely to be carers and at risk of working part-time with lower incomes in retirement, so paid carer’s leave is a positive equalities policy.
The final point I want to make is about what is happening internationally. There is a move to deliver more paid carer’s leave support, recognising ageing societies, a greater proportion of retired population to workers and the imperative for people to work for longer. Australia and Germany have 10 days of paid carer’s leave, and Germany has longer-term provisions as well. It is seen in those countries as an important strand of reducing economic inactivity, something we badly need to do here, as the Treasury quite rightly reminds us. With a shortage of social care and carers taking on more hours of care, there is a huge need to ensure that unpaid carers are supported to juggle work and caring responsibilities. It is not a “nice to have”; it is essential.
I will finish with the real-life example of Michelle White from the TSB, who was happy to have her name quoted. She said, “Paid carer’s leave provides a vital lifeline in my ability to care for my sister, often at short notice, and we would both struggle without it. This important measure allows me to provide support during an emergency. I can be there when it matters, with peace of mind that my career will not be jeopardised simply because I am a carer. I cannot speak highly enough about paid carer’s leave and the need for all carers to be supported in this way. Working for a business like TSB that recognises carers and offers this type of support is priceless”.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions in this debate, in particular the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, for his thoughtful introduction. These amendments raise an issue of deep humanity, that of kinship carers—family members, friends or relatives who step up, often at short notice and with immense personal sacrifice, to care for a child who cannot remain with their parents. There is no doubt in anyone’s mind that kinship carers perform a vital role, and often without the financial or legal support that accompanies formal fostering or adoption. These proposals seek to address that gap through the creation of a statutory kinship care leave entitlement, mirroring in some respects existing entitlements such as maternity or adoption leave. It is a serious and thoughtful contribution to the long-standing challenge of how we support informal family networks caring for vulnerable children and this is a cause worthy of respect and policy consideration. However, although the underlying issue is important, we must also take account of practicality and timing. We have similar concerns to those expressed by others about the cumulative burdens placed on businesses by this Government, particularly small and medium-sized enterprises.
We are debating these amendments in a broader context in which the Government have already imposed or are proposing to impose a series of costly new obligations on employers. We were talking in the last group about day-one rights to statutory sick pay and compensated cancelled shifts with undefined notice periods, and now we are talking about potentially a new category of leave which may extend up to 52 weeks with full employment protections and return-to-work guarantees. Each of these measures in isolation may be defensible and even commendable, but taken together, they represent a heavy financial and administrative load, particularly for small businesses in the retail, hospitality and service sectors, many of which are still struggling in the wake of the pandemic with ongoing and increasing cost pressures. In the case of kinship care leave, the details are vague and defer to regulation, leaving employers in the dark about how it will work in practice. What counts as evidence of an eligible arrangement? Will the leave be paid and, if so, by whom? What safeguards exist to prevent abuse? These questions must be answered before we can impose another legal obligation on employers.
We also have to be honest about timing. The economic climate remains fragile. Many small businesses operate on margins of just a few per cent. For a family-run corner shop or a café with six staff, the unexpected loss of one employee for several months could be devastating, particularly if there is no clear mechanism for support or to backfill that position. We respect and admire the intent behind these amendments, but we must weigh them against the real-world pressures facing employers. This is not the right time to impose new, poorly defined and potentially costly statutory entitlements, especially without clarity on how they will be funded or implemented. We need to support kinship carers, but let us do so in a way that is targeted, workable and fair to employers as well as families.
On government Amendment 34, my noble friend Lady Coffey has raised some important questions and I am looking forward to the answers. Does this amendment cover just termination on grounds of foetal anomaly or for medical reasons? Or is the rest of the subject taken in by that rather catch-all phrase,
“pregnancy loss of a specified kind”?
Can the Minister give us some information as to what he thinks the meaning of “a specified kind” is?
Finally, I note that the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, has asked for details about the review, citing a paucity of information. Having been present throughout all these debates, I know that “paucity of information” is a recurring theme with regard to this Bill. I am also keen to hear what the Minister has to say in due course.
Lord Leong (Lab)
I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken: the noble Baronesses, Lady Coffey, Lady Lister, and Lady Tyler, and the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom. Turning first to Amendments 31 and 32, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, on the important topic of kinship care leave, I begin by giving my thanks to the right honourable Sir Ed Davey MP, leader of the Liberal Democrats, who has powerfully shared his personal experiences of kinship care and of being a carer himself. This has brought much-needed attention to the importance of kinship care and of supporting caregivers across the United Kingdom. It is important for me to address that.
The Government greatly appreciate the role that kinship carers play by offering loving homes for children who cannot live with their parents. I am sure your Lordships’ House shares these sentiments. We also know the current system needs improvement, because it does not support working families as well as it could. This is why we have already begun work to improve the system of kinship carers, starting with the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, as alluded to by the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler of Enfield, which will create a legal definition of kinship care to ensure consistency in how local authorities identify and support kinship families. That is why we have to work across government in this area.
I am pleased to say that the Government have announced a £40 million package to pilot a new kinship allowance, which is due to commence later this year. This is the single biggest investment made by government in kinship care to date. The Government’s recently launched parental leave review also presents a much-needed opportunity to consider our approach to the whole system of parental leave and pay. The noble Baronesses, Lady Lister and Lady Tyler, also asked about the terms of reference and how long this review will be. The terms of reference are published online, and the review is expected to last 18 months so that we can speak to stakeholders and various charities and come to some form of decision at a much later stage.
All current and upcoming parental care and pay entitlements will be within scope of the review. It will also consider the needs of other working families who do not qualify for existing leave and pay entitlements, such as kinship carers. Creating an entitlement for kinship carers would pre-empt the review before it had had a chance to consider support for kinship carers in the context of wider parental leave and the pay landscape.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
Before my noble friend sits down, I very much welcome what he said about the review now being more transparent. Did he say that clear terms of reference would be set out, and did he give a commitment to publish the outcome of that review and allow us to debate it in Parliament?
Lord Leong (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for that point. As I said, the terms of reference are available. The review will last for 18 months and anyone who wants to contribute to it may do so. We hope to publish that review in due course.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
Sorry, I think that is the parental leave review. I am talking about the carer’s leave review, which my noble friend just said, at the end of his speech, would be more transparent. Could he say a bit more about that?
Lord Leong (Lab)
Sorry. We will address that as and when this legislation has Royal Assent. We will formalise the terms of reference soon and we will ensure that that information is made public so that everyone can have a look at the review. However, the amendment poses a number of challenges and presupposes the conclusion of the ongoing review.
I turn to the exceptionally important topic of bereavement leave for the loss of a pregnancy. The amendments that this Government have made extend bereavement leave to provide a day-one right to protected time off to grieve a loss before 24 weeks of pregnancy. I am grateful to the Women and Equalities Committee for its important work highlighting the gap in support for those who experience a pregnancy loss before 24 weeks. I pay tribute to my friend and colleague Sarah Owen MP for her work campaigning on this issue and for sharing her personal experiences in impassioned debates in the other place.
The loss of a baby at any stage is incredibly difficult and tragic. The Government recognise that pregnancy loss is a bereavement for many families and fully accept the principle of bereavement leave for pregnancy loss. The amendments will ensure that all employees can have time away from work to grieve and recover when they need it most. In line with bereavement leave, the amendments provide for a minimum of one week’s leave, a minimum of a 56-day window to take the leave and protections around redundancy and dismissal. The Government’s amendments allow for the types of pregnancy loss that will be in scope of the entitlement to be explored in consultation and specified in regulations. IVF embryo transfer loss is specifically referenced in the definition of pregnancy loss to ensure that there is the power to include that in secondary legislation if decided after consultation.
On Amendment 104 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, removing the definition of pregnancy loss entirely would mean that we would not be able to consider providing for certain scenarios such as IVF embryo transfer loss or to consult properly with all affected. No definition in the Bill would lead to uncertainty about what could possibly be captured in regulations—that includes abortion—and limit our ability to consult on a full range of scenarios. We know that all types of pregnancy loss can be experienced as a bereavement.
The Government can therefore not accept the amendment as it is vital that we consider the full range of scenarios that could be in scope in partnership with those impacted. Other details of entitlement, including eligibility, total duration of leave and the types of pregnancy loss in scope, will be defined in secondary legislation. Due to the sensitive and personal nature of bereavement for pregnancy loss, it is important to consult stakeholders on the specifics of the entitlement to ensure that the policy properly reflects and is sensitive to the needs of employers and employees.
Regarding eligibility, the Government’s amendments include provisions to ensure that there is the ability for entitlement to apply also to partners or surrogacy arrangements, if found to be appropriate after consultation. The noble Baroness’s amendment would remove this definition, which would significantly narrow possible eligibility to only those who have directly suffered the pregnancy loss. We know from testimony to the Women and Equalities Committee the devastating effect that pregnancy loss can have on fathers, partners and families. Grief in these situations is not confined to the woman carrying the baby. We therefore cannot accept the amendment as it is only right that it is considered in consultation and conversation with those affected.
By defining details such as eligibility in secondary legislation following consultation rather than in the Bill, we can ensure that the entitlement considers those impacted and a wide range of views in its development and has the flexibility to be updated over time as the legislative landscape and society evolve.
The Government’s amendments recognise the profound impact and heartbreak that can accompany pregnancy loss, while also acting to address the stigma that often accompanies it. The Government are setting a floor for businesses that will ensure all employees have a right to bereavement leave. Bereavement is not an illness or a holiday, and it needs its own special category of treatment. With that, I must ask the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, to withdraw Amendment 31.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
The Minister was very helpful in saying who he felt would be in the scope of other people to be specified—the partner or somebody involved in surrogacy. He has not talked about what he thinks would be the scope of the abortions. Is he looking to make this the 250,000 or are we talking more about the 3,300 where there is a foetal anomaly? If the Minister has already made an indication on one, hopefully he will have considered the other.
Lord Leong (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for that. I did say that the review will look at that, and hopefully it will cover what noble Lords are asking for. I will be moving Amendments 33, 34 and 36 to 40 shortly.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister and the Government Benches, particularly for the kind and very true words about the activities of Sir Ed Davey in highlighting carers’ value to society. I thank my noble friend Lady Tyler, who explained—better than I did—about kinship carers and paid carer’s leave. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, for asking for clarity from the Government because I do not think there is clarity. As usual, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, for stressing that we need the principles of carer’s leave and being very practical and asking for the terms of reference, which I think are not clear.
The noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, focused on the cost of these amendments. On paid carer’s leave, the amendment provides for employers to pay, but then they can be recompensed via HMRC by the Government. It would be a cost to the Government in the end, but it could lead to a happier workforce and people can gain more from it.
When we talk about kinship care or paid carer’s leave, it is not in isolation. The NHS is under considerable stress. If you do not have the input of carers, and give them some recompense for that care, the NHS will collapse even more than it is collapsing now. This is not just something that is being generous. It is practical to make the NHS better, make caring better and make the work of grandparents, uncles, aunts and others appreciated in some way. I thank the Minister for saying that there is a review and things will change. I hope this debate will focus the Government’s mind on it. On that basis, I wish to test the feelings of the House.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment of clause 18 at page 41, line 39.
“(ca) after subsection (3) insert—“(3A) For the purposes of subsection (1) an employee is also a “bereaved person” if—(a) the employee has suffered a pregnancy loss of a specified kind, or(b) the employee satisfies specified conditions as to relationship with—(i) a person who has suffered a pregnancy loss of a specified kind, or(ii) a child who had been expected to be born had a pregnancy loss of a specified kind not occurred.”;”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment and my other amendments of clause 18 would enable the entitlement to bereavement leave conferred by section 80EA of the Employment Rights Act 1996 to be extended to cases involving pregnancy loss.
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment of clause 18 at page 41, line 27.
“(da) in subsection (5), before “a child” insert “the death of”;”Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment of clause 18 at page 41, line 27.
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment of clause 18 at page 41, line 27.
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment of clause 18 at page 41, line 27.
“(ga) in subsection (9)—(i) in the definition of “child”, after “stillbirths” insert “after twenty-four weeks of pregnancy”;(ii) after the definition of “child” insert— ““live birth” means the birth of a child born alive;“pregnancy loss” means—(a) the ending of a pregnancy after less than twenty-four weeks of pregnancy in any way other than by a live birth, or(b) the failure of an embryo to become implanted following a transfer carried out in the course of providing treatment services within the meaning of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990;“specified” means specified in the regulations;”;”Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment of clause 18 at page 41, line 27.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
“Special constables: right to time off for public duties(1) The Employment Rights Act 1996 is amended is follows.(2) In section 50 (Right to time off for public duties), after subsection (1) insert—“(1A) An employer shall permit an employee who is a special constable, appointed in accordance with section 27 of the Police Act 1996, section 9 of the Police and Fire Reform (Scotland) Act 2012 or section 25 of the Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003, to take time off during the employee’s working hours for the purpose of performing their duties.(1B) In section (1A), “duties” means any activity under the direction of a chief officer of police.”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause gives employees who are special constables the right to time off to carry out their police duties.
Lord Hogan-Howe
I thank noble Lords for the opportunity to speak to this amendment in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Rainow, whose support I appreciate. This amendment seeks to extend the group of people in the criminal justice system who have the right to time off to fulfil their duties as a special constable.
In 2018, Section 50 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was amended to include lay observers in prisons, and immigration visiting committees for immigration centres and short-term holding facilities. This added to the right of magistrates and justices of the peace to take time off from their employment. Each of these volunteering groups is of course essential to the effective functioning of the criminal justice system, but so are the special constables who have existed since being created by the Special Constables Act 1831—although today’s version was created by the Police Act 1964.
In my view, special constables are special by name and special by nature. They are unpaid volunteers. They have all the powers of regular constables: to arrest, to search and many more things a constable has the power to do. They also take all the risks that their colleagues take, including being stabbed or assaulted and people abusing them. Basically, they put their lives on the line in the same way that people such as those in the RNLI do on our behalf too. They are not paid, except for expenses, but this of course covers their outgoings—they make no profit.
After being trained, they are usually expected to be on duty for at least four hours a month, but most do very much more than this. Some work every weekend and some during breaks in employment; at such times, they work almost full-time hours. They were designed to be a contingency for war, backfilling for the police officers who would be expected to join the Armed Forces. We might think that particularly apposite at the moment, given the situation in Ukraine and the general threat from Russia. Only last week, the Government published a resilience plan to prepare our emergency and civil defence response for a higher level of threat from the multiple risks that exist. Specials are part of that national contingency when we deploy our Armed Forces.
Special constables are a visible representation of community policing, giving of themselves without payment to stop crime and keep order. For me, they have always been a way to have the community in the police station, holding their regular colleagues to account and not captured by the prevalent police culture—almost a pre-body-worn video. The Government have a commitment to neighbourhood policing, with a promise to deliver 13,000 more neighbourhood officers in the next few years. This comprises regulars, community support officers and special constabulary. If they cannot recruit or retain “free” special constables, they will need larger funding for police officers and police community support officers.
Yet presently their numbers are dropping dramatically. In September 2023, there were 6,330 and, by September the following year, they had gone down to 5,818. But, 10 years ago, there were around 15,000, and in the Met at that time there were around 5,000. So there has been a very significant drop in their numbers.
As far as I can determine, no other police force in the world has this sort of arrangement. If you talk to Americans or New Zealanders, they think it is amazing that people will be police officers, taking all the risks, without being paid. So this is a remarkable thing that we have. They have achieved an awful lot as they have done all the things that we need them to do over the years. In this context, on the grounds of equity with the other volunteers in the criminal justice system, surely we need to enhance the volunteer offer to encourage the recruitment, retention and diversity of the people in the special constabulary.
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
My Lords, I rise to support the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe. This gives me an opportunity to pay tribute to him and his public service as police commissioner and in the Merseyside Police. It also gives me the opportunity to mention the service of my colleague, my noble friend Lord Sharpe, in the Hong Kong police back in the day.
I declare that I was a special constable in the 1980s. In those days we had a number one uniform and that was it, so it was rather hot on a hot sunny day. We also used to have capes, which we used to put around us and which were quite handy. Nobody quite knew what we had our hands on: it could be a torch, it could be a truncheon or it could be fish and chips. We used to run towards danger with nothing more than a truncheon down our trouser legs. So I pay tribute to special constables, past and present.
As the noble Lord said, it was as a contingency of war that special constables came into being, in the First World War, as many police officers joined the Army to fight over in France and elsewhere. But they have all the legal powers. I remember the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984—the old salts were really quite upset with that new Act, because it meant that they could not carry on doing what they had been doing previously. But, for us new boys and girls, it was quite interesting, and I thought we embraced the change in the spirit that it was meant.
We were all unpaid volunteers serving local communities, including our local community in Macclesfield, serving in the Cheshire Constabulary. I worked at an aircraft factory, working on the nuclear deterrent at the time. I used to work during the day and go out at night to do a full shift, from 6 pm until 10 pm, and perhaps even later: if there was a road traffic accident or if somebody went missing, it could end up going into the early hours. I got up the next day to go to work, and I was proud to do that—I was a very young man and was fit and healthy enough to do it.
The strategic defence review Making Britain Safer: Secure at Home, Strong Abroad mentions the importance of:
“Home defence and resilience: a whole-of-society approach”.
My noble friend made the excellent point that now is the time to consider the threats to our country and the role of civil defence, and indeed of special constables. A “whole-of-society approach” includes “protecting critical national infrastructure”. But the wider point is that we are reliant on reservists more than ever. If you are in the Army, the Navy or the Royal Air Force, there is provision, from your employer, for you to go and serve the nation, but that does not apply to special constables. So I agree with the noble Lord: this is the right place and the right time to give the same treatment to special constables that we give to our Armed Forces reservists.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, I say briefly that the principle in the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, is absolutely right. He has made a cogent case for why special constables are indeed special, and for their contribution. Some 25 years ago, when I chaired the Metropolitan Police Authority in London, we reversed a situation in which the number of special constables was declining, and we started to increase the number—both because of the ability to put more people on the street but also in terms of public engagement with the process.
I will pick up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Rainow, although I will probably use it in a slightly different direction. He referred to the strategic defence review. That document, the national security strategy and the resilience action plan published last week all talk about a new mechanism of homeland defence and security, and the importance of using more people—more civil resources—to protect the community.
It is quite clear that we are facing a world in which we are confronted with more and more perils—some of them organised by hostile states and others simply the result of the nature of the world in which we live. Therefore, although the principle that the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, sets out here is extremely laudable—people should be encouraged and given the opportunity for time off if they are doing this sort of public service—I would like to understand the context in which this will happen. Will we be able to say, in a year or two, that we have identified how we will use volunteers and the public in the defence of our nation, in terms of supporting the police and our armed services, in a much more proactive way? I suspect that that should be done holistically, rather than simply in terms of this single amendment to the Bill. Having said that, the principle is absolutely right: those people who give that service should be encouraged to do so and should be given the opportunity of time off.
Lord Paddick (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I draw noble Lords’ attention to my registered interest as a paid non-executive director of the Metropolitan Police Service. I fully support the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe. Special constables have all the powers of regular officers, and some are even trained in public order, able to engage in policing marches and demonstrations where violence is feared, reducing abstractions of regular community officers from their beats, to give one example.
In answer to the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, about whether this should be part of a broader look at the issues, I say that, at a time when there is cross-party consensus that there should be more visible community policing—and cross-party consensus that there is not enough money to fund the number of police officers we should ideally have—placing special constables’ time off from their employment on a statutory footing, at a cost of only expenses, deserves cross-party support.
Lord Remnant (Con)
My Lords, I support this amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, and my noble friend Lord Evans. In doing so, I feel that I am following modestly in a family tradition. I suspect that the noble Lord is not aware that my great-grandfather in the other place introduced successfully, but against much opposition, a Bill guaranteeing members of the police force one day of rest, off duty, in every week. Until that date some 115 years ago, the police had no such entitlement. This amendment is less momentous than that Bill, but it is a proportionate suggestion that gives suitable recognition to voluntary service and strengthens policing. It should also find ready acceptance with employers, who would be able to fulfil their civic duties while suffering minimal disruption.
Lord Bailey of Paddington (Con)
My Lords, I support this amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe. I want to come at it from a slightly different angle. This could be a vital piece to help the police with one of their weakest areas—representation in the community. I have been a youth worker for over 38 years now, and most of the most committed and professional people from my community already have employment so cannot join the police force, but they would love to be involved in representing our community in said police force to help the relationship between our community and the police force. This kind of initiative could be deeply helpful in allowing that to happen.
Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)
We will support the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, if he pushes this to a vote, for a number of reasons, eloquently given by a number of speakers. It comes back to how we value people, whether they are volunteers, kinship people or carers, and where they sit in society. I listened to a couple of the speeches about the days of yore, when the policemen just wandered around the streets, cuffed young boys around the ear and sent them back to school. Those days are gone now, and these special constables are just as much at risk as any other police officer on duty. The people who are coming out and causing trouble, whether they are on drugs or whatever, have no idea, conception or care whether it is a real policeman or a special constable.
Why we are debating the right to time off and reasonable expense is beyond me. Certain things should be blindingly obvious, and this is one of them. Way back in the mid-1990s when I was vice-chair of the Greater Manchester Police Authority, some of the things I saw and heard about what happened to police officers did not always make the press. Special constables and community officers bring the cohesion and bring communities together, and the more that we can get that togetherness without vast expense to the police budget that the Government are trying to control, the better and more settled our society will be. It is a small price to pay for a lot of benefits for a lot of people.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, for bringing forward this amendment. I particularly thank my noble friend Lord Evans of Rainow for his very kind words. I strongly support the amendment, which would provide a clear statutory right for special constables to take time off from their regular employment to fulfil their duties under the direction of a chief officer of police.
This amendment would provide a modest but crucial right, protected time off to serve. It would bring special constables in line with other categories of public service, recognised under Section 50 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, such as magistrates and school governors. At a time when police forces are under sustained pressure and when public trust in law enforcement depends on a strong and visible local presence, supporting the contribution of special constables is not just the right thing to do but essential. We rely on these volunteers to keep our communities safe; the least we can do is to ensure that they are not penalised in their day jobs for answering that call.
I hope that the Government have heard the strength of feeling around the House on this issue. I think all speakers spoke favourably about this amendment and, in particular, the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, and my noble friends Lord Remnant and Lord Bailey made some excellent points, albeit slightly different. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, asked an incredibly good question, and I am very keen to hear the answer, although, as the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, pointed out, I am not sure that context is particularly necessary in the case of the specials, because of course they already exist, so they operate in their own context already. However, I am interested in the homeland security dimension, not least because I might even volunteer.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, for tabling Amendment 42, which seeks to permit a special constable to request reasonable unpaid time off from their employer to perform their public duty. In so doing, I pay tribute to the noble Lord for his service, as well as to many other noble Lords, whose service we were either aware of or not so aware of—not just the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, but the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Rainow, who had some interesting tales of his truncheon, and from across the Dispatch Box the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, himself.
The Government recognise and value the role that special constables play in keeping our communities safe, as very ably described by a number of noble Lords in the debate, not just the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, but the noble Lords, Lord Remnant, Lord Goddard and Lord Bailey of Paddington.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken, particularly the Ministers, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and the noble Lord, Lord Katz, for all the time they have given us on this very long Bill with many amendments. I and others involved in this appreciate their time, as we know it is not straightforward.
The noble Lord, Lord Evans, mentioned the cape; I thought only I remembered that in this Chamber, but clearly not. More importantly, he made a good point about equivalence with the Armed Forces. Reservists are in a slightly different position, but it is one that we should be drawn back to as a matter of conscience as we consider this.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris, made a very good point about the strategic defence review. He accepted the principle in this case but wanted the role to be fleshed out. I agree, but that should not stop us making progress on this point. The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, drew attention to the fact that it is not just general patrol. Some become very specialist; we have traffic officers, public order specialists and some very good forensic accountants who do their job professionally every day and then come in at the weekend to help the police recover criminal assets—a great public service for which the police probably could not afford to pay.
The noble Lord, Lord Bailey, mentioned diversity and community. About one in four specialists in London is from a visible minority community, which is far better representation than the Met has. The Met is hidebound by the fact that two-thirds of the people it recruits are from outside London, so there is always the challenge of getting that representation, but specialists live and work in the community they serve. Frankly, when the police are not paying them, they cannot afford to travel to an adjacent county, so a specialist constabulary always better represents the community it serves.
The noble Lord, Lord Remnant, mentioned his father. I did not know that, but it was a good thing; I was grateful for that day off—and a few more. Many officers go through their careers with extended periods of working during large numbers of public protests, to the point where they cannot get their days off, so that would be very much appreciated.
The noble Lord, Lord Goddard, said one of the things I like best to hear, which is that this is blindingly obvious. Of course, I agree with that. I also appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, with his professional background, supported it, particularly today.
The Minister was kind enough to offer a review. All of us in this place know that reviews can be a bit vague and go on a while—I think this is the second one offered in the last hour. I have lost count in my short time in this place of the number of reviews of which someone has said, “Where did that get to? Has it been delivered? Has anything happened?” It is not a personal matter with the Minister, but I am not entirely convinced by reviews. I go back to the spirit of what the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, said. You can sometimes spend a thousand words trying to change something, or you can just do something. The “doing” here would be that the regulation could be changed and special constables could be brought into a group that already exists. For that reason, I would like to divide the House.
Lord Young of Acton
“(1D) Subsection (1A) does not apply to indirect harassment, so employers only have to protect their employees from non-sexual harassment by third parties that is directed at them.” Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment means employers only have to protect their employees from non-sexual third-party harassment if it is directed at the employee, meaning employers would not have to take all reasonable steps to protect their employees from overheard conversations, remarks or jokes.
Lord Young of Acton (Con)
My Lords, I refer noble Lords to my register of interests. I ask noble Lords, when considering my amendments, to spare a thought for the great British pub. A year ago, the Chancellor promised to “turn the page” for British pubs. As she pulled a pint in the Humble Plumb in Southampton in June 2024, Rachel Reeves said that Labour would revive this “important institution”—I think we can all agree that pubs are important institutions.
Yet no sooner had she said this than she raised national insurance contributions for employers and lowered the threshold at which they are paid from £9,000 a year to £5,000. At the same time, she announced that business rates relief for hospitality brought in during Covid would be cut, while the minimum wage would rise by 6.7%. UKHospitality, which represents pubs, bars and restaurants, has estimated that the total extra cost for its members from the Budget measures announced last autumn will be £3.4 billion a year. This impact has already been felt, with 69,000 hospitality jobs lost since last autumn. According to the British Beer and Pub Association, roughly one pub is set to close every day this year—the Campaign For Real Ale is even more gloomy. If BPPA’s forecast comes to pass, it would take the number of pubs in Britain to its lowest level in a century.
What are the Government doing to save what they call an important institution? Gareth Thomas, the Business Minister, has said:
“We are determined to make the UK the best place in the world for businesses to start and succeed, and that includes our great British pubs”.
He went on:
“We’re working with industry to slash red tape … to ease the pressure on pubs and help them grow as part of our Plan for Change”.
Yet, far from slashing red tape, Clause 20 will add a whole new ream of it. As I am sure noble Lords are aware, Clause 20 amends the Equality Act to make employers liable for the harassment of their employees by third parties, for example, customers and members of the public. It does not cover third-party sexual harassment, mind you—employers are already liable for third-party sexual harassment thanks to the worker protection Act—but non-sexual third-party harassment. I have called this the “banter ban” because I believe it will mean employers will be liable for jokes, remarks and expostulations overheard by their employees—banter—that they find offensive or upsetting by virtue of their protected characteristics.
Why do I say this? We know from the way that the definition of harassment has constantly been expanded by the employment tribunal that it now encompasses overheard conversations—you can now sue your employer for failing to protect you from overhearing something uttered by another employee. The Minister will argue that Clause 20 requires employers only to take “all reasonable steps” to protect their employees from harassment, and expecting employers to protect their employees from overhearing remarks made by customers or members of the public is not reasonable. In short, the Government will argue, the tribunal will not hold employers liable for indirect, non-sexual harassment of their employees by third parties. This is a false alarm, faux outrage.
I wish I shared the Minister’s confidence about that, and note that UKHospitality is not so sanguine, which is why it supports Amendment 43, which would absolve employers of liability for indirect third-party harassment. If the Minister really believes that indirect third-party harassment—overheard remarks, banter—would be out of scope, why not accept my amendment? This would be a huge relief to beleaguered publicans who will not have to worry about employing “banter bouncers” to eavesdrop on customer conversations and will help reduce the increased insurance premiums which Clause 20 will inevitably mean.
The Minister will say that plenty of service providers and businesses already ask customers to treat their employees with respect and to not say or do anything that could be construed as harassment. The vast majority of customers follow this advice, I agree, but the fact that these guidelines are being voluntarily observed is a reason to not make them mandatory, not a reason to make them mandatory. Is it not preferable that customers should observe good manners out of consideration for workers, rather than fear of being penalised for non-compliance?
If noble Lords cannot bring themselves to support my amendment, or at the very least abstain on indirect harassment, I hope that they will consider seriously Amendment 44, which would create a carve out for
“conversation or speech involving the expression of an opinion on a political, moral, religious or social matter, provided the opinion is not indecent or grossly offensive”.
How could any noble Lord possibly object to that? Do we want people in pubs to be constantly looking over their shoulders and lowering their voices if they express an unfashionable or contentious point of view, or do we want them to enjoy the same right to speak openly and freely on political, moral, religious or social matters that we enjoy in this House?
Every pub is a parliament; let us not turn every pub into a library and accelerate the disappearance of this beloved institution. Let us remember what Samuel Johnson said about the Great British pub:
“As soon as I enter the door of a tavern, I experience oblivion of care, and a freedom from solicitude. There is nothing which has yet been contrived by man, by which so much happiness is produced as by a good tavern or inn”.
I beg to move.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
In the Mirror newspaper last week, Clause 20 hit the headlines. Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner claimed that reforms protecting employees from third party harassment would not chill free speech, and she rubbished claims that innocent workplace banter is the target. She said:
“Nobody should be abused while doing their job, but we’ve seen a horrific rise in violent abuse and harassment of shop workers and other public facing staff”.
She went on to describe those of us worried about the unintended consequences of this clause as resorting to
“spreading made-up nonsense”.
I feel the need to counter this misinformation because I fear Angela Rayner may herself be influenced by misinformation about what is in her own Bill.
I was especially alarmed when the TUC general secretary Paul Nowak told the newspaper that those of us opposing Clause 20 are
“insulting people’s intelligence by pretending that protecting workers from harassment is the same as banning banter”.
But actually, it is—and that is not my decision. It is present in the way equality law has been interpreted in employment tribunals, as has just been described, associating harassment with banter. Whatever the Government, Angela Rayner or the TUC think is in the Bill, it does not set out what constitutes harassment or, rather, what does not.
Therefore, in Committee, the Minister directed us to the definitions of harassment used in equality legislation, which is then interpreted in employment tribunals. It is important to note that under the Equality Act, as interpreted, harassment includes indirect harassment, which, as the EHRC guidance states, can include the following: spoken words, jokes, written words and posts on social media, physical expressions and gestures and, yes, banter.
As we have heard, employment tribunals hear many cases relating to workplace banter, with 57 cases in 2024. If we look at human resources literature, we see that it is full of advice to employers on managing banter in the workplace between their employees. One horrendous suggestion put out to employers was to monitor conversations and attempt to pick up or pre-empt any problems. Another suggestion was to send people on—wait for it—appropriate conversation training sessions. I have just been sent the details of a consultant—there is always a consultant behind all this—who is an inclusive language and banter specialist and runs workshops at £495 a shot. One of his first workshops is “What does the term transgender mean to you?”—I will not say what it means to me out loud or I might get done by the banter police. Anyway, cisgender is a term that I do not think we want to be put into the hands of the banter police.
We are not raising this issue to cause a fuss. The problem is that it is in the Bill. I have always argued against this broad and elastic definition of harassment; it is problematic because it undermines free speech, as I have made the case for many times in this House and in Committee. I also want to emphasise that it risks trivialising genuine cases of harassment and diluting the impact of genuine anti-harassment policies that require serious attention.
Lord Moynihan of Chelsea (Con)
My Lords, I support this very important amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Acton, and endorse everything that the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, said. Noble Lords will be pleased to hear that they covered so much of the ground that needs to be covered that I will not have to speak for too long.
To tease out some of the truly important aspects of what the noble Lord and noble Baroness said, key to this clause is the word “harassment” and the phrase
“to take all reasonable steps”.
Words can have various meanings and people can interpret them differently. For example, “I banter” but “He harasses”; “He, she or it is a social predator and should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law”. To make a truism, that is what we are doing here: making laws. Laws get interpreted and used to prosecute. People who see an advantage in using the law can take their employer to court, and we will have yet more things being banned, and more opportunities for lawfare, as the noble Baroness said, and to shut down our national life.
In the Economist, which is not a particularly dry magazine, as your Lordships know—it supports all sorts of liberal ideas—an article about two weeks ago said that all these people who talk about how civilisations die have got it wrong. There is one thing that is common to civilisations that die, whether it is the Song Dynasty in 1200, the Venetians at a not dissimilar time, the Romans or whoever. Why did they have a tremendously successful society that collapsed over a number of years? The Economist said that they banned things; they said, “We won’t have this. You won’t be allowed to do that. You won’t be allowed to import these things. We will put tariffs on goods imported and, above all, we will ban various types of speech”. That is what the Economist said leads to the decline of societies.
We are British; we have things like banter. For centuries, we have been able to live at ease with each other and say amusing things. I have had people say things to me that I did not particularly like, but it was banter and I went along with it—we can all go along with it. If we insist on shutting down the most harmless kinds of remarks, which courts will interpret as being justiciable within the framework of this clause, we risk going further down the path that the Economist warned against.
I plead with noble Lords, in a most kind way, to think very hard about this amendment. Please vote for it, because it is not trivial—it is very important.
Lord Ashcombe (Con)
My Lords, I support this group of amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Young. If these amendments are not accepted, I worry that we will see a sharp increase in cases going to employment tribunals, adding more pressure to a system that is already stretched. It is not hard to imagine how these disputes may play out. We will likely see countless cases built around the old “Yes, you did”, “No, I didn’t” argument, disagreements over who said what to whom, and in what context—not only the genuine cases mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox. It is messy, time-consuming and, frankly, avoidable by agreeing to these amendments.
Much of the debate on this issue so far has rightly focused on the hospitality, retail and entertainment sectors, where these challenges are particularly acute. However, it is not only these sectors that have an issue coming to them; it goes much wider than that. By way of example, I work for a large insurance broker, Marsh Ltd. We regularly host clients from around the world at our offices in the City of London. These visitors often come from countries and cultures very different from our own. Now imagine a scenario in which an employee overhears a private conversation between two overseas clients in our lobby—perhaps just in passing—and takes offence. That could lead to a complaint and, potentially, even to legal action, despite my employer having no direct involvement. Why should any business, large or small, be held liable for that kind of situation?
We need to remain an attractive destination for global business, whether in insurance or any other sector. Welcoming international clients to the UK supports jobs, drives growth and benefits us all, but if businesses feel they are constantly at risk of ending up in tribunal—or are under the threat thereof—over things beyond their control, that creates a real disincentive to continue. For smaller companies, the stakes are even higher. The financial and reputational cost of defending against such claims could be devastating.
This is a matter of common sense and balance. These amendments do not take rights away from workers; they simply provide clarity and fairness for everyone involved.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, has the Minister consulted the Clerk of the Parliaments about how he would apply this clause to this House, should it be passed? What would be the rules in, for instance, the Peers’ Dining Room about discussing politics and religion? The fact that we might think it unreasonable that we should not be allowed to discuss that does not make it unreasonable. What makes it unreasonable, under the words of the Bill, is that it would be something it would not be reasonable to do. It is clearly within the scope of the organisation of this House to say that no potentially offensive conversations should be held in spaces where employees are likely to be present. This is what the Bill says at the moment. I can see that noble Lords opposite find it ridiculous, but this is the legislation that their Government have drafted.
Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)
My Lords, I wish to state clearly that we on the Liberal Democrat Benches do not agree with Amendments 43, 44, 45 and 193 or their intentions. Throughout Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Young, consistently framed his amendments on this subject around the defence of what he terms banter, suggesting it as a justification for remarks that can be harmful in the workplace.
To us on these Benches, it is clear that the debate on this issue has been shaped by a somewhat misleading portrayal of the Bill’s aims. The amendment rests on a narrow and simplistic view of harassment that risks undermining protection for workers by focusing on policing private conversations rather than addressing the real problems of bullying and harassment.
I must also express concern over the repeated invocation of banter as a shield for inappropriate behaviour. Too often, the phrase has been used to excuse sexist, racist or otherwise discriminatory conduct. To say otherwise is discourteous.
If we undermine the protections the Bill offers, especially through amendments that narrow employers’ duties, we risk signalling that the experiences and well-being of their workers are of little consequence. We cannot and must not dismiss their right to a safe and respectful working environment.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friends Lord Young of Acton and Lord Holmes of Richmond for their amendments in this group. I join the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, in his remarks about the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, in particular, which addresses an important point about the employment opportunities for blind and sight-impaired people. Unfortunately, the measures in the Bill make it significantly more costly to hire all individuals, and this will hit those on the margins of the labour market the hardest.
My noble friend Lord Young has made some very compelling points in Committee and now on Report on Clause 20, and this is where the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, and I differ. If the Government do not accept my noble friend’s amendments, we must consider the logical—and potentially absurd—consequences of allowing unqualified liability for indirect harassment.
Imagine for a moment that the same principle was applied here in this House, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, just did, while making some very good points. Suppose for example a guest in the Public Gallery was to lean over and whisper something mildly controversial—perhaps a pointed remark about constitutional reform. A doorkeeper standing nearby happens to overhear it and finds it offensive. Under the logic of indirect third-party harassment liability, would the Lord Speaker be expected to issue a formal apology? Would Black Rod be required to eject the offender and impose mandatory sensitivity training on all future guests? What would the “banter consultant” mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, say about that?
This illustrates the unworkability and overreach of the current drafting. No one would expect Members of this House to be held responsible for the spontaneous and overheard utterances of strangers in the Gallery, and nor should we expect publicans, shopkeepers or venue managers to be so, either.
As to Amendment 193 standing in my name, the Government have already decided to delay many of the measures in the Bill. Originally, we were told that these measures would come into effect by 2026, but the Government’s decision to postpone parts of the Bill is, I believe, an implicit admission that their consultation process was inadequate.
The Government have now begun to recognise the very real and unintended consequences that could follow from some of these provisions. Clause 20, which seeks to impose liability on employers for third-party harassment, is one such provision that warrants further scrutiny and, at the very least, a longer lead-in time. This clause, while we accept it is well-intentioned in its aim to protect employees, risks, as we have discussed, casting too wide a net. It opens the door to legal uncertainty and potentially frivolous claims based on subjective interpretations of overheard remarks or perceived offence. Therefore, the Government must reconsider how such a broad definition of harassment could be interpreted in real-world settings, particularly in the hospitality and retail sectors, where employees regularly interact with members of the public.
As my noble friend Lord Young of Acton pointed out, recent warnings from the British Beer and Pub Association, which has announced that Britain is now losing a pub every day, should be heeded. This is not simply a matter of economics; it is a cultural and social loss, as my noble friend pointed out. Pubs are part of the lifeblood of our national identity. They are centres of community, debate and tradition, yet now, in addition to facing tax increases, rising costs and staff shortages, pub landlords are being told they may be held legally responsible for comments made by their patrons, even if those comments are not directed at staff. To quote again from the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, this is not made-up nonsense; this is factual.
I urge the Government to take this opportunity to reflect, to consult more widely and to ensure that they do not impose a law which may undermine business, stifle free expression and expose employers to unfair liability.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, this Government have provided assurances to your Lordships’ House throughout these debates, time and again, that Clause 20 will not have the chilling effect on free speech that is being claimed today. Therefore, we will resist Amendments 43, 44 and 45, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Acton, in relation to third-party harassment.
I make it absolutely clear at the outset that this clause is about addressing harassment, not about banter. We have overarching legislation in the Human Rights Act 1998 which guarantees freedom of expression in a way that is legally and constitutionally stronger than any amendment the noble Lord could make to the current Employment Rights Bill. Therefore, we do not accept the argument that carve-outs are required or that new concepts should be introduced that would complicate the law unnecessarily.
Employers are already obliged under the Equality Act 2010 to protect employees from harassment in the workplace. That has obviously not led to “banter bouncers” in the workplace. Therefore, employers already have an understanding of how to apply these protections in practice. Our aim is not to burden employers or prevent free speech; it is to deliver on our commitment to create and maintain workplaces and working conditions free from harassment, including by third parties.
The question was raised as to whether cases would go to a tribunal for people being oversensitive. It is important to note that in an employment tribunal claim for harassment, if certain conduct has a humiliating or degrading effect on the recipient but that was not its intended purpose, the tribunal must consider whether it was reasonable for the conduct to have that effect. The reasonableness and the facts of the individual’s situation must always be considered. It is not a purely subjective test based on the view of the recipient. In addition, there is a seriousness threshold. Conduct that is trivial or causes minor offence will not be sufficiently serious to meet that definition of harassment.
The protection we have proposed is welcomed by a recent nationally representative survey of 5,000 people by the TUC, which found that eight out of 10 people—
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
I do not know what is funny about that, because I do not know that I have heard any polls from the opposite side. The TUC poll found that eight out of 10 people—79%—support the plan to protect workers from harassment.
I remind noble Lords that the Government will be publishing guidance so that employers are supported with these changes. We will make it clear that they are not required to take unreasonable steps and we will set out how they can continue to effectively prevent harassment and protect free speech. No business will be required to hire staff to monitor speech or diversity under this provision.
Many public-facing businesses, such as pubs, universities, sports venues and public transport, already have posters that signal a zero-tolerance approach to any form of harassment at their venue or site, including harassment of their staff. We would consider this a reasonable step.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, raised the issue of this building, and this very building has notices detailing the behavioural code, making it clear that everyone on the estate should treat one another with respect and that unacceptable behaviour will be dealt with seriously. This has not had a chilling effect on free speech in this place.
Harassment is taking place in many workplaces that is not banter and, in some cases, employers are simply not doing enough to protect or support their employees. In a poll of 16 to 35 year-olds in 2018, the TUC explored the experiences and the impact of third-party harassment. For example, a young woman complained of
“customers sexually harassing staff members and myself whilst drunk. It also occurs when they are sober. It happens every time I work. My managers think it’s funny”.
Another customer, a sales assistant aged 18 to 21, said that they were constantly being sworn up by customers for no reason and called racial slurs, and had witnessed people being hit. I do not know what the answer of the noble Lord, Lord Young, is to all of that, but we have an answer, which is to take steps against third-party harassment.
My noble friend Lord Leong shared a very personal story about when he worked in a pub in his student days and was harassed constantly, being called all manner of racist names. He complained to the manager, who dismissed it as banter, but it was not banter, and he still finds it very difficult to talk about it to this day. He left the pub after two weeks because he could not take it any more. We do not want people to have to do that in future. It is very important to us that future employees do not feel this way.
Diversity in businesses can be linked to benefits, including improved recruitment, employee engagement, more effective teams and improved understanding of customer wants and needs. We also know that companies with the most diverse leadership teams are more likely than ever to outperform less diverse peers on profitability. A customer service survey by Hospitality UK and CGA found that almost two-thirds of customers think that a venue’s equality, diversity and inclusion policy is important, and a third said that they would be more likely to visit a venue if it had policies to promote equality. We are, therefore, convinced that very few businesses, if they want to keep their customers, would support the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Young.
I now turn to Amendment 193, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom. As set out in our road map for delivering Labour’s Plan to Make Work Pay, we intend to commence the Bill’s protections against third-party harassment in October 2026. It is important that we get implementation and the details right to ensure that employers and employees understand the new law, and that it can be as effective as possible in ending third-party harassment. The approach we have taken and the timeline set out allow the time required to deliver effective implementation.
I assure the noble Lord that there is no need to delay commencement of Clause 20 until October 2027 due to concerns relating to free speech or burdens on business. Over the coming months, we will be engaging with stakeholders to ensure that guidance is fit for purpose. This will build on the consultation held in 2019 on introducing protections against third-party workplace sexual harassment, as well as on responses to the recently closed call for evidence on equality law. This timeline therefore accounts for the need for stakeholders to prepare for changes, and we will ensure that they are supported in their preparations. I remind your Lordships that, if a woman is sexually harassed by a customer at work today, she cannot seek individual redress, and if an employee experiences racial or homophobic harassment from a third party at work today, they have no protections under the Equality Act 2010.
I hope that we can all agree that employees should feel safe at work and be free of harassment. Therefore, we should not delay introducing these important protections any longer, and I urge the noble Lord, Lord Young, to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Young of Acton (Con)
I would just like to clarify that, when I referred noble Lords to my entry in the register of interests, I was referring them specifically to my job as the general-secretary of the Free Speech Union, which has been campaigning on this issue. I thank noble Lords for all their excellent contributions to this debate, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley.
I will quickly respond to a couple of points made by the Minister. I do not think she can justifiably claim that Clause 20 will be for the first time protecting workers from being racially abused by customers or members of the public. If someone racially abuses another person, as I understand it, that would be a racially aggravated offence under Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986. So it is not as if there are currently no legal protections for workers who are abused in that unacceptable way.
The Minister said that the Government intended to publish guidance. on what “all reasonable steps” employers would be expected to take to protect their employees from third-party harassment. But, as I understand it from my reading of the Bill, the Government are obliged to provide guidance when it comes to protecting workers from third-party sexual harassment. They will set out what all reasonable steps are with respect to that, but there is no comparable clause in which the Government commit to providing guidance on what all reasonable steps are when it comes to protecting employees from third-party non-sexual harassment.
The Minister said that it would introduce an element of confusion into Clause 20 to accept either Amendment 43 or 44, because the things these amendments are trying to rule out of scope are already out of scope. If that is the case, and if the Minister genuinely believes that indirect harassment is not within scope, that banter is not within scope and that this is an exaggeration, a faux outrage, and if she genuinely believes that good-faith conversations about moral, political, religious or social matters, provided that they are not obscene, are out of scope, why not accept Amendments 43 and 44?
Doing so would provide the hospitality sector, and publicans in particular, with some clarity about what reasonable steps they can be expected to take to comply with this new clause. As it stands, there is a great deal of confusion. They will feel that they must err on the side of caution to prevent the possibility of being taken to the employment tribunal by aggrieved workers.
Pubs are on their knees. I ask the House not to impose these additional burdens on publicans who are already struggling to survive and keep their businesses afloat. If the Government genuinely believe in growth, and if they genuinely believe that pubs are an important British institution and want to take steps to preserve them, at the very least they should give publicans the clarity that accepting Amendments 43 and 44 would provide.
I am afraid that I am not satisfied by the Minister’s answer and so would like to test the opinion of the House.
Employment Rights Bill
Monday 14th July 2025
(8 months, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Employment Rights Act 2025 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 113-I(a) Amendments for Report (Supplementary to the Marshalled List) - (11 Jul 2025)
“Contractual duties of confidentiality relating to harassment and discrimination(1) The Employment Rights Act 1996 is amended as follows.(2) After section 202 insert—“Harassment and discrimination: contractual duties of confidentiality
202A Contractual duties of confidentiality relating to harassment and discrimination(1) Any provision in an agreement between an employer and a worker of the employer (whether a worker’s contract or not) is void in so far as it purports to preclude the worker from making—(a) an allegation of, or a disclosure of information relating to, relevant harassment or discrimination, or(b) an allegation, or a disclosure of information, relating to the response of an employer of the worker to—(i) relevant harassment or discrimination, or(ii) the making of an allegation or disclosure within paragraph (a).(2) Harassment or discrimination is “relevant” for the purposes of subsection (1) if—(a) the harassment or discrimination consists of, or is alleged to consist of, conduct engaged in by—(i) an employer of the worker, or(ii) another worker of such an employer, or(b) the person who is, or is alleged to be, the victim of the harassment or discrimination is—(i) the worker, or(ii) another worker of an employer of the worker.(3) Subsection (1) does not apply to provision in an agreement (an “excepted agreement”) that satisfies such conditions as the Secretary of State may specify by regulations.(4) But the Secretary of State may by regulations provide that any provision in an excepted agreement is void in so far as it purports to preclude the worker from making an allegation or disclosure within subsection (1)(a) or (b)—(a) to a specified description of person;(b) for a specified purpose;(c) in specified circumstances.(5) The Secretary of State may by regulations—(a) provide for this section to have effect as if references to a worker included a specified description of individual who is not a worker as defined by section 230(3) but who—(i) works or worked, or is or was provided with work experience or training, in specified circumstances, or(ii) has entered into, or works or worked under, a relevant contract of a specified description;(b) make provision as to who is to be regarded as an employer of such an individual for the purposes of this section.(6) In subsection (5), “relevant contract” means any contract, other than a contract of employment, whether express or implied and (if express) whether oral or in writing, by which an individual undertakes to do or perform (whether personally or otherwise) any work or services for another party to the contract whose status is by virtue of the contract that of a client or customer of any profession or business undertaking carried on by the individual.(7) Regulations under this section may—(a) make different provision for different purposes;(b) make consequential provision. (8) For the purposes of this section, the holding, otherwise than under a contract of employment, of the office of constable or an appointment as a police cadet is to be treated as employment by the relevant officer under a contract of employment.“The relevant officer” has the meaning given by section 43KA(2).(9) Nothing in this section affects the operation of any other enactment or rule of law by virtue of which provision in an agreement may be void.(10) In this section—“discrimination” means discrimination within section 13, or any of sections 15 to 19A, of the Equality Act 2010;“harassment” means harassment of the kind described in subsection (1), (2) or (3) of section 26 of that Act;“specified” means specified in the regulations.”(3) In section 192(2) (provisions of Act which have effect in relation to armed forces)—(a) omit the “and” at the end of paragraph (e);(b) for paragraph (f) substitute—“(f) this Part, apart from section 202A, and(g) Parts 14 and 15.”(4) In section 193 (provisions of Act which do not apply in relation to the security services), for “section 47B” substitute “sections 47B and 202A”.(5) In section 194(2) (provisions of Act which have effect in relation to House of Lords staff)—(a) omit the “and” at the end of paragraph (g);(b) for paragraph (h) substitute—“(h) this Part, apart from section 202A, and(i) Parts 14 and 15.”(6) In section 195(2) (provisions of Act which have effect in relation to House of Commons staff)—(a) omit the “and” at the end of paragraph (g);(b) for paragraph (h) substitute—“(h) this Part, apart from section 202A, and(i) Parts 14 and 15.”(7) In section 236(3) (regulations subject to affirmative procedure), after “125(7)” insert “, 202A”.”Member's explanatory statement
This new clause provides that provision in an agreement between an employer and a worker is void in so far as it purports to prevent the worker making an allegation or disclosure of information relating to certain work-related harassment and discrimination.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Information and Technology (Baroness Jones of Whitchurch) (Lab)
My Lords, this amendment is on the important issue of non-disclosure agreements. NDAs have their legitimate purposes, but they should never be used to take unfair advantage of workers and to cover up workplace misconduct. Evidence has emerged in recent years that some employers have been doing just that.
I praise the work of campaigners who have brought this evidence to light—notably Can’t Buy My Silence, spearheaded by Zelda Perkins, who has been an impassioned campaigner for change for many years and is one of many brave victims who have spoken up. This evidence shows that some employers exploit the inherent imbalance of power they have with their workers and get NDAs signed, fostering a culture of silence and impunity.
I acknowledge the strength of feeling expressed across the House in Committee and thank noble Lords —as well as those in the other place—for raising the evidence for change in Parliament and for their powerful interventions on this issue. I thank in particular the noble Baronesses, Lady O’Grady, Lady Chakrabarti, Lady Kennedy, Lady Morrissey, Lady Goudie, Lady Harman and Lady Kramer.
The Government have listened to those calls for action and tabled Amendment 46. This amendment will void any provision in an agreement, such as a contract of employment or settlement agreement, between a worker and their employer in so far as it prevents a worker speaking out about relevant harassment or discrimination.
Let me be clear that this amendment will not impact on the legitimate use of NDAs—for example, to protect commercially sensitive information, ideas or intellectual property in business transactions. Relevant harassment or discrimination is defined in line with the existing definitions in the Equality Act 2010 and is conduct which the worker or a co-worker has suffered or is alleged to have suffered, or conduct carried out or alleged to be carried out by the employer or a co-worker—for example, where a colleague tells another colleague that their boss has sexually harassed them. This will mean that workers who have experienced harassment or discrimination can speak up, as well as those who have witnessed misconduct or who have knowledge of it.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to all three amendments in this group, the second two of which are in my name.
I begin by thanking the Government for listening to and acting on the concerns of victims of harassment and discrimination, who have risked so much by speaking out for justice despite being bound by non-disclosure agreements. The Government’s Amendment 46 brings in radical change, as the Minister has described. I join the Minister in particularly mentioning Zelda Perkins of Can’t Buy My Silence; behind her have been other civic society groups, which have been unfailing and determined, and have refused to be discouraged.
I congratulate MPs who spoke out in the Commons. In this House, I was very glad that the Minister mentioned the names of the many noble Baronesses across the Benches who have been involved. I know that the noble Baronesses, Lady Kennedy, Lady Morrissey and Lady Chakrabarti cannot be here today. We had all expected the amendments to come up on Wednesday, so with this sudden change of plan, they are here in spirit and will continue to watch over this legislation.
I also think she was right to take note of the engagement by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, because her years leading the trade union movement gave the Government the confidence they needed to take action. For that, we always remain respectful and grateful.
The Government will face a complex task in fashioning the regulations which must underpin this clause. Some NDAs, for example, are designed to protect children who are third parties in an event from disclosure of very personal details. This is complex and not easy issue. Those of us on these Benches will be watching very closely as the regulations are developed.
However, there is a key weakness in the proposed clause, which I am aware the Government cannot tackle in this Bill because of its scope. The clause and its protections apply only to workers and, indeed, to a narrow definition of workers which sits within the pre-existing legislation on disclosure. So, for example, a would-be actress interviewed by Harvey Weinstein would not be covered because she is not within the definition of worker. Now, an employee of Weinstein’s company could safely speak out on her behalf with this new legislation—that is the Zelda Perkins example—if they had witnessed harassment, so it is a real improvement.
However, the clause does not protect a job applicant, a company director, a self-employed contractor or a supplier—although I know the Government are looking at this issue—even though all of these people could lose their careers or sometimes their businesses by speaking out. We on these Benches will not stop this particular weakness preventing us supporting this amendment. We thoroughly do. However, it illustrates just how much more reform is needed to have a fully workable and effective framework for all people to speak out—and that leads me to the two other amendments in this group.
Amendment 95, in my name, would set up an office of the whistleblower to protect whistleblowers, oversee whistleblowing processes and enforce compliance with standards. It would bring redress against detriment, it would cover everyone—worker or not, public or private sector—and deal completely with the weaknesses in the NDA clause. I thank WhistleblowersUK and the numerous KCs who helped draft it. It really has had the work of some of our leading lawyers.
The office would act on a hub-and-spoke basis with existing regulators and investigators, almost all of whom are keen to see it in place because it delivers them the whistleblowing they need to be effective and to make the best use of their limited resources. Whistleblowers tell you where in the haystack to look and provide information from the inside that enables regulators, investigators and enforcement agencies to take action.
The Government are also committed to a duty of candour. I know there has been a bit of a hiccup this week, but the Hillsborough Law Now action group, which works so hard on duty of candour, will also tell them that the duty works much better if it is complemented by an office of the whistleblower, which then gives protection against detriment to those who do speak out as they should. The office is also not an expansion of regulation; Ministers have said it is, but it is not. It streamlines existing processes and provides mechanisms to enforce existing regulations, laws and sanctions. Experience in the US demonstrates that an office of the whistleblower becomes a major deterrent to bad actors. We would all want that. The US experience also suggests that the office would pay for itself within two years from recouped moneys and prosecutions, and then contribute substantial funds to the Treasury.
I recognise this is not the perfect Bill in which to place this reform, so I am looking to the Government to reassure me that they are seizing the issue. I hope that we are going to hear from the Minister in closing that the Grant Thornton review of the whistleblowing framework will be made public shortly. However, given that the terms of reference for that report were so narrow, I am also looking for a commitment to seriously —and in a timely way—progress to proper whistleblowing protection.
The third amendment in this group is Amendment 96 and was drafted by the noble Lord, Lord Willis, together with the civic society group Protect, and signed by him, me and the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Cotes. Neither the noble Lord nor the noble Baroness can be here today, so in a sense I am voicing for them. This amendment is an interim attempt to patch up some of the worst gaps in the present legislation we have on disclosure and whistleblowing until we get broader reform. It gives the Secretary of State powers to expand the range of unfair dismissal. Often, someone is a recognised whistleblower but the employer says, “No, we’re actually dismissing you because you’re not a good team player”, and it puts the whistleblower into an impossible position in the context of the employment tribunal, so that is exactly why this change is necessary.
It also requires employers to take reasonable steps to investigate disclosures. I know the noble Lord, Lord Willis, cannot conceive why the Government have not agreed to this amendment and it may be that he will be keen to test the opinion of the House if there is no significant reassurance that we can get some quick movement to try to deal with some of these most egregious circumstances. I have said that, if he cannot be present on Wednesday, when the issue would possibly come to a vote, I will act on his behalf.
Let me close by congratulating the Government. I hope that this strive forward on NDAs will make the Government eager to seize the whole whistleblowing agenda. The Government have already heard the acclamation, the congratulations and the real pleasure that the nettle has been grasped on an issue which is difficult and the Government have made a very significant change. However, surely we cannot allow a repeated flow of scandals, criminality and cover-up to both sully our country and cost so many so dear. I say to the Government, “Bravo for all you have done and, moving forward on the rest, please act—and act soon”.
Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)
My Lords, it is real pleasure to follow my noble friend Lady Kramer and to add my strong support to my noble friend the Minister and the Government’s Amendment 46 on non-disclosure agreements. This will make the UK a world leader in legislation to end the silence around workplace harassment and discrimination.
Neary 10 years ago, the TUC conducted the biggest survey of its kind in Europe, which found that half of all women had experienced sexual harassment at work, and that figure rose to two-thirds of young women. Women on insecure contracts, including agency and zero-hours contracts, were the most vulnerable of all. Too often, women subjected to harassment felt they had no choice but to leave their jobs, risking their careers and livelihoods. Meanwhile, too often, the perpetrator remained in post, free to harass others.
I will always remember one young woman who quit her job after increasingly disturbing comments made by her boss. At her leaving party, he told her that his only regret was that he had not had the chance to get her in the store cupboard and rape her. This is why many of us believe so strongly that harassment is not a joke or a bit of banter, and is not to be trivialised. Whether it is racism, sexism or any other form of prejudice and discrimination, it is an abuse of power that has real-life consequences for those who suffer it. Settlement agreements with non-disclosure clauses compound the lack of power that many of those subjected to harassment feel.
This amendment is about protecting the free speech of victims and witnesses to harassment. This new right will not stop the use of settlement agreements, but it will stop them being used to gag victims. It puts the victims of and witnesses to abuse in the driving seat. They can decide whether they want to talk about the experience and who they want to talk to. That should give every perpetrator pause for thought.
As well as noble Lords on all sides who have supported this amendment—I see the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, too—and our own Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, I also congratulate the Deputy Prime Minister, Angela Rayner, the Employment Minister, Justin Madders, and the brilliant Lou Haigh MP for championing this change.
Like others, my last word of praise goes to all those campaigners, and certainly not least to Zelda Perkins and the campaign Can’t Buy My Silence. Zelda broke her silence eight years ago, and ever since has spoken up fearlessly on behalf of victims and survivors. I am so very proud.
We will still be watching, but I am so very proud that this Labour Government have really listened.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
I will speak very briefly on the three amendments. I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, for namechecking me among the illustrious supporters.
First, on government Amendment 46, I have been going on about NDAs and whistleblowers for a long time over the years and it is great to finally get to a day where we have legislation that is actually gripping it. I agree with the reservations of the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, about it applying to workers only—but, my goodness, this is a substantial beachhead into a problem that is long overdue for settlement.
I support Amendment 96. The unfair dismissal aspect is so obvious that I do not think it needs any words from me. In particular, I am interested in supporting the duty to investigate side of it. I often say that Parliament loves to make laws and then never resources the enforcement of them. Organisations love to make policies about whistleblowing—to coin a phrase, “big, beautiful policies” about whistleblowing. The trouble is that, when it comes to somebody actually trying to whistleblow in practice, the reception is very often the three Ds: delay, dismiss and deny.
This amendment gives the opportunity to remove something that is not only unfair to the individual employee but is corrosive of business efficiency and a betrayal of investors’ interests in whatever the business or organisation is. I remind the House that whistleblowing is not just about sexual harassment, vitally important though that aspect is. It can be about criminality of a whole range of kinds which, if not revealed, is very corrosive to business and damaging to investors, who take a keener interest than some people realise in whistleblowers. To bring a duty to investigate will be a great step towards resisting the temptation and ability to cover up issues brought up by whistleblowers.
Finally, on Amendment 95, the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, has very long championed the office of the whistleblower. For all the reasons we have discussed tonight, it is of benefit to whistleblowers and organisations to have this office put in place. There is such a lot of work to do in terms of their knowledge and support, with so much need out there. I do not think I need say any more; I am just very happy to once more support the enthusiasm of the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, for the office of the whistleblower.
Baroness Goudie (Lab)
I very much thank the Minister and her officers for all the time they have given us over the last year in being able to get this clause on the statutes tonight. I also thank my colleagues in the other place, in particular Lou Haigh and the Deputy Prime Minister, Angela Rayner, for the work they have done and encouragement they have given us in this House to continue with the campaign.
I also thank the Diversity Project and Zelda Perkins’s group for their work with us over a longer time than we have today. Non-disclosure agreements need to be properly regulated and not permitted to continue in the way they have been, with their chilling effects.
This is especially so when the disclosure ban applies to the context of an employee and an employer and relates to harassment, bullying or discrimination, including impartiality and sexual harassment, which is one of the worst things that can happen to anybody and ruins their life completely. I am really grateful to everybody who has been kind enough to work with me over these months and years.
Baroness Ramsey of Wall Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I speak on behalf of my noble friend Lady Kennedy, who, due to recent surgery, cannot be here this evening, but also on behalf of other women around the House, all of whom have pressed for amendments on the issue of NDAs being used to silence women who experience sexual harassment in the workplace.
I know that my noble friend Lady Kennedy worked closely with the courageous Zelda Perkins on her campaign to change the law. We all want to pay tribute to our noble friend the Minister for the vital role that she has played in bringing the Government on board to change the law with the amendments—our warm congratulations to the Minister.
Lord Lucas (Con)
I congratulate the Government on this excellent amendment, and I join the thanks to Zelda Perkins and her colleagues for their tireless efforts to bring it to this point. I have a few questions for the Minister about the Government’s intentions, or present thoughts, regarding the secondary legislation. In particular, is it right that employers will not be permitted to suggest confidentiality? Will there be mandatory independent legal advice? Will confidentiality be time limited, or at least have an opt-out? Will the excepted individuals to whom the victim can speak include someone the victim knows, a friend or a relative, not just independent professionals? Will non-disparagement clauses also be caught by this amendment?
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, this has been a very important debate and I thank the Minister, the noble Baronesses, Lady O’Grady of Upper Holloway, Lady Goudie and Lady Ramsey of Wall Heath, the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, and my noble friend Lord Lucas for their contributions. In particular, I congratulate and thank the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, especially for Amendments 95 and 96. They are vital and long overdue, and I support them very strongly indeed. They strike at the very heart of what it means to have a fair, transparent and accountable workplace. Too often, whistleblowers have faced retaliation, dismissal and isolation, not because they have done anything wrong but because they have identified where something has been severely wrong. That is a moral failure in our system, and it is one that this House must now move to correct.
Workplace harassment, abuse, corruption and mismanagement are not minor private inconveniences to be swept under the carpet but serious matters of public interest. It is precisely in the public interest that these amendments redefine what constitutes a protected disclosure and establish an independent office of the whistleblower. As the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, just pointed out, this new body would be more than just symbolic. It would enforce real standards, offer real protections and provide real redress for those who are brave enough to come forward. It would finally send a clear signal to employers that retaliation is no longer ever going to be tolerated and that burying the truth behind legal threats and non-disclosure agreements has to stop.
It is particularly important that these protections extend to disclosures around violence, harassment and abuse in the workplace. These are areas where silence is too often enforced and where whistleblowing can save others from further harm. I urge the Government to take this opportunity to stand firmly on the side of transparency, accountability and justice.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their support for our amendment. I assure your Lordships that we will follow it through to full implementation.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, asked a number of specific questions. There will be further consultation on the regulations, but I assure all noble Lords around the House of the Government’s absolute determination to get this and the regulations on to the statute book. I know that noble Lords will hold our feet to the fire; I will be doing that as well, to my own Government. We will deliver on this.
Moving on to Amendments 95 and 96, whistleblowers play an important role in exposing wrongdoing and malpractice in the workplace. It is vital that workers are able to come forward with concerns without suffering adverse treatment by their employer. That is why whistleblowers have been protected from dismissal and detrimental treatment under the Employment Rights Act since reforms were introduced in the UK in 1998 through the Public Interest Disclosure Act. However, some time has passed since these world-leading reforms were introduced. The Government acknowledge concerns from noble Lords and others that the whistleblowing framework may not be operating as effectively as it should be.
That is why we are taking a range of actions to strengthen the framework. Through the Employment Rights Bill, we are introducing a measure that will expressly make sexual harassment the basis for a protected disclosure. This will provide welcome clarity for workers and have wider benefits, including encouraging more workers to speak up about sexual harassment by using whistleblowing routes. The measure will signal to employers that workers who make protected disclosures about sexual harassment must be treated fairly, as workers will have legal recourse if their employer subjects them to detriment as a result.
Additionally, we have committed to implementing professional standards for NHS managers to hold them accountable for silencing whistleblowers or endangering patients through misconduct. Most recently, the Government amended the Public Interest Disclosure (Prescribed Persons) Order 2014 to allow workers to make protected disclosures to relevant government departments on suspected breaches of sanctions. These changes will help workers to qualify for employment protections when disclosing information on financial, transport and other trade sanctions to government and to seek redress should they suffer detriment or dismissal due to making a protected disclosure.
The amendments proposed in this group would make substantial changes which should be considered as part of a broader assessment of the operation of the whistleblowing framework. For example, the amendment that would create an office for the whistleblower would introduce a significant structural change to that framework. The Government also note that there are differing views among stakeholders about the role of a new body.
However, as an indication of the continued movement in this space by the Government, I am pleased to announce that the Government are today publishing the research report on the whistleblowing framework, which was undertaken by the previous Government. The report provides observations and insights about the operation of the whistleblowing framework, obtained from stakeholder engagement, and a literature review, which will be a positive contribution to debate. The Government look forward to engaging stakeholders about that report and the proposal for reform. On that basis, I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, not to press Amendment 95.
Lord Lucas (Con)
I beg the Minister, if I might, for a letter in response to my questions. I quite understand that she cannot answer them now.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
I am sure that we can write and provide some clarification on that. I commend Amendment 46 to the House.
Baroness Smith of Llanfaes
“Duty to prevent violence and harassment in the workplace(1) Section 2 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 (general duties of employers to their employees) is amended as follows.(2) After subsection (2)(e) insert—“(f) the adoption of proactive and preventative measures to protect all persons working in their workplace from violence and harassment, including—(i) gender-based violence; (ii) sexual harassment;(iii) psychological and emotional abuse;(iv) physical and sexual abuse;(v) stalking and harassment, including online harassment;(vi) threats of violence.”.(3) After subsection (3) insert—“(3A) It shall be the duty of every employer to prepare, and as often as may be appropriate revise, an assessment to identify potential risks of violence and harassment in the workplace and implement policies and procedures to eliminate these risks so far as is reasonably practicable.(3B) It shall be the duty of every employer to provide training to all employees on recognising and preventing violence and harassment in the workplace, with a focus on gender-responsive approaches.(3C) In subsection (3B) a “gender-responsive approach” means taking into account the various needs, interests, and experiences of people of different gender identities, including women and girls, when designing and implementing policies and procedures.(3D) In this section, “persons working in the workplace” includes—(a) employees,(b) full-time, part-time, and temporary workers, and(c) interns and apprentices.(3E) In subsection (2)(f) and subsections (3A) and (3B), a reference to the workplace includes remote and hybrid work environments.”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause would amend the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 to place a duty on employers to protect all those working in their workplace from gender-based violence and harassment.
Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (PC)
My Lords, I will also speal to my Amendment 48. I have tabled these amendments to address a critical and long-standing gap in how we protect workers from sexual harassment and gender-based violence in the workplace. They are, at their heart, about prevention and ensuring that employers have a proactive duty to make workplaces safer, and that the Health and Safety Executive has a clear, enforceable role in holding them to account. As we all know, prevention is better than cure. They seek to amend the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 to place an explicit duty on employers under the oversight of the HSE to prevent workplace harassment and violence, including sexual harassment and gender-based abuse.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, I am going to speak very briefly, because the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Llanfaes, has given such an effective speech, which outlines the issue, and the hour is late.
When she first came forward with the proposal for the Health and Safety Executive, I thought, “My goodness, here is a body that could effectively deal with harassment and violence in the workplace, because it knows how to respond very quickly to situations that put people into an unsafe set of circumstances”. I suspect that, when the HSE was first put in place, sexual harassment and violence were probably considered somewhat acceptable, or they were domestic or private. They were certainly not something that an employer or workplace should be concerned about. Well, times have changed and we no longer look at it that way.
It is therefore entirely appropriate to update the HSE’s role to take on these issues. It is very easy to see how effective that organisation could be in closing down both harassment and violence. It is a respected organisation; people in a workplace know that it will act and it will enforce. Those kinds of behaviours make a great difference to the whole culture within the workplace. So I thought that this was an ingenious approach, which I very much want to back, because we all want to stop violence and harassment and here is a mechanism that does that with very little change to the existing organisational structures, but by giving power and responsibility to an organisation that has the capacity to deal with the problems effectively.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I will speak very briefly. It is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, who very powerfully made the case for Amendment 48. I am going to focus on Amendment 47. The noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Llanfaes, has already made the case for that very powerfully, but I will add one very recent set of statistics to it.
The noble Baroness mentioned unions and, just last week, Unite put out a study that polled women across the 19 sectors of work that it covers. It found—these figures are truly shocking—that a quarter of respondents said that they had been sexually assaulted at work, in a workplace-related environment or on the way to and from work. Some 8% said that they had been a victim of sexual coercion at work. This is the sort of situation that was referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith.
People are in insecure employment and zero-hours contracts, which the Government are doing something about—perhaps not quite enough but something. If you are in a situation where you desperately need those hours and the supervisor decides where on the rota you are and how many hours you will get, that puts the supervisor in an incredible position of power, which can and clearly is being abused.
What is really telling is that 56% of respondents said they had heard a sexually offensive joke at work and 55% had experienced unwanted gestures or sexual remarks. I am sure the government response will be to tell us that they are taking measures to react, but, crucially, Amendment 47 sets out a responsibility to prevent it happening.
This really needs to be regarded as a public health measure. We hear often in your Lordships’ Chamber about the issues around mental health and well-being and the problems we have in our society. If you are forced to keep going into a workplace that is actively hostile to you, with gender harassment and abuse, then that will be very bad for you and for the company. As a society, we should not tolerate it.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lords who have contributed to this debate, and in particular the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Llanfaes, for introducing it. We must, of course, recognise that violence and harassment in the workplace are unacceptable in any form. It is also important to acknowledge that women, particularly in certain sectors, are often at greater risk and may face additional barriers to speaking out or seeking redress.
This amendment raises serious and pressing concerns about how we ensure that all workplaces are safe, inclusive and free from abuse. The call for more proactive duties on employers and greater involvement from the Health and Safety Executive is one approach to addressing these challenges. However, as with any proposed legislative change, it is right that we consider carefully the potential implications, including how such duties would be enforced, the capacity of the Health and Safety Executive, and how we balance existing legal protections with any new obligations we would place on employers. I am very interested to hear what the Minister has to say on this point, particularly with regard to how the Government see the role of regulation, guidance and support in preventing workplace violence and harassment.
In Amendment 47, my interest was piqued by subsection (3C) to be inserted by the proposed new clause, which refers to
“gender identities, including women and girls”.
That seems to me to stray dangerously on to Supreme Court territory, which, as I understand it, we have yet to hear the EHRC’s guidance on. It strikes me as a tad premature, but I am interested to hear what the Minister has to say on it.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Leong) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this short debate, and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Llanfaes—I apologise if I have mispronounced that—for tabling these amendments. I reassure her that the Government are fully committed to protecting workers from workplace violence and harassment, in particular gender-based violence and harassment.
The current strong regulatory framework ensures that workers are protected from such risks. Employers currently have a clear duty to protect their workers from health and safety risks under the long-established Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and the statutory provisions made under it. That includes taking action to prevent workplace violence. They are required to assess those risks and take appropriate steps to eliminate or reduce them.
As part of this existing regulatory framework, the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 require employers to assess risks that arise from work activity, including the potential for violence, and take suitable action to reduce or eliminate those risks. The Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and its associated regulations cannot be used for issues that arise outside of work activity, as that would result in the Health and Safety Executive operating ultra vires.
The HSE and local authorities, which are responsible for enforcing the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, take both proactive and reactive measures to ensure that employers are complying with their duties. This includes ensuring that employers assess risks and implement appropriate measures to protect their workers and anyone else affected by their work from workplace violence.
The HSE has also published accessible guidance on its website to help employers comply with their legal obligations. In the noble Baroness’s proposal, there is a request for the HSE to publish a health and safety framework specifically focused on violence and harassment in the workplace. However, this framework already exists as employers have duties under the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations to ensure they have sufficient arrangements in place to manage health and safety risks arising out of work activity, including violence and aggression. Where an employer is found to have breached health and safety law, the HSE does not have powers to issue fines. When a significant breach is identified and the case meets the threshold for prosecution under the Code for Crown Prosecutors, the HSE brings employers to account through the criminal justice system. It is then for the courts to decide the penalties subsequently imposed if an employer is found guilty of such offences, and any fine imposed by the courts goes directly to His Majesty’s Treasury.
Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (PC)
I thank the Minister for his answer. I must admit that that answer does not counter the fact that the burden of proof remains on individuals rather than employers. I have previously shared a number of cases where, for example, big companies have had lots of media attention around lots of harassment claims but have only received a warning letter from the EHRC, in comparison with other businesses—for example, the two care homes whose cases I shared—that are treated very differently. So I am not convinced that what we currently have in regulation actually makes a difference to individual workers who are experiencing these incidents in their workplace. However, I am grateful to the Minister for recognising the importance of prevention and that there is more to be done. So, on this occasion, I will withdraw my amendment, but we will be pressing this with the Government further.
I will welcome the opportunity to look at this, particularly when the VAWG strategy is published in September. However, I must remind the Government that there has to be a cross-departmental approach. It should not be up to just one department to set it out; there is also a responsibility for this department to use all the options it has. Just doing good is not good enough—why cannot we try to achieve the best outcomes for these workers? On this occasion, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Employment Rights Bill
Wednesday 16th July 2025
(8 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Employment Rights Act 2025 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 113-II(a) Amendments for Report (Supplementary to the Second Marshalled List) - (15 Jul 2025)
17:28 - Division on Amendment 49 - Ayes: 304 / Noes: 160 - Amendment 49 agreed.
19:01 - Division on Amendment 96 - Ayes: 248 / Noes: 150 - Amendment 96 agreed.
19:45 - Division on Amendment 97 - Ayes: 100 / Noes: 136 - Amendment 97 disagreed.
20:30 - Division on Amendment 98 - Ayes: 202 / Noes: 138 - Amendment 98 agreed.
21:19 - Division on Amendment 100 - Ayes: 124 / Noes: 131 - Amendment 100 disagreed.
21:43 - Division on Amendment 104 - Ayes: 47 / Noes: 121 - Amendment 104 disagreed.
21:54 - Division on Amendment 105 - Ayes: 184 / Noes: 123 - Amendment 105 agreed.
22:05 - Division on Amendment 106 - Ayes: 180 / Noes: 123 - Amendment 106 agreed.
22:16 - Division on Amendment 107 - Ayes: 148 / Noes: 155 - Amendment 107 disagreed.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
“Right not to be unfairly dismissed: reduction of qualifying period and introduction of initial period of employmentSchedule 3 contains provision—(a) reducing the qualifying period of employment for unfair dismissal and introducing provisions in respect of an initial period of employment, and(b) making further consequential amendments.” Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that the qualifying period for unfair dismissal is reduced as set out in further amendments to Schedule 3. It also provides for an initial period of employment after the qualifying period during which a modified process and different compensation limit would apply, as set out in further regulations.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, the Government’s intention to protect workers is commendable. We all agree that fairness, dignity and security at work are essential pillars of a just society. However, the approach taken in this Bill, particularly the changes to unfair dismissal rights and the introduction of a statutory probationary period, is confused and counterproductive. What the Government have failed to grasp is that, when businesses are given the flexibility to manage their workforce pragmatically, that is precisely when they are more likely to take on new staff. Hiring is always a risk. By heightening that risk and making it more difficult to manage, this Bill creates disincentives to hire, particularly at the margins of the labour market, where the stakes are highest.
This is fundamentally a question of incentives. Reduce the employer’s ability to assess suitability, cultural fit or even basic reliability, without the spectre of legal sanction, and you will see fewer jobs created. The cost is very real, but nowhere is it properly considered in the Government’s own impact assessment. That acknowledges a likely 15% rise in employment tribunal claims, but makes no attempt to model the knock-on effect on hiring behaviour. The tribunal system, as we know, is already overstretched, with cases often taking more than two years to resolve. A 15% increase without corresponding investment will only deepen the backlog, and employers will know that they are walking into a system that is clogged and uncertain.
Then there is the statutory probationary period, which the Government propose with no real clarity. The Bill fails to explain how this period interacts with the obligation to act reasonably or whether there will be a different standard for dismissals during this window. Will there be a list of fair reasons? Will an employer be able to extend the period if performance takes longer to assess? None of this is addressed. As any employer will tell you, uncertainty in employment law leads not to innovation but to caution and legal advice.
Perhaps the most troubling aspect of the Government’s approach is its likely effect on social mobility. When you raise the legal risks of hiring, it is not the well-connected, polished graduate who loses out but the individual on the edge of the labour market, the person returning to work after illness or parenting, the school leaver with no contacts, the ex-offender with a spent conviction, the refugee trying to prove themselves. The Government’s impact assessment recognises this risk, because it says that making unfair dismissal a day one right
“could damage the employment prospects of people who are trying to re-enter the labour market, especially if they are observed to be riskier to hire”.
Those are not my words but the Government’s.
The same is true for a “cultural fit”, which the Minister dismissed in Committee as an illegitimate reason for dismissal. She said:
“The Government do not believe that an employee not being a cultural fit within an organisation should be a fair dismissal”.—[Official Report, 21/5/25; col. 334.]
However, “cultural fit” is not a euphemism for prejudice; it is about whether someone complements the way in which a team works, the style of communication or the pace and rhythm of a workplace. This is particularly acute for a small business. Hiring mistakes are costly. Even a highly skilled worker takes time to reach full productivity and the cost of advertising, onboarding, training and then managing a dismissal is not trivial. If employers cannot be confident that they will have a window in which to assess a new hire, including on soft factors such as team dynamics, initiative or client manner, they will become more conservative. They will play it safe. Who loses then? Again, it is the person who just needed someone to give them a chance.
My amendment offers a better path. It reduces the qualifying period for unfair dismissal from two years to six months, a meaningful extension of protection for workers. It also creates an initial period of employment following that six months in which a simplified process and lower compensation cap would apply. That strikes a fair balance, giving employers space to assess suitability while ensuring that bad-faith dismissals still carry consequences. Crucially, it also removes the sweeping power given to the Secretary of State in the Government’s clause to modify Section 98(4) of the Employment Rights Act, a power that could drastically shift the fairness test without proper parliamentary oversight.
Employees already have day-one protections against discrimination and automatically unfair dismissal, as they should. However, general unfair dismissal should be subject to a short and defined qualifying period that employers understand and workers can plan around. My amendment delivers that clarity. It also avoids a situation where employers are left wondering whether a dismissal based on fit or reliability will land them in court, even when handled with care.
We have to be clear that jobs are not abstract concepts; they are costs. In the early stages, even the most promising employee is an investment that takes time to repay. Employers need space to make those judgments. This Bill, as it stands, puts a thumb on the scale in favour of caution and against second chances. That is not fair, that is not just and that is not how we grow a dynamic, inclusive labour market. I beg to move.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
My Lords, I have two amendments in this group, Amendments 50 and 67, which, like the amendments the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, has just spoken to, which I have also added my name to, relate to day-one unfair dismissal rights. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Leong and Lord Katz, for making time to discuss this issue with me, for which I am very grateful.
The introduction of day-one dismissal rights will have a range of consequences: in particular, additional costs to business, which the impact assessment says will run to hundreds of millions a year and the Government themselves says will fall disproportionately on smaller businesses; and greater numbers of tribunal cases on an already overloaded tribunal system. But the most important impact is on people who are looking for work, especially those with riskier profiles: young people trying to get their first step on the employment ladder; people trying to get off benefits; people with health issues; people changing careers; ex-offenders and so on. The Government rightly want to get all of these into work, but the Bill will make that more difficult, not easier.
The current law, with the two-year qualifying period, allows an employer to take a risk on someone—to give them the benefit of the doubt—without facing the risk of an employment tribunal claim if it does not work out. This Bill ends that. An employee will be able to claim for unfair dismissal from day one, and the only valid grounds for fair dismissal will be capability or qualification to do the job, conduct by the employee or some other undefined substantial reason relating to the employee. These reasons are essentially the same as the current reasons for fair dismissal after the qualifying period in today’s law, and they cannot be changed by the regulations that the Government intend to use to create a new—again undefined—type of probation period. Employers will no longer be able to let someone go during a probation period because it is not working, without risking an unfair dismissal claim.
So what will be the result? Simply, employers will now have to think twice before hiring anybody with a less than perfect employment record. The Bill will make it harder for an employer to take a chance on such people, to give them the benefit of the doubt. To quote the Federation of Small Businesses:
“all it’s going to do is make small employers more reluctant to recruit and fearful of being open to vexatious claims … It’s those furthest from the jobs market who will then suffer, because the less risk small employers can afford to take, the fewer second chances, fresh starts and first jobs they’ll be able to offer”.
If anyone is in any doubt, the Government themselves state the same effect in the impact assessment. I will not repeat what the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, quoted, but this is what the Government also know and think.
We already have a million young people not in employment, education or training—the so-called NEETs. If we want to solve that, we need employers who want to take them on, who will take a chance and give them that first all-important opportunity. So, why on earth would we want to make it riskier for employers to take that chance?
You would think, therefore, that there must be a good, well-evidenced reason why this Government would decide knowingly to make it more difficult for young people to get their first opportunity to work. I have asked several times during this process for evidence that the existing law is in fact causing any problem. There is no evidence given in the impact assessment, and I have had no real answer to that question. In Committee, the Minister’s answer was:
“We have worked with academics who are looking at this subject. I reassure the noble Lord that we have looked at this and are confident that the benefits in this particular case will outweigh the risks”.—[Official Report, 21/5/25; col. 333.]
That really is not good enough to take action that the Government themselves acknowledge will damage the life chances of the most vulnerable or those just starting out.
Employers do not dismiss people lightly, even during a probationary period; hiring and training are expensive and time-consuming, so employers are strongly incentivised to try to get it right. But it is a fact of life that sometimes, with no fault on any side, things do not work out.
As the Minister knows, the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, wanted to speak in this debate, but, unfortunately, she cannot be here today. She has asked me to point out the impact this change could have on GPs. Not being able to let someone go if the fit or culture is wrong is extremely serious for a small business—as the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, described—but in a GP practice it could put lives at risk. GP practices tend to be small teams who must work together well and with great understanding and support. An employee who does not fit with the rest of the team could lead to miscommunication, appointment issues and so on. In healthcare, such errors could compromise patient welfare and could even have fatal consequences. It is essential that people can be easily let go if it is not working out in the early stages of their employment.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I support Amendments 49 and 50 and Amendment 51, to which I have added my name. I agree with the case that my noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom has made, and with the arguments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Vaux of Harrowden.
I point out that the detail of the arrangements for improving protection against unfair dismissal was one of the areas that provoked the widest debate in Committee. Some 21 noble Lords spoke, and nearly all were concerned about the perverse effects of completely removing the two-year qualifying period. When we discussed my concerns in Committee, the Minister said that when I saw the Government’s implementation plan I would be reassured. However, while it is generally helpful, all it says on this matter is that in summer/autumn 2025 they will consult on:
“Giving employees protection from unfair dismissal from ‘day 1’, including on the dismissal process in the statutory probation period”.
So we still do not know what the rules will be.
I believe that the approach the Government are taking of making up the vital detail of legislation after Bills have passed, so well exemplified here, as the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, has said, is profoundly undemocratic. This is giving too much power to the Executive. The Minister should be able to tell us categorically today that employers will be able to dismiss unsatisfactory staff without risking a tribunal during a probation period of six or nine months.
I will not repeat all I said in Committee from the historic perspective of a good employer like Tesco. We even had a unique partnership with the trade union USDAW, seemingly very different from some of the public sector unions dominating this Bill. My main current concern, as the Minister knows, is that day-one rights will make employers extremely nervous about taking on new employees, especially the young or those with a risky track record like the unemployed or the disabled. This will kill growth. My noble friend Lord Sharpe talked about the disincentive to hire. That sums it up perfectly.
There is government evidence to support this. DBT’s economic analysis of 21 October 2024 admits, in section 16, on unintended consequences, that:
“There is some evidence that employment reforms make employers less willing to hire workers including evidence specific to the strengthening of dismissal protections. For example, the OECD noted that more stringent dismissal and hiring policies involve an inherent trade-off between job security for workers who have a job, and firm adaptability to changes in demand conditions or technology”.
In other words, lower growth.
The provisions will require significant extra internal resource to ensure compliance. It will be necessary to implement cumbersome administrative procedures across all businesses for all employees from day one, and indeed in the public sector. It will make the introduction of Making Tax Digital look extremely easy in contrast. It is a looming tragedy for smaller businesses already drowned in regulation. Above all, it will increase costs, adding to the jobs tax in the last Budget, and at a time when the Chancellor is promising to reduce red tape. Another certainty, as we have heard, is that the changes will increase the traffic through employment tribunals. There is already a tremendous backlog of 50,000 cases in the system. I know someone whose case has been listed for 2027.
Because it is important, I am extremely keen to help the Government find a way out of this unfortunate set of circumstances. The fact is that sometimes, appointments do not work out, and it is no one’s fault. I accept that that should normally be clear within six or nine months, which I believe the Government are contemplating for their probation period, but we need certainty on this and probably a government amendment before the Bill becomes an Act. For me, this uncertainty, which is why I have chosen to speak from the Back Benches on an area outside my own responsibility, could prove to be the very worst aspect of this Bill. I hope that, even at this late hour, the Government will think again.
Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers (CB)
If there is not to be a sensible probation period, is any employer going to have the courage to take on an ex-offender?
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
My Lords I support the amendments in this group because they would mitigate the potential damage to employment from the perspective of both the employer and the employee, whether that employee is a jobseeker or someone recently appointed. The danger exists particularly in this clause. As your Lordships know, Clause 23 and the linked Schedule 3 repeal Section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. They remove the qualifying period of employment and make further amendments to the Act in respect of the repeal.
Section 108 stipulates that the protection under Section 94 of the Act, which establishes the right not to be unfairly dismissed, subject to certain conditions, does not apply to the dismissal of an employee unless he has been continuously employed for two years. During this two-year extended training period—for that is what it is, and I speak as an employer—when you induct a new employee, you know that if they do not work out, and there are clear headings governing this under law, they can be let go without unfair dismissal claims.
Now, that is to be removed by Clause 23 and Schedule 3. We are repealing Section 108 of the 1996 Act, one of the basic building blocks of employment law in this country. This is one of the most familiar and important pieces of legislation for the labour market. As my noble friend Lord Sharpe and the noble Lord, Lord Vaux of Harrowden, have said, it helps offer protection to both parties. It makes for a fluid labour market and avoids the zombie businesses which do little for the wider economy and militate against growth.
I will not go through each of the amendments because noble Lords have heard about them already, but they would facilitate good working practices for both parties. Those looking for a job would be more likely, as we have heard, to be appointed. There will be more job vacancies, which, as we know, have sadly fallen and continued to fall over the last year. Those looking for a job would be more likely to find one and more likely to start their first job, as we have already heard today. The employer would be able to take a risk, as we have heard today—to take a chance on a new employee.
Taking on a new employee involves a great commitment. It involves the commitment not only of a salary, which is only a small fraction of the cost, but of time, training, patience, showing the ropes and bringing someone into the culture of the organisation, so that they can contribute as a happy, contented, productive and effective member of the team. With this clause, we will not have the protections of that. I cannot think of any small employer who will not think twice about taking on a new person, and this will have very bad effects on the economy and growth.
We know there are legal grounds already for unfair dismissal in respect of the job itself. They include conduct, capability, redundancy, legal restrictions on employment and other substantive reasons. Noble Lords have spoken about these today, but there are cast-iron reasons for not being unfairly dismissed. You cannot be dismissed as a whistleblower or for discrimination, and these do not require the two-year qualifying period. The law takes care of this.
Now, with the removal of the two-year period goes the protection for the employer and the opportunities for new employees particularly, but also for many employees who want to change jobs and start a new walk of life. They may find they are not so good at what they were doing and want to try their hand at a new job. They need time to settle in, just as the new person coming into their first job does.
I am not at all convinced that this initial period, which Ministers have told us will have a lighter touch in respect of unfair dismissal arrangements, will actually be very helpful. Some law firms fear that it will impose pretty much the same strictures on an employer. We really need to know from the Minister what exactly the period will be and what the arrangements for unfair dismissal during that period will be, because I cannot see how we can have a Bill setting all this out when we do not know what is intended.
Like other noble Lords, I would value some statement. I do not need to refer to the compliance cost, the impact assessment that estimates hundreds of millions of pounds, or the additional complexity in the recruitment process. Added to the other measures in the Bill, Clause 23 and Schedule 3 add a new dimension of insecurity.
If we are to have businesses, particularly small businesses, willing to grow, to raise productivity as the Government want and to hire the new employees needed to raise that productivity, the Government should welcome Amendment 49 and all the amendments in this group. They accept the spirit of the manifesto pledge and go some way in helping the Government to get out of the mess, which is of their own creation.
Lord Londesborough (CB)
My Lords, I broadly support this group of amendments and, in particular, Amendment 49 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe and Lord Hunt. My noble friend Lord Vaux’s more straightforward Amendment 50 would reduce the length of the qualifying period from two years to a minimum of six months, during which an employee may not claim unfair dismissal.
I am happy to agree with the Government that the current two-year period for effective probation, from my experience as an employer, is excessively long and merits revision. Like others, I understand that the Government are consulting on the length of the IPE, the initial period of employment, and that nine months is being suggested. However, given that most permanent employees have a formal annual review at 12 months, during which their remuneration and performance are reviewed, I think it is fair and transparent that the 12-month review also represents the end of the probationary or qualifying period. That provides clarity to both sides and, I believe, is sufficient time for the employer to assess the employee’s performance, competence and cultural fit.
I accept that, in the majority of cases, performance issues during probation surface within the first six months. A proactive employer should then step in to either articulate a performance improvement plan for the next six months, with clear markers and milestones, or come to an early conclusion that this is not going to work out and move on to dismissal. But if we overly squeeze the probationary period, we will deter employers, particularly entrepreneurs, from the creation of new jobs by reducing their appetite to take a risk on new recruits, as we have heard, which is surely not what the Government intend.
Clause 23 and Schedule 3 threaten to be a real menace for two groups of employer in particular. The first, as we have heard, is those sectors with naturally high staff attrition rates given the nature of their business, such as retail and hospitality. The second, perhaps less obviously, is those businesses that rely on particular job functions that carry higher risk and performance requirements, in particular sales, marketing and business development jobs that run across so many of our economy’s key sectors: everything from sales on the floor, in the park or in the kiosk, and, yes, telesales—which we all try to avoid—to those involved in B2B business development and client account management. I know from personal experience in advising start-ups and scale-ups that these are critical, revenue-generating roles with strong personal performance criteria where much of the remuneration comes—quite correctly—in the form of performance-related pay. We will do real damage to productivity and economic growth if we do not allow fair and proper time for assessment of these types of roles without the threat of unfair dismissal hanging over employers’ heads prematurely. That said, I will support Amendment 49 if it is put to the vote.
Lord Ashcombe (Con)
My Lords, I support the amendments tabled by my noble friends Lord Sharpe of Epsom and Lord Hunt of Wirral, as well as those proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Vaux of Harrowden. Throughout our debates, one thing has become clear: Clause 23 is one of the more troubling areas for the business community and therefore potential employees. That concern is reflected not just in what we have heard in this Chamber but in the Government’s own impact assessment.
When a company hires someone new, it takes a risk. No matter how impressive someone’s CV may be or how well they come across in interview, things do not always work out, as we have heard. That is why probation periods exist. They give both the employer and the employee a chance to assess whether it is the right fit. I have seen this at first hand in my own company, Marsh Ltd. For small businesses in particular, hiring someone new, especially during a period of growth, can be a major financial and operational commitment. When things do not work out, the company should not be left to carry all the burden because of a mismatch that is no one’s fault. Introducing a day-one right to claim unfair dismissal outside the already established exceptions places a heavy weight on employers. It could discourage them from hiring altogether. Worse still, it may lead to pressure being placed on existing staff, who are asked to do more because their employers are hesitant to take on new people.
In the Financial Times, the Chancellor said an excessive safety-first approach was not seen in any of Britain’s global competitors, adding:
“It is bad for businesses, bad for growth and bad for working people”—
a description of this Bill and Clause 23 in particular. These amendments offer a sensible middle ground. They would reduce the current qualifying period for unfair dismissal protection from two years to six months. That strikes me as fair and proportionate. It matches the length of the probation period used in many companies, and certainly in the one I work for. Six months should be enough time to determine whether someone is right for the role. These amendments would make it better for business, better for growth and better for working people. That is why I support them.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
My Lords, I support the amendment. It seems to be a reasonable change to get rid of the two years, and I think six months is a more reasonable representation. My question, though, is about how this will affect police officers.
Police officers are not employees. Their terms and conditions are governed by secondary legislation or police regulations. It is already quite difficult to remove the ones who should be removed because, first, they are represented by lawyers—I say this with all respect to the lawyers in the room—in the misconduct process. It never makes it quicker, and it always makes it more expensive. Secondly, when the assessment is made of whether the proof is there to sack them, the test of the standard of evidence is moved from the balance of probabilities to beyond reasonable doubt. That is the same standard for criminal proof, so it is quite a high standard, and they are represented by a lawyer. It gets quite difficult.
The two-year probationary period has always been a good way to remove those people who should be removed or who are not suited to the role. If we are to remove that two-year period, one of the measures by which we get rid of the worst officers will be lost, and I worry about that. We know from research that often the officers who turn bad later should have been removed in their probationary period, had everyone had the courage to take that decision.
I am not saying that it is wrong or right, nor that the police regulations should definitely change, but I would like to understand what the Government’s reaction is. We will have a group of people who are not classed as employees—police officers—who will still have a two-year period and, under the new scheme, might have none at all. This is a group I think we should pay particular attention to. Perhaps the Government might give their view on how they intend to deal with that.
Lord Sentamu (CB)
My Lords, I will begin with an explanation. When I supported the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Vaux of Harrowden, in Committee, there was concern about a risk assessment that said that if there was no probation period, it would be quite difficult for some employers to take people on. The same question was then posed, rather more sharply, by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Phillips: would you employ an ex-offender if there was no probation period at all? That little sentence requires probing.
Last time, I began with apprenticeships. In particular, I spoke about a young man called Oscar, who has been taken on by one of our best plumbers in Berwick, and I said that I hoped he qualifies. I was about to move on to the actual amendment when I said that, when Oscar finishes his apprenticeship, he will have an interview with his current employer and some other people, and that if he passes that interview he will be expected to serve a period of probation, and that this wonderful plumber would not be likely to retain Oscar if there was no probation period. That is where I was going to end. It is right that we remove the two-year qualifying period, which is too long, but I am not so sure that it should be nine months.
In the Church of England, no cleric is an employee because they are all self-employed. I remember a wonderful case where someone complained about a bishop for something they had said to this particular clergy, who had gone to a tribunal after a series of reviews that showed that he was not competent in what he was doing. At the end of the hearing, the clergy was told that he was suing the bishop but that the bishop was not his employer—his employer was God. He was told that if he could bring God into this, he could sue him because he was self-employed and answerable only to God.
We have lived without this worry, but the more I have worked with a lot of people and become a trainer for some, the more I have realised that, if we remove the probation period, we are going to find ourselves in a very difficult situation. The people who are more likely to miss out are young people who need some mentoring and support, and who can be directed to different things.
I am not sure where this is coming from. There are, of course, bad employers, who like to dismiss people at the shortest notice. If we went for six or 12 months in the statute, most employers would abide by what they have taken on. Let us give a good word to employers and not think that all of them simply want you to get out as soon as you come in.
I support Amendments 49, 50 and 51. If all of them are put to a vote, I will be the first into the Lobby.
Lord de Clifford (CB)
My Lords, I support this group of amendments, as the initial period of employment is so important to both employers and employees. I declare my interest in the register as the part owner of an SME veterinary practice that employs 140 employees. I am one of those people who will suffer from Clause 23, which is changing our views because of the uncertainty it will bring. Your Lordships have made many very important points that I will try not to repeat.
As employers, we still have no details of when the consultation on probation periods will be launched or how it will work, again creating uncertainty. Probation periods are so important to both employees and employers. The start of a new job is very important for both parties and is, we hope, the start of a long and productive relationship. Employers value employees who stay for many years, as the cost of employing individuals is so expensive. Employees have flexibility at the start of a job, with generally a week’s notice. All we ask is for flexibility for employers as well. That is what probation periods grant, but the Bill will potentially remove these.
Why is the probationary period so important for employers? It is a time to assess whether the individual that you have employed has the capacity to do the required tasks of the job. Do they have the skills that they said they have? Do their skills meet the standards that you set for your business? Is their attendance of a reasonable standard to be part of a team? Do they fit the culture of the business and hold similar values? If the employee, for whatever reason, does not fit, the employer has to go through a long, time-consuming and unfair dismissal process, even when someone has been in the business for two or three weeks or a couple of months—a process that uses up valuable management time and brings uncertainty for the employee. In some cases, it is blatantly clear that this relationship between the employee and the employer is not going to work.
As said by the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe of Epsom and Lord Vaux of Harrowden, we need guidance on the initial period of employment, as it is so important for employers to take on employees who may be disadvantaged in the job market. If employers want to give them a chance but have no clear guidance or a short probation period, they will not take a risk that could benefit potential employees and those who, in the long term, may become really valuable with some time.
This group of amendments seeks to bring important parts of the employment relationship into the Bill, rather than waiting for a long, detailed consultation, with no details. It would help the Government’s plan to make work pay by encouraging all into work. That is why I support this group. If the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, calls for a Division, I will follow him into the Lobby.
Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)
My Lords, I will be brief—not quite as brief as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, but I shall do my best, and I promise to keep away from the police and definitely the clergy. I had lunch with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, so I think I am safe for today.
While we agree that the current two-year qualifying period is too long, we are concerned about removing it entirely without a clear statutory probation period in place. This could leave businesses in a state of uncertainty, with a gap between the removal of the qualifying period and the introduction of the new probation framework. It risks inconsistency in employment tribunals, as claims will be judged under a system that lacks clarity until the probation period is formally established.
Amendment 49, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, would reduce the qualifying period to six months. Most other amendments in this group are consequential to ensure legislative consistency. We are gently supportive of this amendment, as it would reduce the timeframe for an employee with a plausible case to claim unfair dismissal, while allowing businesses time to correct genuine and non-pernicious hiring mistakes. If the noble Lord were to test the opinion of the House, we would support him on this occasion.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Information and Technology (Baroness Jones of Whitchurch) (Lab)
My Lords, this Government were elected on a manifesto to provide unfair dismissal protection from day one of employment—not two years, not six months, but day one. To deliver this commitment, we will remove the qualifying period for these rights.
The Government recognise that, from time to time, employers will need to fairly dismiss an employee for a fair reason. We expect that most employers already fairly dismiss employees, and the process need not be too arduous. Our changes will not prevent fair dismissal. An employee who has been working in the job for some time but whose performance has dipped will continue to have the standard protections against unfair dismissal. However, the Government believe that it is not right to expect employers to have to meet the same standards in the first few months of employment when they are assessing their newly hired recruit and deciding whether that person can deliver what the employer expects. This is why our policy creates a statutory probationary period, during which light-touch standards for dismissal relating to an employee’s performance and suitability will apply.
The noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, asked what length the probationary period would be. As we have said previously, the Government’s preference is for nine months. We intend to consult on the duration and how the light-touch standards will operate. The current two-year qualifying period is designed not as a training period but a qualifying period before the individual can claim unfair dismissal. If the amendments tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe and Lord Vaux, were to be accepted, employees would still have the threat looming over them of being fired arbitrarily.
Amendment 51 preserves the policy in the Bill of exempting a dismissal due to a spent conviction for many qualifying periods—a point raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Phillips. I am pleased that the noble Lords agree with the Government’s policy, at least to that extent.
However, I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, that the Government do not believe in protection for some workers in some limited circumstances; instead, they believe in protection for all employees, benefiting 9 million people. The noble Lord spoke about the needs of young people looking for work. Of course we identify with that, and the Government are committed to supporting people as they take their first steps into the world of work or return to work. As the Prime Minister set out on the Get Britain Working White Paper in November 2024:
“Our country’s greatest asset is its people”.
As I explained in Committee, we are
“transforming the apprenticeship levy into a new growth and skills levy that will deliver greater flexibility”
for learners and employers
“aligned with the industrial strategy”.
This will include
“shorter duration and foundation apprenticeships in key sectors, helping more people to learn new high-quality skills at work, fuelling innovation in businesses across the country, and providing high-quality pathways for young people”.—[Official Report, 21/5/25; col. 305.]
We also intend to limit unpaid internships for those who are part of an education or training course. The law is clear that, if an individual is classed as a worker, they are entitled to at least the national minimum wage and anyone eligible must be paid accordingly.
Beyond enhancing learning on the job and ensuring that a fair wage is paid for young people’s work, we also believe that all employees should be provided with security of work through protections from being fired arbitrarily. It is no less distressing to lose a job at the start of your career than at any other point in the years that follow. However, the Government recognise that employers use probationary periods to assess new hires’ performance and suitability for their role. We will ensure that UK businesses can hire with confidence.
The noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, talked about social mobility. We recognise that good employers take a chance on what we might call “rough diamonds” up and down the country. The valuable time that employers take to support new hires by developing their skills and their talents on the job is not recognised often enough. The statutory probationary period will enable this, with light-touch standards for fair dismissals. We have said explicitly that our intention is to provide for a less onerous approach for businesses to follow to dismiss someone during their statutory probationary period for reasons to do with their performance and suitability for the role. Of course, that will apply equally to healthcare employees.
The noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, talked about potentially increasing the number of tribunals. Provided that the employer can show that the reason for dismissal was fair, they should have no concerns about the outcome, as nothing is really new from the current situation.
The noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, asked about police officers. I understand that they are excluded from the existing legislation, as they would be from the Bill. In that sense, there is no change.
Noble Lords have raised the issue of a cultural fit, which, of course, can mean many different things. “Not a good fit” is often used euphemistically to refer to attributes such as an employee’s work ethic, their level of commitment to the job, or how they interact with their colleagues. In many situations, these reasons will fall into the category of dismissal for conduct or capability, to which the new light-touch standards will apply. If the cultural fit is linked to a protected characteristic then of course dismissing someone for that reason could lead to discrimination claims, and the Bill does not affect that.
Beyond these reasons for dismissal, which clearly fall within the conduct and capability category, the Government will carefully consult on what other kinds of “some other substantial reason” dismissals should also be subject to those light-touch standards. The Bill contains a power for the Government to define what a “some other substantial reason” dismissals “relating to the employee” should mean. As I have noted, the intent is to define what relates to an employee’s performance and suitability for their role. We will welcome employers’ and trade unions’ input on that important issue. However, these amendments would remove the Government’s statutory probationary period to enable light-touch standards for fair dismissals for the first nine months of employment.
Noble Lords asked about consultation. We have already consulted on the proposals, and we are continuing to engage with trade bodies and trade unions prior to publicly consulting later this year. The Secretary of State for Business and Trade issued a letter to stakeholders on Thursday 26 June, which outlined the fundamental principles that are guiding the Government’s development and implementation of day-one rights to unfair dismissal protections and invited stakeholders to engage on the detail of the policy. Should your Lordships be interested, I have now placed a copy of that letter in the House Library. I should also say to the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, that the road map shows that these day-one rights, including protection from unfair dismissal, will not be introduced before 2027.
In the meantime, these amendments would not deliver on the Government’s manifesto commitment to introduce a day-one right against unfair dismissal, leaving many newly hired employees without robust employment protections. I therefore ask noble Lords not to press their amendments.
Finally, my Amendment 52 is simply a minor technical amendment that corrects a cross-reference in Schedule 3. With that, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw Amendment 49.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
Before the Minister sits down, is nine months now the Government’s official position on the initial period? If it is, can they confirm what they are minded to put into their light-touch unfair dismissal arrangements?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, as we have said before, we will continue to consult on this but that is our preferred option at this stage. We think that is a reasonable balance between the current arrangements and some of the proposals we have before us today.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I am enormously grateful to the Minister for her response. It was remiss of me earlier not to thank the noble Lord, Lord Vaux of Harrowden, and my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe for signing various amendments. I am grateful to the noble Lord for his comprehensive and powerful speech, and for reminding us of the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, about GP surgeries.
As the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, pointed out, we have heard from the police, doctors, businesspeople, lawyers, vets and the clergy, and there was no argument in favour of the status quo but there were powerful arguments for common sense. I wonder whether the silence from the Government Benches indicates a degree of unease in what we are debating—a change that will fundamentally alter the balance of risk in hiring, at a time when unemployment has risen in every month that this Government have been in power.
This clause will do nothing to promote fairness in the workplace. It will erode flexibility, choke opportunity and harden the barriers that those on the margins already face. The Minister argued that employers have nothing to fear from tribunals, but the Government’s own impact assessment says that they expect the number of cases to rise by 15%, so I am afraid I do not follow the logic of her argument.
Also, the Government’s own impact assessment admits—I will repeat this, even though the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, did not—that introducing day-one rights to claim unfair dismissal would
“damage the employment prospects of people who are trying to re-enter the labour market, especially if they are observed to be riskier to hire”.
As the noble Lord said, the Government already know that, so why are they doing this?
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, asked a very to the point question, and the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu, made an argument based on his experience. Both noble Lords were, in effect, making the point that this is also the compassionate thing to do.
This clause is not ready, safe or wise. We need to avert what my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe described as a “looming tragedy”. Therefore, I seek to test the opinion of the House.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
If Amendment 51 is agreed, I cannot call Amendment 52 by reason of pre-emption.
Schedule 3: Right not to be unfairly dismissed: removal of qualifying period, etc.
Amendment 51
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
“1 Section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (qualifying period of employment) is amended as follows—(a) in subsection (1) omit “two years” and insert “six months”;(b) after subsection (5), insert—“(6) Subsection (1) does not apply if section 4(3)(b) of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (read with any order made under section 4(4) of that Act) applies.”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment reduces the qualifying period for unfair dismissal from two years to six months, leaving in place the existing exceptions to that qualifying period in section 108(3) of the Employment Rights Act and adding a new exception in relation to spent convictions.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
I suggest that we take Amendment 53 and a number of consequential amendments en bloc.
Amendments 53 to 66
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that the initial period of employment begins after the qualifying period for unfair dismissal.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on another in the name of Lord Sharpe of Epsom which provides that the initial period of employment begins after the qualifying period for unfair dismissal.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that the initial period of employment begins after the qualifying period for unfair dismissal.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that the initial period of employment begins after the qualifying period for unfair dismissal.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that an employee is not entitled to a written statement of reasons for dismissal if the employee is dismissed during either the qualifying period for unfair dismissal or the initial period of employment.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on other amendments to Schedule 3 by Lord Sharpe of Epsom and provides that an employee is entitled to a written statement of reasons for dismissal if dismissed when pregnant or on maternity leave, regardless of length of service.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on other amendments to Schedule 3 tabled by Lord Sharpe of Epsom and provides that an employee is entitled to a written statement of reasons for dismissal if dismissed when on adoption leave, regardless of length of service.
Member’s explanatory statement
These amendments are consequential on others to Schedule 3 in the name of Lord Sharpe of Epsom.
Member’s explanatory statement
These amendments are consequential on others to Schedule 3 in the name of Lord Sharpe of Epsom.
Member’s explanatory statement
These amendments are consequential on other amendments to Schedule 3 in the name of Lord Sharpe of Epsom.
Member’s explanatory statement
These amendments are consequential on other amendments to Schedule 3 in the name of Lord Sharpe of Epsom.
Member’s explanatory statement
These amendments are consequential on other amendments to Schedule 3 in the name of Lord Sharpe of Epsom.
Member’s explanatory statement
These amendments are consequential other amendments to for Schedule 3 in the name of Lord Sharpe of Epsom.
Member’s explanatory statement
These amendments are consequential on other amendments to Schedule 3 in the name of Lord Sharpe of Epsom.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my other amendments of clause 26.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)
My Lords, these government amendments are tabled in the name of my noble friend Lady Jones of Whitchurch. They target the application of the clause to a set of restricted variations, to better focus the measures on unscrupulous “fire and rehire” tactics. We have heard many representations from both businesses and trade unions on the effect of this measure, and we have listened to the well-argued points in this House and the other place. We have greatly valued the input and co-operation of groups across industry on this issue, including the CBI, the British Retail Consortium and their members, as well as the TUC, Unite, USDAW, the RMT and many other businesses and trade unions. It is our intention to ban the unscrupulous use of “fire and rehire”, and we were elected on a manifesto commitment to do so. However, we want to avoid unnecessary restrictions on the ability of employers to make essential operational decisions.
Amendments 69 to 72, 77, 79, 82, 86, 91 and 92 mean that fire and rehire will be an automatic unfair dismissal in relation to restricted variations unless the employer is in severe financial difficulties and has no reasonable alternative. These restricted variations are pay, number of hours, leave entitlement and those changes to shift patterns that will be specified in regulations.
Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)
My Lords, the amendments in this group relate to the Bill’s provisions on fire and rehire. I think there is a consensus across the House that the most outrageous cases of fire and rehire should be outlawed. The particular case and example is P&O Ferries, which was not so much fire and rehire, but just fire: nearly 800 staff were dismissed without consultation or notice. Nevertheless, it serves to highlight the urgent need for stronger protection for workers and clear restrictions on the use of fire and rehire.
The series of government amendments in this group clarifies that distinction through the introduction of restricted variations that would permit contract negotiation to proceed in limited circumstances. Government Amendment 72 sets up the condition of restricted variation which, in short, it defines as the removal or weakening of entitlement relating to pay and broader terms and conditions. This approach reflects the intentions behind my Amendment 75, which would allow contract variations where they are not detrimental to employees’ terms and conditions and do not concern paid hours. I am glad that the Government have reconsidered the operability of these provisions, and we are happy to support these amendments to the Bill.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Goddard of Stockport, that, as we warned when we discussed it in Committee, Clause 26 was, as originally drafted, quite simply unworkable.
As we reminded noble Lords throughout Committee, the clause was far too broad. It would have captured entirely routine contractual changes, such as simple variation in work location, and treated them as fire and rehire cases. That approach was not only impractical but potentially damaging to employers and employees alike. We therefore welcome the Government’s decision to bring forward amendment that define the concept of a restricted variation. This brings much-needed clarity to the legislation. Although I would not go so far as to say that the clause now flies, it is at least comprehensible.
The Minister quoted Unite. May I quote Unite back at him? It has just issued a statement saying that it condemns the Government’s amendments, which in its own way suggests that progress is being made. The Minister would be well placed to consider the rather detailed brief that Unite has delivered, condemning the way in which the Government are now reworking Clause 26. It suggests that progress is being made and all our warnings are coming to fruition. One now has to wonder, I suppose, whether the realisation dawned when someone in Whitehall spotted that the original drafting could have torpedoed the Government’s own plans to relocate 50% of senior civil servants out of London.
Of course, these amendments, while helpful, have added layers of complexity. Look at what Clause 26 now represents: it is a recipe for going to Peers such as the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, and asking, “What does this mean?” There is so much here that is very difficult to understand; these amendments have added layers of complexity. The fire and rehire provisions are probably slightly more workable now—I say this slightly optimistically—but, my goodness, they are intricate. No wonder the Government are preparing to consult on the matter in the autumn; that consultation will be crucial.
I quote another major figure: Mike Clancy, the general secretary of Prospect. He has warned that
“the government must be careful it doesn’t inadvertently create a veto against all contractual change”.
Surely that is the risk. Among the restricted variations now listed are reductions in entitlement to pay, changes to performance-based pay measures, alterations to pensions, variations in working hours or shift times, and reductions in leave entitlements. These are precisely the sort of changes that businesses, particularly smaller ones, often need to make—not recklessly, but to adapt, restructure or just survive during periods of financial strain. So we urge the Government to conduct this consultation with care. The views of employers must be front and centre. The impact on small and medium-sized businesses must be fully understood. Yes, constraints matter, but so do incentives. If we are serious about improving employment practice, we must not just punish the worst but support the best.
As amended, this clause is better, but we look forward to hearing from the Minister how he will respond to the many criticisms that have been made.
Lord Katz (Lab)
My Lords, I thought for a minute that concord might break out across the House—it did at least partially, but not quite. However, as the short debate we have had today and the debates we had in Committee have shown—the noble Lord, Lord Goddard of Stockport, identified this—there is wide agreement across your Lordships’ House that the unconscionable tactics we saw P&O Ferries use should never be allowed again. We have also heard clear arguments that employers will need to make reasonable operational changes and that this should be permitted.
I begin with Amendments 74 and 88 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, which seek to make it clear that, where an employer makes redundancies because they have had to change location, this should not be an automatic unfair dismissal. We agree. If there is no longer a job for the employee at a work location because that location has had to close down, this is unfortunate but is still a redundancy situation. That is why new Section 104I will apply only when the principal reason for the dismissal falls within that section. Where an employee’s place of work is closed, the principal reason for their dismissal is likely to be redundancy. We will set out further detail on this matter in our planned code of practice.
Further, the changes that the Government are making through their amendments will mean that a change to the location at which an employee works is a non-restricted variation. This means that, even in cases where there is no redundancy situation, a dismissal for failing to agree to a new work location will not be automatically unfair. An employer must still follow a fair process when making such dismissals.
Amendment 73 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, seeks to limit the protections in the Bill to cases in which fire and rehire was used to reduce pay and benefits. Government Amendments 69 to 72, 77, 79, 82, 86, 91 and 92 will focus the clause’s protections on variations to certain terms—specifically pay, leave, total hours worked and specified shift patterns. Those terms were identified because variations to them would have a significant impact on employees and should not be imposed under the threat of fire and rehire. This is, we believe, in line with the intention of the noble Lord’s amendment.
In his speech, the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, raised the comments from Unite and Prospect. I think I am right in saying that they were askance. They show that there is a variety of views within the trade union movement as well as across industry. We understand that Unite would like stricter conditions on fire and rehire. We feel that, having consulted a wide range of trade unions—including, of course, the TUC—and a number of business organisations, as well as businesses themselves and representative business organisations, including the CBI and the BRC, we have struck the right balance in the way we have constructed the clause.
Amendment 75 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Goddard of Stockport, proposes to limit the clause to contract variations that are not one of a list of protected terms and are otherwise minor and non-detrimental. The Government’s amendments, which limit the clause’s automatic unfair dismissal protections to a list of restricted variations, achieve the noble Lord’s intended outcome; he very graciously acknowledged this. They also have the benefit of being specific. For example, the Government’s amendments will not require an employment tribunal to come to a decision about whether a variation should be considered minor on the facts of each case. They also give employers flexibility to make reasonable location changes, which employers have told us is an important operational consideration and which would not be possible under the noble Lord’s amendment.
I therefore beg to move the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lady Jones of Whitchurch and ask the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, not to move Amendment 73.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment and other amendments of clause 26 would limit new section 104I(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 to cases where the variation of the contract of employment was of a particular kind. This includes reductions in an employee’s pay or time off and changes to the number of hours an employee is required to work.
(i) did not agree to the restricted variation, or(ii) where the employer sought to make more than one variation, did not agree to a number of variations that included the restricted variation.”Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment at page 46, line 25.
“(3A) For the purposes of subsection (3), a contract of employment is a “varied” contract of employment if—(a) the terms of the contract are not the same as the terms of the contract of employment under which the employee worked before being dismissed, and(b) one or more of the differences between the two sets of terms constitutes a restricted variation (see subsection (3B));and, in a case where subsection (3) applies, any reference in this section to the restricted variation is to be read accordingly.”Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment at page 46, line 25.
“(3B) In this section “restricted variation” means any of the following—(a) a reduction of, or removal of an entitlement to, any sum payable to an employee in connection with the employment (but see subsection (3C));(b) where the amount of any sum payable to an employee in connection with the employment is determined by reference to a measure of the amount of work done by the employee (including a measure referable to results achieved by the employee), a variation of that measure;(c) a variation of any term or condition relating to pensions or pension schemes;(d) a variation of the number of hours which an employee is required to work;(e) a variation of the timing or duration of a shift which meets such conditions as may be specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State;(f) a reduction in the amount of time off which an employee is entitled to take;(g) a variation of a description specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State;(h) the inclusion in a contract of employment of a term enabling the employer to make any variation within any of the preceding paragraphs without the employee’s agreement.(3C) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide that a reference in subsection (3B) to a sum payable to an employee in connection with the employment does not include a reference to—(a) a sum payable in respect of—(i) any expenses incurred by an employee;(ii) any expenses of a specified description incurred by an employee;(iii) any expenses incurred by an employee other than expenses of a specified description;(b) a payment or benefit in kind, a payment or benefit in kind of a specified description, or a payment or benefit in kind other than one of a specified description.In this subsection “specified” means specified in the regulations.”Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment at page 46, line 25.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendments of clause 26 at page 46, line 36 and page 47, line 2.
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment at page 46, line 25.
(i) the employer’s ability to carry on the business as a going concern, or(ii) where the employer is a public sector employer, the financial sustainability of carrying out the employer’s statutory functions,”Member’s explanatory statement
The effect of this amendment is that, for the purposes of the exception to new section 104I(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, a public sector employer (other than a local authority) may rely on financial difficulties that are affecting, or likely in the immediate future to affect, the financial sustainability of carrying out the employer’s statutory functions.
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment at page 46, line 25.
“(4A) In the case of an employer that is a local authority, subsection (1) does not apply in relation to an employee if—(a) at the time of the dismissal, a relevant intervention direction has effect in relation to the authority,(b) the relevant intervention direction—(i) specifies that the reason, or one of the reasons, for the giving of the direction is that the authority is undergoing financial difficulties, and(ii) contains provision relating to the financial management or financial governance of the authority, and(c) the authority shows that—(i) the reason for the restricted variation was to eliminate or significantly reduce, or significantly mitigate the effect of, any of the financial difficulties referred to in paragraph (b)(i), and(ii) in all the circumstances the authority could not reasonably have avoided the need to make the restricted variation.(4B) In determining whether—(a) in the case of a public sector employer (other than a local authority), subsection (4)(b) is met, or(b) in the case of a local authority, subsection (4A)(c)(ii) is met,an employment tribunal must apply the same principles as would be applied by a court on an application for judicial review.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that the exception for employers undergoing financial difficulties applies to a local authority only if a “relevant intervention direction” has effect in relation to it. It also makes provision about how an employment tribunal should decide whether a public sector employer (including a local authority) could not reasonably have avoided the need to make the variation.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment of clause 26 at page 47, line 2 that inserts a new subsection (4A) into section 104I of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment at page 46, line 25.
“(5A) In this section—“English local authority” means—(a) a county council or district council in England;(b) a London borough council;(c) the Greater London Authority;(d) the Council of the Isles of Scilly;(e) the Common Council of the City of London in its capacity as a local authority, a police authority or a port health authority;(f) a combined authority established under section 103 of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009;(g) a combined county authority established under section 9(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023;“local authority” means—(a) an English local authority,(b) a Welsh local authority, or(c) a Scottish local authority;“public sector employer” means a person that—(a) is wholly or mainly funded from public funds,(b) is under a statutory duty to carry out any functions of a public nature, and(c) so far as carrying out those functions, does not operate on a commercial basis;“recognised” , in relation to a trade union, has the same meaning as in the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (see section 178 of that Act);“relevant intervention direction” means—(a) in the case of an English local authority, a direction under section 15(5) or (6)(a) of the Local Government Act 1999 (powers to deal with failure to comply with duties relating to best value authorities);(b) in the case of a Welsh local authority, a direction under section 106 or 107 of the Local Government and Elections (Wales) Act 2021 (asc 1) (intervention powers of Welsh Ministers);(c) in the case of a Scottish local authority, an enforcement direction under section 24 of the Local Government in Scotland Act 2003 (asp 1) relating wholly or partly to a failure of the authority to comply with its duties under section 1 of that Act (local authorities’ duty to secure best value);“Scottish local authority” means a council constituted under section 2 of the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Act 1994;“statutory duty” means a duty imposed by or under any enactment, including—(a) a Measure or Act of the National Assembly for Wales or an Act of Senedd Cymru, and(b) an Act of the Scottish Parliament;“statutory functions” , in relation to a public sector employer, means functions of a public nature which the employer is under a statutory duty to carry out;“Welsh local authority” means— (a) a county council or county borough council in Wales;(b) a corporate joint committee established under Part 5 of the Local Government and Elections (Wales) Act 2021.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment inserts a number of definitions that are needed for the purposes of section 104I of the Employment Rights Act 1996, as amended by my other amendments of clause 26.
“(5A) The reference in subsection (4A)(a) to a relevant intervention direction includes a relevant intervention direction given before the day on which the Employment Rights Act 2025 was passed.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment makes it clear that, for the purposes of subsection (4A)(a) of new section 104I of the Employment Rights Act 1996, it does not matter if the relevant intervention direction was given before the day on which the Employment Rights Bill receives Royal Assent.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my other amendments of clause 26.
“104J Contracts of employment: variations that are not restricted variations(1) This section applies to the dismissal of an employee if—(a) the employee was employed for the purposes of a business carried on by the employer, and(b) the reason (or, if more than one, the principal reason) for the dismissal is a reason within subsection (2) or (3).(2) The reason within this subsection is that—(a) the employer sought to vary the employee’s contract of employment,(b) the variation was not a restricted variation or, where the employer sought to make more than one variation, none of the variations was a restricted variation, and(c) the employee did not agree to the variation.(3) The reason within this subsection is to enable the employer to employ another person, or to re-engage the employee, under a varied contract of employment to carry out the same duties, or substantially the same duties, as the employee carried out before being dismissed.(4) For the purposes of subsection (3), a contract of employment is a “varied” contract of employment if—(a) the terms of the contract are not the same as the terms of the contract of employment under which the employee worked before being dismissed, and(b) none of the differences between the two sets of terms constitutes a restricted variation;and, in a case where subsection (3) applies, any reference in this section to the variation is to be read accordingly.(5) The matters that must be considered in determining the question whether the dismissal is fair or unfair include the following—(a) the reason for the variation;(b) any consultation carried out by the employer with the employee about varying the employee’s contract of employment;(c) if the employee is of a description in respect of which an independent trade union is recognised by the employer, any consultation carried out by the employer with that trade union; (d) if the employee is not of a description in respect of which an independent trade union is recognised by the employer, any consultation carried out by the employer with any other person representing the interests of the employee that, at the time of the dismissal, had authority to receive information and to be consulted about the dismissal on the employee’s behalf;(e) anything offered to the employee by the employer in return for agreeing to the variation;(f) any matters specified for the purposes of this subsection in regulations made by the Secretary of State.(6) In this section—“recognised” , in relation to a trade union, has the same meaning as in the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (see section 178 of that Act);“restricted variation” has the same meaning as in section 104I.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that, where an employee is dismissed for failing to agree to a variation of their contract of employment that is not a “restricted variation”, the matters that must be considered in determining whether the dismissal is fair or unfair include those specified in new section 104J(5) of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
“104K Redundancy: replacement of employees with people who are not employees(1) An employee who is dismissed is to be regarded for the purposes of this Part as unfairly dismissed if—(a) the employee was employed for the purposes of a business carried on by the employer, and(b) the reason (or, if more than one, the principal reason) for the dismissal is to enable the employer to replace the employee with an individual who is not an employee of the employer.(2) For the purposes of this section—(a) an employer replaces an employee with an individual who is not an employee of the employer if (and only if)—(i) the individual, or the individual taken together with one or more employees of the employer or other individuals, is to carry out activities, in pursuance of a relevant contract, for the purposes of the employer’s business,(ii) those activities are the same, or substantially the same, activities as the employee, or the employee taken together with one or more other employees of the employer, carried out before being dismissed, and(iii) the employee’s dismissal is not wholly or mainly attributable to the fact that the requirements of the employer’s business for those activities to be carried out have ceased or diminished or are expected to cease or diminish;and any reference in this section to replacing an employee is to be read accordingly;(b) a reference to replacing an employee with an individual who is not an employee of the employer includes the case where the individual is the one who has been dismissed;(c) “relevant contract”, in relation to an employer, means a contract, other than a contract of employment, to which the employer is a party (whether or not the individual carrying out activities in pursuance of the contract is a party to it).(3) In the case of an employer that is not a local authority, subsection (1) does not apply in relation to an employee if the employer shows that— (a) the reason for the replacement was to eliminate, prevent or significantly reduce, or significantly mitigate the effect of, any financial difficulties which at the time of the dismissal were affecting, or were likely in the immediate future to affect—(i) the employer’s ability to carry on the business as a going concern, or(ii) where the employer is a public sector employer, the financial sustainability of carrying out the employer’s statutory functions, and(b) in all the circumstances the employer could not reasonably have avoided the need to replace the employee.(4) In the case of an employer that is a local authority, subsection (1) does not apply in relation to an employee if—(a) at the time of the dismissal, a relevant intervention direction has effect in relation to the authority,(b) the relevant intervention direction—(i) specifies that the reason, or one of the reasons, for the giving of the direction is that the authority is undergoing financial difficulties, and(ii) contains provision relating to the financial management or financial governance of the authority, and(c) the authority shows that—(i) the reason for the replacement was to eliminate or significantly reduce, or significantly mitigate the effect of, any of the financial difficulties referred to in paragraph (b)(i), and(ii) in all the circumstances the authority could not reasonably have avoided the need to replace the employee.(5) In determining whether—(a) in the case of a public sector employer (other than a local authority), subsection (3)(b) is met, or(b) in the case of a local authority, subsection (4)(c)(ii) is met,an employment tribunal must apply the same principles as would be applied by a court on an application for judicial review.(6) Where the employer shows that the conditions in paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (3) are met, or (where the employer is a local authority) the conditions in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of subsection (4) are met, the matters that must be considered in determining the question whether the dismissal is fair or unfair include the following—(a) any consultation carried out by the employer with the employee about replacing the employee;(b) if the employee is of a description in respect of which an independent trade union is recognised by the employer, any consultation carried out by the employer with that trade union;(c) if the employee is not of a description in respect of which an independent trade union is recognised by the employer, any consultation carried out by the employer with any other person representing the interests of the employee that, at the time of the dismissal, had authority to receive information and to be consulted about the dismissal on the employee’s behalf;(d) any matters specified for the purposes of this subsection in regulations made by the Secretary of State.(7) In this section—“contract” means a contract whether express or implied and (if it is express) whether oral or in writing;“English local authority” means— (a) a county council or district council in England;(b) a London borough council;(c) the Greater London Authority;(d) the Council of the Isles of Scilly;(e) the Common Council of the City of London in its capacity as a local authority, a police authority or a port health authority;(f) a combined authority established under section 103 of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009;(g) a combined county authority established under section 9(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023;“local authority” means—(a) an English local authority,(b) a Welsh local authority, or(c) a Scottish local authority;“public sector employer” means a person that—(a) is wholly or mainly funded from public funds,(b) is under a statutory duty to carry out any functions of a public nature, and(c) so far as carrying out those functions, does not operate on a commercial basis;“recognised” , in relation to a trade union, has the same meaning as in the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (see section 178 of that Act);“relevant intervention direction” means—(a) in the case of an English local authority, a direction under section 15(5) or (6)(a) of the Local Government Act 1999 (powers to deal with failure to comply with duties relating to best value authorities);(b) in the case of a Welsh local authority, a direction under section 106 or 107 of the Local Government and Elections (Wales) Act 2021 (asc 1) (intervention powers of Welsh Ministers);(c) in the case of a Scottish local authority, an enforcement direction under section 24 of the Local Government in Scotland Act 2003 (asp 1) relating wholly or partly to a failure of the authority to comply with its duties under section 1 of that Act (local authorities’ duty to secure best value);“Scottish local authority” means a council constituted under section 2 of the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Act 1994;“statutory duty” means a duty imposed by or under any enactment, including—(a) a Measure or Act of the National Assembly for Wales or an Act of Senedd Cymru, and(b) an Act of the Scottish Parliament;“statutory functions” , in relation to a public sector employer, means functions of a public nature which the employer is under a statutory duty to carry out;“Welsh local authority” means—(a) a county council or county borough council in Wales;(b) a corporate joint committee established under Part 5 of the Local Government and Elections (Wales) Act 2021.(8) The reference in subsection (4)(a) to a relevant intervention direction includes a relevant intervention direction given before the day on which the Employment Rights Act 2025 was passed.(3A) In section 105 (redundancy), in the heading, after “Redundancy” insert “: other cases”.” Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that an employee’s dismissal is automatically unfair if the reason for the dismissal was to enable the employer to replace the employee, on a broadly like-for-like basis, with someone who is not employed but is, for example, an agency worker or a self-employed contractor. There are exceptions to this rule in circumstances where the reason for the replacement is to address financial difficulties of the employer and the employer could not reasonably have avoided the need to replace the employee.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment of clause 26 at page 47, line 2 that inserts a new subsection (4A) into section 104I of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
“(gp) subsection (1) of section 104K (read with subsections (3) and (4) of that section) applies,”.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment of clause 26 at page 47, line 31 that inserts a new section 104K into the Employment Rights Act 1996.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment provides for regulations under new section 104I of the Employment Rights Act 1996 to be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment provides for regulations under subsection (5)(f) of new section 104J of the Employment Rights Act 1996 to be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment provides for regulations under subsection (6)(d) of new section 104K of the Employment Rights Act 1996 to be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.
Baroness Noakes
“Part 1 exemptions(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations specify that specified categories of person shall be exempt in whole or in part from all or any of the provisions of Part 1 of this Act.(2) Regulations may provide that exemptions apply for a specified period of time.(3) The categories of person exempted by regulations may be defined by the activities which they carry out, their size, their legal status or in any other way that the Secretary of State considers appropriate.(4) Regulations made under this section are subject to the affirmative procedure.”
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 94 seeks to give the Secretary of State power to introduce exemptions from Part 1 of this Bill. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, for adding his name to the amendment. In Committee and on Report, noble Lords have warned about the impact that this Bill could have on businesses. The right to guaranteed hours, the statutory sick pay changes and the day-one rights which we debated earlier all create problems for businesses, especially small businesses and micro-businesses. The Government are ignoring these concerns.
These provisions directly affect businesses, but noble Lords opposite should share our concerns that the real effect of these new rights will be fewer job opportunities. As we have heard, employees with risk factors, from the employer’s perspective, will find it harder to get work because of day-one rights and the statutory sick pay changes. These include young people, people with incomplete job histories, people with a history of illness and ex-offenders. People who value part-time flexible work—this particularly affects women and students—might find fewer opportunities because employers fear triggering the guaranteed-hours requirements.
The Government are introducing these changes at a time of great economic uncertainty. While the employment numbers continue to edge upwards, there are warning signs in a rising unemployment rate, falling job vacancies and falling average hours worked. Business surveys are consistently flagging a reluctance to hire among businesses and increased expectations of workforce reductions. Even the Governor of the Bank of England, not a man to be careless with words, has flagged a slowdown in the jobs market. Growth is virtually non-existent and our inflation rate is now the highest in the G7. This economic background increases the likelihood that this Bill will create real pain for some businesses, and that pain will inevitably end up being felt in the workforce.
In Committee, I argued for exemptions from Part 1 being hardwired into the Bill for small and micro-businesses. My noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom’s Amendment 159 in this group is similar. His Amendment 107 would exempt farm businesses of all sizes from some of the provisions. These are both great amendments, but my guess is that the Government are not yet psychologically ready to admit that some sorts of businesses would be so hard hit by this Bill that they should be exempt from its scope. The Government have rejected exemptions, citing the need to avoid creating a two-tier workforce, despite the fact that in an open economy such as ours, workforce tiering occurs naturally and is certainly a feature of the current UK workplace.
My amendment is a simple one. It does not require the Government to do anything. It is a reserve power which the Government can use to assist the UK economy if things turn out as badly as we fear. It gives the Government power to create exemptions from all or any of the Part 1 provisions to categories of employer as defined by the Secretary of State. It thus allows very targeted interventions if the Government believe that it is necessary.
Some of the potential pain points in the Bill can be dealt with in the way that detailed regulations are framed. Amendment 105 in this group helpfully requires the Secretary of State to have regard to seasonal work when making regulations. However, regulations cannot deal with removing burdens from, for example, small and micro-businesses, which are the focus of several amendments in this group in the name of my noble friend Lord Leigh of Hurley. They cannot address whole sectors, such as hospitality or agriculture, nor home in on subsectors of those sectors, such as the pub sector, which could be massively impacted by Clause 20, or particular types of farm.
It would do no harm to the Government’s position if they accepted Amendment 94. They can press ahead with plan A and see what happens. If, however, they discover real problems of the kinds that many noble Lords from across this House have described, it would give the Government a backstop power if they, and they alone, think that it is necessary. On this basis, I commend Amendment 94 to the Government and I beg to move.
Lord Londesborough (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 94, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, and Amendment 159, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe and Lord Hunt, both of which I have signed. I also support the amendment in this group tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, which calls for some scientific and statistical significance in polling a representative group of SMEs on the impact of certain provisions in the Bill. This Government’s consultation with SMEs is, to put it politely, curious and opaque, lacking, so far, any meaningful numbers or quantified response, and with barely any names. Consultation carries little weight if it lacks statistical credibility.
The entirely sensible and pragmatic amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, seeks to hand the Secretary of State regulatory tools to bring in exemptions to Part 1 for certain groups or sectors, for specified periods of time, should he or she decide that these are appropriate.
Noble Lords may remember that the Government were offered similar powers of exemption by amendment in the NICs Bill earlier this year, voted through enthusiastically by Conservatives, Liberal Democrats and the majority of Cross-Benchers, only to receive the custard pie treatment in the other place under the cloak of financial privilege, which was a great pity. The noble Baroness has, very generously in my view, made the same offer again, and I hope it gets a more constructive response this time.
For there is broad consensus across business that Part 1 of the Bill will have a significant impact on the jobs market, especially for SMEs, but let us be frank: the degree or level of impact is highly unpredictable. If we see the sorts of outcomes suggested by membership surveys from such bodies as the ICAEW and the FSB, then the Secretary of State would be well advised to grab the option of these exemption tools with both hands rather than doggedly sticking to a one-size-fits-all mantra.
Turning briefly to Amendment 159, seeking the disapplication of certain provisions for small and micro-businesses with fewer than 50 employees, this gets my wholehearted support. I will spare the House a repeat of my arguments in Committee. But for the Government to argue, as I am sure they will, against this amendment, because they do not want to create a two-tier workforce, simply does not reflect economic reality or indeed the jobs market or the structure of businesses.
SMBs cannot compete with large businesses when it comes to pay scales, training, promotion opportunities, pensions and a whole range of other benefits. That is a reflection of their size, their culture and their stage of development, yet they succeed in delivering strong employee loyalty and identification. This is true of family businesses, start-ups and scale-ups. To apply all the provisions in this Bill, and specifically those listed in this amendment for disapplication, to a micro-business employing five staff as it does to a multinational employing 10,000 is wilfully indiscriminate and, I suggest, economically illiterate. That is why I put my name to the amendment.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, and, of course, my noble friend Lady Noakes. I shall speak to my Amendments 106, 153, 155 and 184. The main thrust of the first amendments is to force the Government to listen to real concerns of the SME community who, frankly, even at this late stage, are unaware of the effects of this Bill. They are too busy trying to keep afloat in a difficult economic environment, where the painful costs of NICs and other tax rises are kicking in.
I declare an interest as an adviser to many SME businesses in my career at Cavendish plc and, to the extent that it is relevant in union matters, as a Conservative Party treasurer. We have not yet heard from any Labour Party Back-Benchers today, but I am sure that, if we do, they will declare their interests in respect of union membership.
Turning first to Amendment 106, which relates to Part 1 of the Bill, we are constantly told by the Labour Front Bench that they want to consult with business—indeed, they repeated that today. They want to consult with business, but they fail to disclose who exactly they are consulting with, let alone what they are being told by those businesses and their representative bodies. I suspect that is because they are embarrassed by the backlash against the severity of this Bill from SME and micro employers, who will make it clear to the Government that this Bill will mean they are less likely to employ more people and much more likely to let people go as the burden of employment is ratcheted up. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Vaux of Harrowden, for reminding us of the Labour Party manifesto’s commitment to consultation.
If the Government are so confident of the benefits of this Bill for all businesses, why not agree to engage with them? This proposal is really very modest: just 500 companies out of some 5.5 million in the UK. It is not unreasonable to ask the Government to be honest with us and tell us what the reaction of the SME community is and what are its concerns, particularly as we know there has been a shocking lack of impact assessments for this Bill. We know that the recent CIPD survey revealed that 79% of organisations expect these legislative changes to increase employment costs.
Lord Katz (Lab)
I apologise for interrupting the noble Lord’s flow, but I feel that his comments on political funds go a fair way outside the scope of the amendments we are speaking to today. There will be plenty of time to discuss political funds next week on Report.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
With the greatest respect, I do not know if the noble Lord has read my amendment, but that is exactly the point. The point is that before the Bill is passed there should be consultation on these proposals, but there is no opportunity for consultation because they are implemented at Royal Assent. The Government keep telling us that there will be a consultation, but how can there possibly be consultation if the measures come in at Royal Assent?
Still, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that interruption because it proves the point. It also allows me to explain to him another payment from the Unite political fund, which he may not be aware of, to the Marx Memorial Library. I kid you not—you could not make it up. I am sure the members of Unite are thrilled to know that their hard-earned wages are going to support the Marx Memorial Library, but when the Bill becomes an Act, in a matter of months, they will no longer have the right to see that disbursement.
If that is what Unite wants to do then that is up to Unite, but surely it should not be covered up. All I am asking at this time is that proper consultation on the effects of Parts 4 and 6 should take place before this is ramrodded through on the statute book without any proper consultation and discussion with, as the Government like to call them, “relevant stakeholders”. It is on Amendment 106 that I will probably be seeking to test the opinion of the House today.
Lord Howard of Lympne (Con)
My Lords, I rise to support these amendments and declare my interests, as recorded in the register, as the chairman of three businesses that would undoubtedly qualify as small enterprises.
I was provoked into intervening in this debate by an observation made by the Minister when she replied to the last debate. She said to your Lordships that if an employer dismissed an employee for cause, as set out in the Bill, the employer would have nothing to worry about because the tribunal would find in their favour. Very long ago I practised in the field of employment law, and I saw at first hand the consequences—often very damaging, sometimes disastrous—for a small business of having to spend the time, trouble and expense involved in contesting a case at the tribunal, even if ultimately, it was successful. In the real world, faced with that predicament, employers often find themselves obliged to settle these cases, again at considerable expense, even if the application is completely unmeritorious and would stand scant chance of success, were it ever to come before the tribunal. That factor ought to be taken into account.
My question to the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Leong, is this. Attention has been drawn today to the impact assessment, particularly by my noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom, who pointed to the increase in the number of tribunal cases that would be a consequence of the Bill. To what extent did that impact assessment take into account disputes that were not actually taken to the tribunal and were settled by the employer, who could not afford the consequences of contesting the case at the tribunal, but which would nevertheless involve substantial, damaging and sometimes disastrous consequences for the employer?
Lord Hendy (Lab)
Given that the noble Lord, Lord Howard, and I practised in employment tribunals, does he agree with me that there are now strong procedures by which employment tribunals can strike out vexatious claims without there being a full hearing? I had the pleasure, of course, of appearing against the noble Lord in the Employment Appeal Tribunal, I think it must be 40 years ago—it was a delight—but the mechanisms have developed over those decades and tribunals now do not hear vexatious claims. They strike them out before they get there.
Lord Howard of Lympne (Con)
I do not know if the noble Lord’s memory extends to which of us won on that occasion. It is true that there has been an improvement, but it would be a mistake to assume that those provisions would cover all the cases to which I drew attention in my remarks.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Howard of Lympne and indeed all noble Lords who have made such compelling arguments for the amendments in this group. I rise to support Amendment 107 in the name of my noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom, to which I have added my name. I again refer the House to my registered interests, particularly as a dairy and livestock farmer and as a forester.
The farming community needs help after the run of negative actions taken by this Government: the slashing of delinked payments, followed swiftly by the cut-off in sustainable farming incentives with no notice, contrary to previous promises. That leaves a large number of farms with negligible environmental payments, incentivising the intensification of their farming operations, undermining their businesses and undermining nature restoration. To that is added the more general burden placed on all businesses of increased employer national insurance contributions.
Farmers’ long-term planning has been thrown into chaos by the reduction in inheritance tax reliefs on agricultural and business property. It is a burden that farming businesses simply cannot afford and will lead to the sale and break-up of many of these on the death of a family member, with families also losing their homes and businesses as a result.
In the run-up to the introduction of the reduced reliefs in April 2026, the financial incentive for elderly or terminally ill farmers and business owners to take their own lives increases. In Committee, I was grateful to the Minister, who is again in his place today, for his promise to speak to his ministerial colleagues at Defra and the ONS about keeping accurate and timely data on farmer and business-owner suicides. I ask him again today: what has been the result of those discussions? How can the Government assess the impact of this measure on suicide rates if they simply rely on out-of-date and insufficiently granular ONS data?
On Amendment 107, the arguments in favour of granting farming an exemption from these Bill provisions have been well made in Committee, and I will hit only the headlines. Farming is almost uniquely exposed to seasonality in its harvesting operations, as well as the weather variability in the timing of those operations. Livestock farmers have to look after their animals every day and rely on casual labour to fill in gaps due to illness or scheduling issues. That requires flexibility in its engagement with seasonal and part-time or casual staff. There are penalties enough in weather unpredictability without introducing more through compensating staff for changing hours at short notice or having to compensate for sickness from day one. These obligations are simply unaffordable for farmers and unworkable in practice.
Farming operates on cycles that are unknown in other businesses. It is easy enough to assess the quality of work and the suitability of staff in retail, offices and manufacturing, even after the first day or so. However, most farming workloads are solitary, with little oversight. We know whether a new employee has drilled a field correctly, looked after animal hygiene effectively, checked weed growth around new trees without damaging the trees, or ensured that livestock is back in calf in the necessary window, only months after those operations are performed. Reducing probationary periods and leaving farmers exposed to human resource and litigation risks, potentially from day one, is simply not acceptable or workable.
As my noble friend Lord Deben highlighted in Committee, this is not a Government who have a background or experience in the farming or rural economy. That lack of experience is often evident, and I urge the House and the Government to listen to those of us who have that experience and to support this critical amendment. I hope to hear encouragement from the Minister that the Government are listening.
Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)
My Lords, the amendments in this group relate to the disapplication of provisions of the Bill to certain sectors and employment types. Amendment 94 would give the Secretary of State the ability, through regulations, to vary or exempt specific sectors from the provisions of the Bill. We do not support this amendment as we generally do not support facilitating two-tier employment systems in which certain businesses have statutory obligations that they must adhere to and others do not. Instead, we are focused on ensuring, as part of the Government’s consultation process ahead of implementation, that sectors likely to be disproportionately affected are properly engaged and supported to operate under the Bill with minimal disruption.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 105, 107 and 159 in my name. On Amendment 105, the Government are well aware that this Bill, in particular Part 1, will have a detrimental effect on seasonal work and seasonal industries, but they have failed to provide any clear definition of what seasonal work is. We therefore think it is essential that the Bill includes a precise definition to protect those vital sectors to ensure that the law reflects their unique and fluctuating nature. We are discussing the lives and livelihoods of thousands who work not in rigid year-round roles but in the beating heart of seasonal industries, such as agriculture, hospitality, tourism and the performing arts. Their work ebbs and flows with seasons, festivals, harvests and holidays, not according to neat quarterly reporting periods. Yet, under the present draft, a 12-week reference period is being proposed as a basis for determining what constitutes an established pattern of work.
Let us pause on that. Twelve weeks—barely three months or, one might observe, the precise duration of just one of the four seasons—is being treated as a sufficient measure for sectors whose very nature is defined by unpredictability and periodic intensity. That is not only an inadequate metric but, in many cases, an actively misleading one. A fruit farm may employ hundreds in May and none by August. A theatre technician might work flat out during festival season and then have no engagements for months, or be working elsewhere. A seaside hotel may be bustling in July but deserted in November. To take a short-term temporary rise in demand and then draw long-term legal assumptions from it about continuity of work is not merely a flawed approach but deeply unfair to both employers and workers.
Businesses cannot predict with such precision. They cannot bind themselves to a rhythm that the market does not keep. If they are forced to do so, they will, understandably, become more cautious. They will hire fewer people, reduce opportunity and retreat from flexibility altogether. Flexibility is not a sin, nor is it bad for an economy. In many cases it is the only practical means by which people—students, carers, parents and artists—can participate in the labour market. We must not make mistake irregularity for instability, nor seasonal work for insecure work.
This amendment does something elegant and essential: it defines seasonal work in clear, practical terms; it captures its recurring yet temporary character, grounded in the real operational rhythms of key sectors; and, crucially, it instructs the Secretary of State to have regard to this definition when drafting regulations. That is not an escape clause; it is a safeguard against blunt policy-making. We are not asking for a loophole; we are asking for recognition that not all labour is uniform and not all employment patterns can or should be squeezed into the same regulatory mould. If we pass this Bill without such a safeguard, we risk chilling seasonal hiring altogether—not protecting workers, just denying them opportunities.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Roborough for signing Amendment 107 and I look forward to hearing the answers to the questions that he asked, particularly on the suicide statistics. I hope the Minister is able to address those. Before turning to the matter at hand, I must begin with an unequivocal condemnation of the Government’s recent family farms tax policy. This disastrous measure has placed an unbearable strain on family farms, which are the very foundation of our rural communities and the heart of our national food security. Instead of supporting these hard-working families, the Government have chosen to punish them with policies that threaten their very existence. I urge the Government to commit today to reversing this tax immediately for the sake of our farmers, our countryside and our country.
Having said that, I turn with equal concern to the Employment Rights Bill. Although this Bill’s goal is to enhance worker protections, which is commendable, it tragically fails to take into account the unique realities of farm businesses and seasonal work. As we have heard, farming is unlike any other industry. It is defined by seasonal peaks and troughs, by work that is dictated by the weather and the cycles of nature, and by labour demands that can change from one week to the next. To impose inflexible employment rights designed for stable year-round jobs on these seasonal industries is to misunderstand them fundamentally.
Take, for example, the proposal to extend unfair dismissal rights from day one of employment, which we have just discussed, or the Bill’s restrictions on zero-hours contracts, which would further exacerbate some of these issues. Zero-hours contracts in agriculture are not a tool of exploitation but a necessary mechanism for managing the ebb and flow of seasonal labour. Moreover, the proposal to require compensation for cancelled shifts fails to consider farming’s intrinsic unpredictability. Decisions about work can hinge on weather conditions that change with little notice. To expect farmers to pay for cancelled hours when fields are unworkable is simply unrealistic and unfair.
Even the Bill’s provisions on the right to request flexible working place an undue burden on farmers. Agricultural work is highly seasonal and task driven, as my noble friend Lord Roborough explained. That makes flexible working requests difficult to accommodate in practice. Raising the threshold for employers to refuse these requests will hamper farms’ ability to plan and respond to fluctuating labour needs.
That is why Amendment 107 is not merely desirable but essential. By introducing a clear baseline definition of seasonal work, the Bill can be tailored to reflect the cyclical, temporary and weather-dependent nature of agricultural labour. This amendment recognises the reality of these industries, allowing for the necessary flexibility that the Bill currently denies.
Without this amendment, the Government risk imposing a one-size-fits-all regime that will force many farms to cease hiring, increase costs or even close altogether, yet again devastating rural communities and endangering our food security. I urge people around the House to support this amendment and send a clear message that the law must work with and not against the realities of seasonal work. Yes, we must protect workers, but let us also protect the farms and farmers who feed this nation.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, for supporting Amendment 159. A few years ago, in a remarkable TV interview, a one-time Labour shadow Chancellor could only suggest “Bill somebody” when asked to name a business leader who supported Labour’s policies. Sadly, this Government’s Employment Rights Bill risks the same fate. Ministers cannot name a single small business that supports all the measures contained within it—if any exist at all. This Bill is being rushed through with little regard for the very businesses that form the backbone of our economy. The Government’s own impact assessment hints at a looming disaster but fails to fully capture its devastating effects.
The Federation of Small Businesses warned that this Bill is weighing heavily on the minds of small business owners, already forcing them to put investment and job creation on hold at precisely the moment when they are most needed. The noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, cited the ICAEW, and the Institute of Directors recently revealed that 72% of businesses believe this Bill will harm growth with 49%, so nearly half, saying they intend to hire fewer staff as a direct result.
Yet the Government insist that businesses will simply absorb these costs—a statement that is not only unrealistic but dismissive of the precarious financial position many small enterprises face. Larger firms may weather the storm but small businesses often survive on razor-thin margins, and their survival will come at the cost of lower wages, reduced opportunities, or a reluctance to hire new staff at all. The Office for Budget Responsibility has warned that these sweeping new regulations will likely have
“material, and probably net negative, economic impacts on employment, prices, and productivity”.
That, I fear, is masterly understatement.
Crucially, the Government have missed one vital fact—competition between employers, not simply regulation, best protects workers’ rights. Employers who want the most productive, loyal and committed workers must offer better pay and conditions to attract and then keep them. This natural market dynamic encourages fairness and opportunity far more effectively than heavy-handed mandates. This Bill would distort competition by imposing complex rules and costs that distract businesses from focusing on growth and innovation. Instead, they will divert precious resources into managing compliance and legal risk, and into erecting barriers rather than enabling opportunity. Ironically, this will lead to fewer businesses competing for talent and therefore fewer jobs being created.
The Government claim that these rules will improve job security and working conditions, but the reality is that the increased costs and risks will force many small businesses to rethink their hiring plans altogether. The FSB says so. They will either hold back on creating new jobs or cut existing ones, and some will reduce wages or cut hours to survive. The intended protections risk backfiring, making work less secure and less rewarding. Ultimately, the costs imposed by the Bill amount to a stealth tax that will fall directly on the workers themselves—an opportunity tax. Employers faced with higher compliance costs, the risk of costly tribunals and the restrictions on flexibility will have little choice but to pass these expenses down the chain. This means lower wages, fewer hours and fewer job opportunities, ensuring, paradoxically, that work simply does not pay.
I will say a quick word on my noble friend Lord Leigh’s Amendment 106. This Government like a consultation, but they have been unable to name any business they have consulted in relation to Part 1. My noble friend’s amendment is therefore elegant in its simplicity. It channels the Government’s enthusiasm and corrects their omission. I will support it if he chooses to divide. Finally, I remind the noble Lord, who I think is answering, that the noble Lord, Lord Howard, asked a very good question. Lest he has forgotten it, I would like to re-ask it.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Leong) (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. Amendment 94 from the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, would exempt specific groups from all or some of the provisions within Part 1. Since the 1980s, UK reforms have stripped back workers’ employment rights and turned the country into an outlier among advanced economies. The UK’s productivity has stalled more sharply than in other economies, with millions trapped in low-paid, insecure and poor-quality jobs. What is the result? Less money in working people’s pockets.
We are now paying the price. Millions of working people cannot afford basic living costs. In one of the world’s wealthiest nations, workers are still turning to food banks. Many cannot afford rent, let alone a mortgage. Morale is at rock bottom; motivation is vanishing. Average salaries have barely increased from where they were 14 years ago. The average worker would be over 40% better off if wages had continued to grow as they did leading into the 2008 financial crash, yet executive pay keeps climbing. In 2023 the average FTSE 100 CEO earned 118 times the pay of the median UK worker, up from 50 times in the late 1990s. This is not sustainable, not fair and no way to build a healthy, productive economy. The UK must stop treating worker protections as a drag on growth. They are the foundations of it.
More than 2 million people could benefit from guaranteed hours and rights to payment on zero-hours contracts. More than 9 million people would benefit from protections against unfair dismissal from day one. Up to 1.3 million employees will get a new entitlement to statutory sick pay. These new rights, entitlements and protections provide a baseline minimum standard for security and dignity at work. They should not be something the Government of the day can freely take away. Furthermore, exempting any category of person that the Secretary of State deems fit will ultimately create a two-tier system of employment rights based on the politics of the day. While I understand the noble Baroness’s intentions, I reiterate that these provisions were manifesto commitments.
Business confidence is at a nine-year high, according to the Lloyds Business Barometer—
Lord Leong (Lab)
Noble Lords opposite may laugh but this is the Lloyds Business Barometer, which I am sure many noble Lords across the aisle will know—with a second consecutive rise in workforce projections for the coming year. Deloitte recently ranked the UK as the joint top destination for investment.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
Before the noble Lord sits down, he has put up a heroic defence based on a variety of statistics, but is he aware of the latest survey from the ICAEW—the chartered accountants? It is regarded as very representative, surveying over 1,000 companies of various sizes. The survey shows the fourth quarterly decline in business confidence and that the expectations for employment are at their lowest level since the third quarter of 2020.
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, if the noble Lord starts throwing statistics around, I can throw statistics at him as well. As I said earlier, the Deloitte survey shows that the UK is the top destination for businesses. In fact, the Chancellor’s speech at Mansion House yesterday was very much welcomed by the City of London. All the financial services say that London will be the destination for fintech investment. Furthermore, KPMG’s recent consumer index says that people are feeling that they have more money in their pocket and are starting to plan holidays for the summer—good for them.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
I am sure the Minister will want to be very clear on this. I think the Deloitte survey he refers to was in respect of inward investment only, probably because the UK is regarded as a cheap place, given what has happened to us in the last month, whereas the chartered accountant survey is specifically on business confidence, which has fallen every quarter for the last four quarters. One wonders what happened four quarters ago to prompt that.
Lord Leong (Lab)
We got into government one year ago, after 14 years. Business confidence was very low then, and at the same time unemployment was on the rise. At the end of the day, we are making progress. The figures will take time to change, but I am confident that confidence will grow. Inward investment is coming in, which means more investment in business and growth. Furthermore, the FTSE index reached the 9,000 mark yesterday. What does that say? People have confidence to invest in British companies, so let us not talk down the economy.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I cannot let that pass. The noble Lord will know that the FTSE represents mostly foreign earnings. It is not a domestic index.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, which has covered quite a lot of ground. I cannot pretend to be anything but disappointed in the Minister’s response. In fact, the first chunk of his response seemed to be some kind of lesson in the socialist view of life and had nothing to do with any of the amendments. While I respect the Minister’s own business expertise, he does seem to demonstrate that this Government do not understand business and do not understand the key to successful economic management.
I was pleased to hear that my noble friend Lord Leigh of Hurley intends to test the opinion of the House. I hope my noble friends on the Front Bench will seek to do the same when we reach their amendments in their places on the Marshalled List.
I was of course disappointed, but not surprised, that the Minister was not prepared to accept my generous offer of a reserved power to create exemptions to get the Government out of trouble in due course. I hope they do not come to regret their decision. You can take a horse to water, but you cannot make it drink. I have taken the government horse to water, and it has refused to drink. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
The Deputy Speaker (Viscount Colville of Culross) (CB)
My Lords, I am informed that there was an error in the results announced for the first Division today. The correct results were content 304, not content 160.
Amendment 95
Baroness Kramer
“Protected disclosures and the Office of the Whistleblower(1) The Employment Rights Act 1996 is amended as follows.(2) For section 43A (meaning of “protected disclosure”) substitute—“43A Meaning of “protected disclosure”In this Act a “protected disclosure” means any disclosure of information which is made in the public interest to persons specified in section 43C(1), and which is a qualifying disclosure under section 43C(1), which relates to one or more of the matters in section 43B(1) and which relates to a circumstance which has occurred, is occurring or may occur.”(3) In section 43B (disclosures qualifying for protection), for subsection (1) substitute—“(1) In this Part, a qualifying disclosure means any disclosure of information which relates to—(a) a criminal offence or regulatory breach;(b) the failure of any person including a relevant person to comply with a legal obligation;(c) a miscarriage of justice;(d) the endangering of the health or safety of any person;(e) damage to the environment;(f) mismanagement of public funds;(g) misuse or abuse of authority;(h) such other matters as may be prescribed in regulations made by the Secretary of State;(i) concealment of information or removal or deletion or destruction of any documents relating to the above matters.”(4) In section 43C (disclosure to employer or other responsible person), for subsection (1) substitute—“(1) The persons referred to in section 43A are—(a) the Office of the Whistleblower;(b) a relevant person;(c) a person who, in the reasonable belief of the person making the disclosure is a relevant person;(d) a person to whom it is reasonable for the person making the disclosure to make that disclosure.”(5) After section 43C, insert the following new section—“43CA Disclosure to the Office of the Whistleblower(1) The Secretary of State must, by regulations made by statutory instrument, within one year after the day on which the Employment Rights Act 2025 is passed, establish a body corporate called the Office of the Whistleblower (hereafter referred to as “the Office”).(2) The principal duty of the Office is to protect whistleblowers and have oversight of the process of whistleblowing.(3) The functions of the Office are to—(a) set minimum standards for whistleblowing policies, procedures and reporting structures;(b) monitor and enforce compliance with those standards; (c) provide an independent disclosure and reporting service;(d) provide support for whistleblowers;(e) bring actions for the offence specified in subsection (6) including action notices, redress orders and interim relief orders which may be appealed to the First-tier Tribunal;(f) prevent the exercise of Confidentiality Agreements and Non-Disclosure Agreements except where non-disclosure is for purposes of commercial confidentiality orto provide whistleblower anonymity.(4) For the purposes of this Act, a person is a “whistleblower” if they are a worker who has made, makes or is intending to make a protected disclosure or is perceived by a relevant person to have made, be making or intend to make a protected disclosure, related to their employment.(5) Any whistleblower who is dismissed from their employment may refer their case to the Office of the Whistleblower, regardless of whether whistleblowing is cited as a cause of their dismissal.(6) A person who intentionally or recklessly submits a whistleblower to detriment is guilty of an offence.(7) For the purposes of this section, the maximum amount of the fine shall be—(a) in the case of an individual, 10% of their gross annual income, not exceeding £50,000;(b) in any other case, an amount not exceeding 10% of the entity’s annual global turnover.(8) Cases arising from subsection (6) are to be heard by the Employment Tribunal.(9) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.””Member's explanatory statement
This amendment establishes the Office of the Whistleblower to protect whistleblowers, oversee whistleblowing processes, and enforce compliance with reporting standards. It also allows dismissed whistleblowers to refer their cases to the Office and expands the definition of protected disclosures to cover various public interest concerns, including criminal offences and mismanagement of public funds.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, I will not move Amendment 95, but I take a different position on Amendment 96.
On Monday, the Government published their long-awaited Grant Thornton review of the existing whistleblower framework. Despite its narrow remit, the review is, frankly, jaw-dropping, and the Government have no choice now but to set in train fundamental reforms for the whole whistleblowing framework. It is in acknowledgement of the significance of that publication that I will not move Amendment 95.
Baroness Kramer
“Regulations to protect whistleblowers(1) The Secretary of State must, by regulations, make provision to—(a) extend the circumstances in which an employee is considered unfairly dismissed after making a protected disclosure, and(b) require employers to take reasonable steps to investigate any disclosure made to them under section 43C of the Employment Rights Act 1996.(2) Regulations made under subsection 1 apply to any employer with—(a) 50 or more employees,(b) an annual business turnover or annual balance sheet total of £10 million or more,(c) operations in financial services, or(d) vulnerabilities in other respects to money laundering or terrorist financing.(3) When making regulations under subsection (1)(b), the Secretary of State must set out in statutory guidance what “reasonable steps” should include.(4) The Secretary of State must make regulations under this section within six months of the day on which this Act is passed.(5) Regulations under this section are subject to the negative resolution procedure.”Member's explanatory statement
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to make regulations strengthening whistleblower protections by broadening unfair dismissal grounds and obliging certain employers to take reasonable steps to investigate protected disclosures.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
On this amendment, I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Baroness Grey-Thompson
“Serious childhood illness pay and leaveThe Secretary of State must, by regulations made by statutory instrument subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, amend section 171ZZ16 (entitlement) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 and section 80EF (neonatal care leave) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 so that the provisions in those sections extend to parents caring for a child up to the age of 16.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment introduces a right for parents to be absent from work for a prescribed period, and to be paid during that period at a prescribed rate, to care for a child between the ages of 29 days and 16 years who is receiving, or has received, specified types of medical or palliative care.
Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 97 in my name. First, I thank the Ministers for taking the time to meet to discuss this important matter, and specifically the noble Lord, Lord Katz, and his team, for meeting over the weekend.
This is a simple amendment about protecting the families of sick children. It is being called Hugh’s law. Hugh died of cancer at the age of six. His name is now etched into this amendment, not as a symbol but as a legacy. I would like to thank Hugh’s parents, Ceri and Frances, for being here again today. They are sitting in the Gallery, as they did in Committee.
Since Hugh’s death, his parents have devoted their lives to ensuring that no other family has to endure the trauma of watching their child suffer through endless treatments, sleeping on hospital floors with their life on pause, and without financial protection, job security or peace of mind. I cannot imagine anything worse than watching your child die and having to make the choice between being with them or potentially losing your home. This is an important time not just for parents but for siblings. I know that my noble friend Lady Finlay of Llandaff, who is unfortunately not able to be in her place today as she is attending a funeral, would have wanted to talk about the trauma and impact on the wider family situation.
In the time it will take us to complete this stage of the Bill, more than 1,000 parents across the UK will be told that their child has a life-threatening illness. Some will be in hospital for weeks; others, tragically, will never leave. Unlike most of us here today, Hugh’s parents do not have to imagine that moment; they have lived it. They know the unbearable fear, the crushing helplessness, and the impossible choice between work and being at their child’s bedside. They are campaigning for this because they know that the current system fails these families. It leaves them exposed, unsupported and forgotten by a framework that recognises the needs of newborns but not of children like Hugh, who were older than 29 days when they fell ill.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I rise briefly to offer the strongest possible Green support for this amendment, and the support of many others who cannot be here today. The noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, has outlined the reasons for this amendment very clearly, and I am just going to make a couple of additional points.
In many cases, the ability of parents to be at their child’s bedside acting as an advocate is crucial to ensuring that the child gets the best possible medical treatment. There is a profound inequality here if financial circumstances prevent parents being at the bedside, giving doctors and other carers information about their child’s health and the child themselves.
This amendment would also enable the parent to maintain contact with the workplace. Rather than having to give up their job and deal with the mess later, there would be a continuing relationship that would hopefully work out for the best if the child comes home and things go back to something like normal.
I join the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, in paying huge tribute to Ceri and Frances for the campaign they have run for Hugh’s law. As the noble Baroness said, this is very much a legacy. I have to say that I am very surprised, because this week the Government responded to a final plea to back it. I hope the Minister may be about to stand up and offer something different, but the email suggested that that is not what we are going to hear today.
The briefing from the Hugh’s law charity points out that, with GoFundMe, people have to appeal to the public to fund their support for their sick child, meaning that they have to expose their suffering and pain. Unless funds are strictly designated to pay for medical treatment, the parents are then not eligible for any of the later government assistance that the noble Baroness set out, such as universal credit. If they have money from the public to support them, that cuts off government support. That is not covered in this amendment but is something that the Government should look at to make sure that, if a family in deep distress receives donations, that should not stop them getting other support.
With those comments, I strongly support the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, and I know that many other Peers will, so I hope that we might hear something positive from the Government.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, I intervene briefly to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, for introducing the amendment. Anyone who heard the interview on Radio 4 this morning could not but have been moved by the circumstances that are the background to the amendment.
I speak as one who had the experience of losing two young children. At the age of two and three, our children, Alun and Geraint, were diagnosed with a life-terminating condition. It was the week in which the 1974 election had been called and my wife and I had to decide whether I should remain working in industry at Hoover in Merthyr Tydfil or to stand. The question was how on earth we were going to face the circumstances in which both our boys would live perhaps for five, 10 or 15 years, but one thing was certain: both my wife and I could not continue to work. Caring for two boys who had learning disabilities and were gradually able to walk less and less, until they could not walk at all, was an emotional as well as a physical and, potentially, a financial challenge, which is where the amendment is relevant.
We were unlucky, and the unluckiness was double, as I have described. My wife was also expecting our third child at the time and we did not know whether that child would be affected by this condition. Standing for election and being elected to represent Caernarfon in the House of Commons meant a 30% reduction in my salary. My wife, who was a professional musician—a harpist—would not be able to continue her career thereafter and would lose her earnings altogether. Had it not been for the availability of the then mobility allowance and attendance allowance, both of which it was possible to get at the highest level for both children, we would not have been able to employ someone to help us in order to give my wife some relief while I was down in London doing my work here.
That situation continued. We had two other children, our daughter Eluned, who was born in the June following that February—she was all right and was not affected by the condition—and our son Hywel, who was born two years later, was not affected by it. So we were blessed by having two children who were not affected. But we saw what the reality could be of the financial pressures that come from that double disability. If it had not been for my parents living next door—my father had just retired, on a good pension—we could not have survived. We were subsidised by my parents, who were retired and in their 60s, and, putting that together with the attendance allowance and the mobility allowance, we could eke the money out and make things practical.
I am telling your Lordships this by way of background—it is not something that I talk about very often in this House, but it is directly relevant to this amendment. There are countless families who face these circumstances without having the support that we were lucky enough to get. I am sure that people of all parties, across the House, want to build a system whereby no parents are put in a position where they cannot look after their child and keep enough money coming in to eke things out. I support the amendment and thank the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, for bringing it forward. I wish the family who have been the motivation for this amendment every strength in the challenges that they face.
Baroness Wyld (Con)
My Lords, I can add very little to what has been said, particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley. I know that this House will be grateful to him for sharing a painful story. I took the Neonatal Care (Leave and Pay) Act 2023 through your Lordships’ House. It was a real honour to do so. As I have said, when I met the parents who were campaigning, they were not asking for the world—they appreciated the fact that businesses needed us to be proportionate as policymakers. Equally, they made a powerful case for the difference that that Act would make. I am hugely grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, for building on that Act, and to Hugh’s family for their briefing and campaigning. I assure her of my support in the Lobby tonight.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
My Lords, I support the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson. I confess that at the beginning I was a little sceptical, not so much about the amendment but about the issue that the Government and every previous Government have faced of trying to control the benefits bill. It is not easy and, as this Government have just discovered, trying to remove two existing benefits has proved incredibly difficult. We are trying to reduce the percentage of our GDP that we spend and it is not easy if we cannot control benefits. The winter fuel payment and the disability payments have proved just how challenging this is.
However, the amendment has my support because, as the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, has explained very plainly, of the impact that this situation has on families, probably more on middle-income families who have less in savings than on other people. It is a relatively small amount of money—at £187, it is not a massive amount—but it could make a real difference to people who are already in the distressing situation of trying to care for their family while a child is in hospital. The total cost to the Exchequer is around £6 million to £8 million—it does not run into billions of pounds. It is something that we and the Government could support. The amendment certainly has my support in this change to help parents at a time that they most need it and when a child most needs it, too.
Lord Gascoigne (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my good friend, and I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, for bringing forward this amendment, which I proudly support. I am sure that I speak for everyone in the Chamber in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, for sharing his experience in an unbelievably emotional and powerful speech.
There has been much debate of late, as we have heard today, about the size and scale of the welfare state. There needs to be reform, as I think everyone accepts. The welfare state should be tough—indeed, it should be tougher—but it must also be compassionate to those who need it. I have not had direct experience and cannot comprehend the pain and agony of people who have been told that their children are seriously ill and require palliative care. There is then the impossible decision, as the noble Baroness said, of what to do about work. My noble friend Lady Wyld talked about the work she did, as we all did, and the amazing advances in neonatal care. This proposal is the next logical step —it builds on what we have already done.
The campaign group It’s Never You has done research highlighting the impact on parents and children: almost 90% of parents had to reduce their working hours or leave employment, and almost 80% noted the understandable effects on their mental health. Many studies link a pro-family environment with benefits not only to families but to businesses by contributing to high employee satisfaction, reduced turnover and increased productivity.
I know that there are those who have concerns about the growing size of the state. While this amendment is noble in itself, there are three other things to consider for those who may perceive it to be yet another endless cost among many. One is that the provision should be time-limited, considering a specific period in a poor family’s life. Secondly, it should be tightly defined to cover only up to a certain age limit, and specific care. Thirdly, and crucially, as has already been said, it is for those who cannot afford not to work, who will working and contributing again when the time is right.
As the noble Baroness said, this proposal stems from the tragic case of a young boy called Hugh who, sadly, died at the age of six from a rare form of cancer. This amendment is thanks to his remarkable and in many ways heroic parents and their family, who have campaigned and gained such support across the country. Alas, as has been noted, since Committee hundreds of families will have been given the ghastly news about their children and suffered their own agony and pain.
Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)
My Lords, I want to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Grey- Thompson, for introducing this amendment. I also want to thank the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, for the very powerful personal testimony he has given in this House. It is never easy; there is nothing more difficult for any parent than to walk the pathway of the serious illness or death of a child. In fact, at best it is often a very lonely pathway that lasts not simply until the time of the child’s passing, but for many years after.
This is a very compassionate amendment, and I trust that the House will support it. I am happy to support it if the noble Baroness puts it to a vote.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, I speak for these Benches in support of Amendment 97 from the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson. Noble Lords will remember that it was regrouped, and I referred to it in an earlier debate, as so many of these issues are interlinked. Rightly, it introduces a right for parents to take paid leave
“to care for a child between the ages of 29 days and 16 years who is receiving … specified types of medical or palliative care”.
The amendment is a valuable addition that recognises the significant demands placed on families caring for seriously ill children. I was amazed when I discovered that our laws provide only for parents of babies under 28 days via the neonatal care Act.
I found the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, very moving, and I thank him for sharing that sad history with us. This is a sad history, and we are just trying to put right the problems in some way. It has been referred to as Hugh’s law, after the child diagnosed with cancer, and I think that is how many of us will remember it.
Amendment 97 would close the gap and create a stand-alone entitlement, modelled on neonatal leave, to ensure that no parent is forced to choose between their child and their livelihood. The proposal, according to figures I have, would cost between just £6 million and £7 million a year, yet the difference it would make to families in crisis is immeasurable. It is targeted and reasonable, and it is a compassionate step forward to protect some of the most vulnerable working families in the UK. It is a positive and complementary amendment, and I commend it to the House.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their thoughtful contributions to this important debate. We are very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, for having raised what is a profoundly important issue, one that deserves very careful consideration by your Lordships’ House.
As my noble friend Lord Wigley reminded us, serious childhood illness places unimaginable strain on families, and it is not just a case of emotional turmoil. There are so many practical challenges as well, including hospital visits, overnight stays, unexpected emergencies and a need for sustained and focused care that no working parent can possibly schedule around.
I am pleased to say that many good employers already recognise this: in the most extreme circumstances, they show compassion and flexibility, ensuring that parents are not forced to choose between caring for a seriously ill child and retaining their job. At the heart of this is not only compassion but continuity. A child battling serious illness often requires a parent at their side, not occasionally but consistently. Without job protection and some form of financial support, the very people whom we would expect to be there—parents—may find themselves unable to be so.
Of course, any new entitlement must be, as the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, reminded us, designed carefully, with due attention to cost, clarity and implementation. Whereas on these Benches we do not take a fixed position on the amendment itself, I welcome the fact that it prompts us to engage seriously with a difficult but crucial area of employment and social policy.
I thank all those who have contributed to this important debate, and I hope that the Government will take from it not only a recognition of the challenge but a willingness to explore how it might be best addressed in law.
Lord Katz (Lab)
My Lords, this has been a powerful debate on Amendment 97, which seeks to introduce financial support and leave for the parents of seriously ill children, and I thank all noble Lords who participated in it. I pay particular tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, for sharing his painful and very personal story. It is clear that, even after a fair number of not just years but decades, the indelible mark of the pain that he and his partner and the rest of his family went through is still with him. On behalf of the whole House, I thank him for sharing that story.
I begin by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, for bringing this extremely important issue to the attention of your Lordships’ House. I pay tribute, as, I am sure, does every noble Lord who has spoken in this debate, to the excellent work done by Ceri and Frances Menai-Davis and their charity, It’s Never You, which provides vital support to the parents of seriously ill children. Ceri and Frances set up this charity in memory of their late son, Hugh, who died tragically in 2021 after battling a rare form of cancer. It’s Never You has worked with the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, to draft this amendment, and I know that Ceri and Frances have campaigned hard on this proposal to honour the memory of their son Hugh and to provide support to parents who face the same tragic circumstances that they did.
It is of course vital that parents be able to spend time at the bedside of their sick child without the fear of loss of employment or financial difficulties adding to a situation that can already be mentally overwhelming, isolating or physically draining, as the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, set out so well. One can only imagine the trauma of being in such a terrible situation. I say that one can imagine, but perhaps one can never really fully understand unless one is in that situation.
I know that this challenge has been raised previously in your Lordships’ House and in the other place, and I want to emphasise that the Government are keen to continue to look at the issue with the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, and It’s Never You. As the noble Baroness said, I have personally met Ceri and Frances several times already, and I have been struck by their selfless determination and resolve to provide for other parents what they did not have. We intend to continue this engagement. I want to ensure that parents of sick children are not ignored or left behind.
However, we do not believe that incorporating this amendment into the Bill would achieve this end, despite the very best of intentions with which it has been prepared. I will highlight three reasons for this.
First, we are concerned about the approach of amending the Neonatal Care (Leave and Pay) Act, which was taken through your Lordships’ House by the noble Baroness, Lady Wyld, as she set out a moment ago. Although the amendment rightly seeks to provide much-needed care to older children, it risks unintentionally undermining some fundamental principles of neonatal leave and pay, which were designed with the specific situation of newborns requiring medical care in mind. Much of the eligibility criteria for the leave and pay entitlements in the existing Act, for example, are connected to birth-related forms of leave, such as maternity and paternity, that simply would not apply to parents of other children. Similarly, the specific definition of “neonatal care” in the current Act has been carefully constructed through extensive consultation. Again, this amendment would require that to be overhauled, risking creating a gap in existing support.
Secondly, more detailed analysis is required to fully understand the total cost implications of this proposal. We need to understand how many parents may be eligible for support across England, Wales and Scotland, as well as the estimated take-up, familiarisation and business costs. Initially, external estimates suggest that the cost of this amendment could be in the low millions—the noble Lords, Lord Palmer and Lord Hogan-Howe, referred to that specifically—based on data from England only. However, those figures are likely to represent only a small proportion of all parents who may be eligible for support. The actual cost could be significantly higher, depending on how serious illness and other eligibility criteria are defined. Therefore, the overall financial impact will depend on the final definitions and scope used to determine eligibility.
Thirdly, it is also right that the Government consider other suggestions of support that have been put forward by parents who are put in this incredibly challenging and difficult situation, such as the right to a career break to enable parents to take an extended period of time out of work to provide care for a seriously ill child, as has been highlighted by Conservative MP Mark Francois in the other place and his constituent Christina Harris. It is right that the Government explore all proposals before proceeding to legislate in order to ensure good law—indeed, a workable law—and the very best outcome for parents, which I think we all, across the House, agree is needed.
The Government appreciate that there is a significant challenge to be addressed here, but more work needs to be done to understand the best approach and costs of tackling it. For instance, the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, raised GoFundMe and the way successful fundraising campaigns interact with the benefits system. That is undoubtedly an area that needs to be understood.
As the noble Lords, Lord Hogan-Howe and Lord Hunt of Wirral, said, we need to understand the costs, and to have clarity and full consideration. More work needs to be done to understand the best approach and the costs of tackling this issue and addressing it properly. However, I want to be very clear that we are listening, and I have been moved—as we all have—to hear of the distress caused by the incredibly challenging situation of serious childhood illness and the financial strain that comes with caring for a sick child.
The noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, asked for a way forward, and I hope noble Lords will take what I am about to say in the spirit intended. I make a commitment to the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, and to Ceri, Frances and It’s Never You, that we will consult on support for parents of seriously ill children, including the proposal for Hugh’s law, to gain views from all interested parties on the specifics of the support. We are doing this at pace—the consultation will run next year in 2026. We wish to continue working with It’s Never You, the noble Baroness and all noble Lords who are interested—having heard the debate this evening and the strength of opinion across the House—on this extremely important matter, as we further explore this proposal.
It is appropriate that we consult publicly and provide space to hear a range of views to ensure that we arrive at the most appropriate policy outcome. We want to do something that is right. We want to make sure we have a solution that sticks, is workable, and provides the support that so many parents need—indeed, that Ceri and Frances needed but did not have. It is important that we do not rush into it but have a considered approach. I therefore ask, while we undertake this consultation, that the noble Baroness withdraws Amendment 97.
Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)
My Lords, I thank all those who have contributed to the debate this evening and, very specifically, the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, for sharing his deeply personal and moving experience. What we sought to achieve with the amendment has been discussed at length. I appreciate that, but it was over many meetings. We asked several weeks ago for guidance if there were technical concerns. We got a response yesterday, which was very helpful, but I note that there is no indication within it that the amendment is inoperable, nor that these concerns could not be dealt with through the offer of a tidying-up amendment or, potentially, an alternative text at Third Reading. I welcome the opportunity to continue to discuss this and I do not wish to delay the House any further, but I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill
“Right to be accompanied by a certified professional companion(1) Section 10 of the Employment Relations Act 1999 (right to be accompanied) is amended as follows.(2) In subsection (3), after paragraph (b) insert— “(ba) a person who has been reasonably certified in writing by a professional body as having experience of, or as having received training in, acting as a worker’s companion at disciplinary or grievance hearings, or”.(3) After subsection (7) insert—“(8) In this section, “professional body” means any organisation which is authorised by regulations made by statutory instrument.”.(4) In section 42 of the Employment Relations Act 1999 (orders and regulations), after “3,” insert “10(8),”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause would expand the right to be accompanied by a certified companion at disciplinary and grievance hearings. It would also give the Secretary of State the power to authorise such bodies by regulation, subject to the affirmative procedure, thereby ensuring parliamentary oversight.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, currently only a fully certified trade union representative or a colleague has the statutory right to accompany an employee to a hearing. In practice, this leaves the vast majority of workers in the UK—77.7%—to navigate proceedings alone or, worse, to be accompanied by an inappropriate companion, who may frustrate the process or cause inadvertent detriment to the worker’s case.
We all receive briefings from numerous organisations, which contribute to our debate. The last one I received today was on this issue, so I read it to see how I could incorporate it in my speech. It was from the TUC and said that only the trade unions could possibly represent people, which confirms my words and adds weight to this amendment. An amendment to the Bill is desperately needed to guarantee that all workers, regardless of their membership of a trade union, enjoy the right to be accompanied by a dedicated and trained companion during workplace disputes. This would ensure transparency, fairness and due process, as trained companions ensure that both employees and employers have a robust safeguard against unfair treatment and misunderstanding.
This sensible amendment would give rights to people who are very often not in a trade union-recognised organisation. The trade unions can still represent, but they do not have to be the only people to represent. This amendment, I feel, fills that gap. I beg to move.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, Amendment 99 seeks to remove the restriction that only trade union representatives or a work colleague may accompany an employee to a disciplinary or grievance hearing. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, Lord Ashcombe and Lord Londesborough, for supporting what is a modest and practical but important change to employment law. It would give workers the right to be accompanied to a hearing by someone they trust, somebody of their choosing—perhaps a family friend, a carer or a person from the relevant industry. It is about fair play and equal treatment, ends a one-size-fits-all effective union monopoly and is simply empowering and modernising.
My amendment is similar to Amendment 98 proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, which would expand the list of those who could accompany workers to include trained and certified companions. I support the principle behind the noble Lord’s proposal but fear that its certification regime is unnecessarily complicated, could result in delays and inconsistencies and could create bureaucratic barriers, especially for staff cohorts such as young employees unfamiliar with the bureaucratic paraphernalia of such procedures.
Lord Ashcombe (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to these amendments, to which I have added by name. What we are dealing with here is a basic question of fairness. Currently, the law recognises the importance of accompaniment at disciplinary and grievance hearings, yet it narrowly limits who that companion can be. Unless an employee has a supportive colleague or is a trade union member, they face these often-daunting proceedings alone. This creates a two-tier system, as the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, mentioned. How can it be right that two workers in the same workplace facing the same process are given different statutory rights based solely on their union membership?
This is not a hypothetical issue. In reality, 78% of UK workers are not in a trade union, which means most cannot count on the support of a trained companion in these hearings. I have no objection to trade unions; I am not a trade unionist myself, but I reject the idea that statutory rights should be tied to union membership. I have yet to hear a convincing argument and defence of the current system. This is why I support these amendments. Both aim to fix this imbalance in different, practical ways.
Amendment 98 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, would widen the scope of acceptable companions. It would empower the Secretary of State to propose certifying bodies—for example, Edapt in the education sector—to approve trained companions, with Parliament having final say through secondary legislation via the affirmative procedure. This approach ensures fairness. Amendment 99 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, goes further, removing restrictions altogether and allowing the employee to choose their own companion. This gives power back to workers, who are best placed to decide who can support them.
We return to the core issue of fairness, which seems to have cropped up many times throughout this Bill—not only fairness for workers navigating difficult circumstances but fairness for employers, too, who would benefit from clearer, smoother processes and reduced risk of costly litigation. Ultimately, these are not radical proposals. The amendments are sensible adjustments that reflect the modern workplace and the real choices workers are making. As the Government’s document Next Steps to Make Work Pay rightly states,
“all workers should be able to enjoy fair rights and benefits”.
I hope that the House agrees.
Lord Londesborough (CB)
My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 99 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, which, to me, smacks of common sense, while also acknowledging that Amendment 98, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, is a step in the right direction.
For those of us who have conducted disciplinary and grievance hearings—as an employer, I have conducted my fair share over the years—these are often stressful, time-consuming and sometimes very divisive, not only for the employee but often for the employer, the manager and the other team members who are involved. An officious approach, in which only a trade union official may accompany the worker into the meeting, makes this situation, if anything, more adversarial, more us versus them and, in my view, less likely to lead to a sensible compromise that works for both parties. This is particularly the case for small and micro-businesses in which trade union representation is lower and the worker very often does not have that option. To widen it out to other members, colleagues, friends or even family members, as Amendment 99 states, seems to me a sensible move.
Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)
My Lords, I want to take this opportunity to correct what I think has been a mischaracterisation of the TUC briefing, which makes it very clear that the right to be accompanied includes, yes, trade union reps but also workmates. I also want to correct what is a misunderstanding of the spirit of the right to be accompanied, which was very much about dealing with grievances, disciplinaries and procedures within a workplace. Hence, when a union is recognised by the employer and the worker is a member of the union and chooses their union rep to represent them, that is a good thing. Our experience is that that is about resolving issues at an early stage. Likewise, a worker may choose a workmate to represent them—somebody inside the organisation who can take a practical, common-sense view of dealing with a grievance and disciplinary procedure.
During the debates on the Bill, we have heard a lot about the worries of ending up in employment tribunals, disputes being protracted and lawyers and others who maybe want to make a pretty penny from representing workers in trouble. Noble Lords will find that many employers, like workers, want to keep resolution of those issues within the workplace because that is often the quickest, more effective and cheapest way that everybody concerned can sort out problems when they arise. Surely it is in resolving issues that we should all share an interest.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
I rise to say simply that, in my experience, I have found that employees want to bring with them family members, often parents—particularly women want to bring a parent—and I am not sure that this will allow that anymore.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, and the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, for their amendments and their introductions. I speak strongly in favour of these amendments, which address a crucial gap in the rights currently afforded to workers.
At its core, this is about fairness, autonomy and dignity; it is about giving working people real choice and a real voice when it matters the most. As we have heard, under the current law, a worker facing a disciplinary or grievance hearing has the right to be accompanied, but only by a fellow worker or a trade union representative. What of the workers who are not in the union, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, and my noble friend Lord Ashcombe pointed out, is most of them? What of those who work in small businesses, where asking a colleague to attend is uncomfortable or perhaps even counterproductive? What of those sectors in which peer support simply is not realistic? We must not confine workers to a narrow and outdated list of whom they are allowed to bring into the room at a time of maximum stress and uncertainty. As the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, so powerfully illustrated with her real-world examples, that causes problems.
This amendment would bring common sense, compassion and modern flexibility into law. This is about worker autonomy, trusting people to decide whom they need in the room with them. If we are truly to modernise employment rights, either amendment should be accepted.
Lord Katz (Lab)
My Lords, this has been a useful debate on Amendments 98 and 99, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley.
On Amendment 98, the law already provides that when workers are invited to attend a disciplinary and grievance hearing, they are entitled to bring a companion who is either a fellow worker, an official employed by a trade union or a workplace trade union representative who the union has reasonably certified as having received training in acting as a worker’s companion at a disciplinary or grievance hearing.
As we have heard, and perhaps in response to the critique by the noble Lord, Lord Ashcombe, employers can allow workers to be accompanied by a companion who does not fall within the above categories. Some workers may have a contractual right to be accompanied by persons other than those listed—for instance, a professional sports body, partner, spouse or legal representative.
As my noble friend Lady O’Grady of Upper Holloway helpfully reminded us, the existing legislative provisions seek to keep disciplinary and grievance procedures internal to workplaces to better ensure that the heat is taken out of the situation and that they are used as conciliatory opportunities to resolve tensions and maintain a good employer-worker relationship. As my noble friend said, this could involve a workmate who knows the context of the situation, understands the employment —and probably both parties to the grievance—and can provide real insight to the situation and focused support.
The inclusion of professional bodies, which may include legal representation in the legislation, may jeopardise the involved parties’ ability to engage in amicable conversation, with the concern that discussion may be significantly restrained as a result, with neither party willing to accept fault. The Government are rightly concerned that this will result in an increased likelihood of a failure to reach a suitable outcome for both the worker and employer. As my noble friend Lady O’Grady said, we want systems in place that are quicker, cheaper and more effective at reaching resolutions.
However, this in turn, as part of the proposal, would increase the cost of hearings for both parties, as the processes and the meetings themselves become more protracted and reduce the chances of a mutually beneficial outcome. The involvement of legal representatives may be particularly costly for smaller businesses, which may not have legal resources readily available—we have heard much already today, if not in previous debates in Committee and on Report, about that issue. Additionally, the introduction of legal expertise at these hearings may limit the ability of ACAS to mediate an ongoing dispute, as legal arguments may already have been heard during an internal hearing. It is worth noting that an amicable solution between the parties is the fastest way to deliver justice and the amendment may have the inadvertent effect of increasing the likelihood of tribunal claims being made, although of course that is not its intention.
Of course I understand that certain organisations, including those that provide legal services, would benefit. However, as previously noted when discussing similar amendments, an employer already has the existing ability to nominate an organisation to accompany their workers if they set this out in the workers’ terms and conditions. This is a solution in search of a problem. ACAS estimates that there are 1.7 million formal disciplinary cases in UK organisations each year.
It is rare that I ever say this, let alone from the Dispatch Box, but I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, in that the approach taken by the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, in his amendment would be unduly cumbersome. It would complicate a law that has been in place for over 20 years and, if accepted, will require that the employer checks secondary legislation for every case to see who is a responsible body and whether the individual has been certified as having been trained. These are additional administrative burdens that the Government are keen to avoid. Indeed, the Opposition Front Bench has been keen to point out when they see fault in our proposals in other places—erroneously, I should add.
On Amendment 99, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, the Government believe that strong trade unions are essential for tackling insecurity, inequality, discrimination, enforcement and low pay. If Amendment 98 was a solution in search of a problem, Amendment 99 is an opportunity for the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, to bash a problem, in her view—namely, trade unions.
I am a former trade union official. I have also worked in a number of private sector roles as a manager. Unions are a good part of our industrial landscape, as we have heard across the House. I join with others across the House in saying that it would better if more people were members of trade unions. They are far from perfect, but although the cases that the noble Baroness raises undeniably raise issues about the trade unions she talked about, they do not undermine the day-to-day work of many trade unions and, in particular, of trade union reps. In the workplace, day in, day out and across the country, they work with employees and businesses to make workplaces safer, to ensure that employees are properly educated and skilled, and to help those employees access their rights at work, which we deem fair and necessary.
Trade unions have an important role to play in supporting workers during the process of a disciplinary or grievance hearing. Union officials allowed to accompany a worker, as prescribed in the existing framework, must be certified as having received training in acting as a worker’s companion at disciplinary and grievance hearings. By opening this role up to anyone the worker chooses, the amendment risks introducing individuals into the disciplinary and grievance hearings process who are not familiar with the workplace in question or, indeed, with the employment rights framework.
As I noted when speaking to the previous amendment, this is again likely to lead to a reduced likelihood of successful mediation of these disputes. The role of the recognised union representative allows the relationship between the employer and representative to be developed over time, thus increasing the likelihood of an amicable solution that does not go to a full legal process. This amendment could lead to the involvement of a family member or friend in disciplinary grievance proceedings, which may, in practice, cause more problems than solutions, given the sensitive nature of such a personal relationship.
In closing, it is unclear to the Government where the demand for expanding this right is coming from and which workplaces specifically would benefit. In the consultations we have undertaken in government and prior to being elected, with both businesses and trade unions, the need to expand this right has not featured from either side in the workplace.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
I think the Minister may have answered his own question there, because if the consultation was with trade unionists about whether there was any need for non-trade unionists to go in, then they would give you one answer. I want to clarify one thing: it is true that I have never been a trade union official, but I have been a rank and file trade union member for decades. I am not anti-trade union, but I do not think the world stops and starts at trade unions.
I want to ask the Minister whether he understands that, at the moment, the statutory right to be accompanied by a trade union official is not in-house. The way the law is phrased is that any trade union official, even one from a union that you have never joined and from a completely unrelated sector, can accompany you—that is the way the law is. I wanted to know whether that is fair or whether that wording could change. What is wrong with, say, a Citizens Advice caseworker or what have you? The numbers of people who are in the trade unions just do not tally for people to be accompanied fairly at the moment. Unless there is an 80% increase in trade union membership, it is obviously two-tier and discriminatory at present.
Lord Katz (Lab)
To respond to the first point the noble Baroness made, perhaps I did not enunciate clearly enough, but I said that in the consultation the demand for change did not come from either trade unions or employers.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
This is the final word. This is not a trade union rights Bill; this is the Employment Rights Bill. It is casually known as the workers’ rights Bill. There are millions of workers who are not in trade unions for a variety of reasons, including your own Minister Angela Rayner, as I just noted. I simply suggest that when you ask employers or trade unionists whether there is a demand for this then rank and file workers are being ignored. I suggest that you acknowledge and empower them.
Baroness Nichols of Selby (Lab)
My Lords, I just want to put the record straight, because we have heard much about the Deputy Prime Minister not being in a union. She is in a union. She is in the union called UNISON and has been for a number of years. I did not want noble Lords to go home tonight thinking that no one would represent the Deputy Prime Minister.
Lord Katz (Lab)
I thank my noble friend Lady of Nichols of Selby for that helpful clarification. I thought that was the case, but I am glad that she made it. She is in a far better position than I am to talk about UNISON and its membership.
In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, I want to be clear that this issue has not come up in all the consultations we have undertaken, with a wide variety of stakeholders. It is not that I am saying, “We talked to some trade unions and, guess what, they’re quite happy with the status quo”. Genuinely, this issue has not come up. Simply, this is not an issue for workplaces. That is why I described it—
Lord Ashcombe (Con)
Does the Minister understand that there is a two-tier system here? If you are a trade unionist you can have somewhat more professional attendance than somebody who is not a trade unionist. That is what is important.
Lord Katz (Lab)
To be clear, if there is a recognised trade union or you are a member of a trade union then you can take a trade union representative, but you also have the right to be accompanied by a workmate. If you are a member of a trade union, you do not need to take that trade union representative along; you could have a workmate come along. If responsible employers want to have more flexibility, they can write this into their terms and conditions. There is nothing to stop people doing that. That is why I suggested, to again use the phrase, that the solution to such a problem is not something we really need to respond to in the legislation because it might create unintended consequences and, in terms of the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, unfair administrative burdens on employers. Therefore, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw Amendment 98.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, we have had some very interesting comments here from various people. I remind noble Lords that all we are saying is that people should have a choice. They could have a trade union representative, fine, but 77.7% of people are in firms that do not have a trade union. But if there was a trade union, that is fine.
The alternative is that, as the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, said, you could have a fellow worker. But the point of the amendment is that we are saying that the workers need to have a trained person to represent them. It can be a trade unionist—that is fine—but, if it is not, it will be like when a person goes to the solicitor at the end of the road and gets him to represent them on a complicated issue: he is the wrong person to represent them on that issue. You have to have someone who has some training. The trade unionists have the training, but they do not represent everybody. We are saying that the person who is seeking help should have someone who is trained.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, for what she said; I gather, from having spoken to her, that she will support the amendment in my name. Bearing in mind the lateness of the hour, I would like to test the feelings of the House.
Baroness Penn
“Statutory parental leave: length and pay(1) The Secretary of State must lay a comprehensive review of all statutory parental leave before Parliament by no later than 1 January 2027.(2) Within six months of the publication of the review set out in subsection (1),the Secretary of State must by regulations increase the rate of pay for statutory parental leave and pay available to fathers and second parents in the first year after their child is born.(3) By 1 January 2030, the Secretary of State must by further regulations provide for at least six weeks of non-transferable paid leave to be paid to fathers and second parents in the first year after their child is born. (4) Regulations under subsection (3) must be set as a minimum at the level of—(a) 90% of a father’s salary, or(b) the level of median gross full-time employee earnings in the United Kingdom, defined by the ONS Annual Survey for Hours and Earnings,whichever is lower.(5) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to improve the length and pay of leave for fathers in line with recommendations from the Women and Equalities Select Committee report ‘Equality at Work: Paternity and Shared Parental Leave’.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, and the noble Lords, Lord Palmer and Lord Hampton, for their support, and all noble Lords who have spoken in this Chamber or outside of it in favour of improving leave for new fathers. I also have Amendments 101 and 102 in this group, the arguments in favour of which have not changed since Committee, but for reasons of time I shall focus on Amendment 100.
Since Committee, the Government have launched their review into parental leave. At the launch, the Business Secretary acknowledged the arguments that I am making today, saying that only about one in three new dads takes paternity leave, mainly for financial reasons, and committed:
“This review is our chance to reset the system and build something that works for modern families and businesses”.
The Government say that they want to fix the system and that part of what is broken is the low level of paternity pay available. It is logical, therefore, that any solution would address this. That is all that my amendment seeks to do.
First, my amendment would ensure that there are no further delays to this work. Given that it was meant to be completed within the Government’s first year, it is reasonable for the amendment to commit the Government to its new timeline of completing the work 18 months from now. However, for a review to be of any value, it must lead to action, so this amendment commits the Government to improving paternity leave once the review is completed, reaching a minimum of six weeks at 90% of pay, with a cap, by the end of this Parliament, in line with the key recommendation of the Labour-chaired Women and Equalities Committee, which has considered this issue carefully and in detail.
Such a commitment does not pre-empt the review. If the purpose of the review is to improve the system that we have, then this is the number one way in which it needs to change. It leaves open the question of how to do this, whether through increasing paternity leave or changing shared parental leave, so that it actually works for families. However, there is no point to a review if it does not lead to change.
The reason I am pressing the Government so hard for action—not just warm words—is that, each year we delay, more than half a million fathers and second parents are welcoming a new baby into their family without the ability to properly bond with their child or support their partner. Working on this amendment, I have spoken to too many fathers who have been heartbroken at having to return to work when they could see their partner struggling, physically after a c-section or traumatic birth or mentally with the brutality of postnatal depression. I have also spoken to fathers whose own mental health has suffered, leaving them struggling to meet their obligations to their family and to their employer, as well as safeguard their own well- being. The first year of a child’s life is one of the highest risks to relationship breakdown, and yet we give families just two weeks to adjust to the arrival of a new baby.
The social policy reasons for improving paternity leave go on and on. More engaged fathers in the early weeks and years lead to more engaged parenting in the long term, affecting children’s outcomes socially and academically.
I acknowledge the concern at the heart of the Bill about its impact on employers and growth. I have spent the weeks since Committee engaging with businesses and business organisations. I will not pretend that all businesses welcome this proposal without any reservations. They have to think about the impact it will have on covering absences, their productivity, their other staff and their bottom line. But despite these concerns, they have all seen the value in improving paternity leave for their employees, who are able to make the transition to parenthood more successfully, but also for their business in terms of recruitment, retention and productivity of employees.
That is why those who can afford to already offer enhanced leave to fathers. More than 180 organisations in the UK already offer at least six weeks at 100% of pay. Smaller businesses, reliant on a government rebate from the statutory scheme to cover the costs, cannot afford to expand their offer without that support. That means the cost of any expansion to paternity leave must be covered by the Government and therefore the taxpayer. In the current fiscal context, that is not something I take lightly, but we have overwhelming evidence that the benefits will outweigh the costs. Increasing paternity leave to just six weeks at an adequate rate of pay leads to a significant change in caring dynamics within a couple when they have children. That shift enables more women to make the choice to return to work or to work more hours.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, for building on the amendments that she and I tabled in Committee. I will speak to Amendment 100, to which I have added my name, but will not repeat the case I made in Committee. No doubt my noble friend the Minister will say that the amendment is unnecessary now that the Government have published their review of parental leave and pay, and that we should not pre-empt that review. I understand that and preface my remarks by saying how much I welcome that review, which I think will meet the warning of the Women and Equalities Committee that it must not lead
“only to tinkering around the edges”.
We are promised a comprehensive review, and comprehensive and fundamental it needs to be if it is to live up to the Prime Minister’s claim that it represents a landmark moment.
This amendment serves a purpose in holding the Government’s feet to the fire by putting their own timeline into legislation. Really, six weeks of paid leave for fathers at the same rate as statutory maternity pay is the minimum we should expect. A recent policy briefing from the Institute for Policy Research at the University of Bath concluded that this change would represent an
“important first step in delivering change”
and would be crucial to improving fathers’ take-up of the leave. It suggested that
“based on evidence from other countries the labour market benefits are judged to be most likely to materialise in case of sequential rather than simultaneous take-up of some of the leave by fathers”—
in other words, allowing the mother to return to work if she so wishes while giving the father the chance to take sole responsibility for the care of their child while she is at work. The amendment leaves open whether the additional four weeks would be part of paternity or parental leave. Personally I prefer the latter as it is more likely to encourage sequential take-up by separating out the caregiving function of parental leave from the health and safety function of maternity/paternity leave.
One of the very encouraging aspects of our debate in Committee was the dads’ army from around the House supporting a better deal for fathers. While the prospectus for the government review is very positive, I thought it could have gone further to include greater gender equality as one of its objectives, reflecting the clear messages from your Lordships’ House that a better deal for fathers would help fathers to be fathers and improve mothers’ labour market position. I was pleased to read that the Secretary of State, Jonathan Reynolds, told the Times:
“I would like it to be culturally very much accepted, that as a new dad you would be wanting to spend some proper time at home. I think that would be really positive for society as well”.
His reference to culture was important. Indeed, in the debate on the Statement, Minister Mather talked about the cultural shift that we need to see. It is important that the review looks at how the Government and others can encourage such a cultural shift. One of the lessons from the Nordic experience is that for changes in parental leave to have their full effect, there needs to be cultural change in the workplace, among employers in particular.
I welcome the fact that the call for evidence states that the Government would like to test whether the objectives set for the review are the right ones. This suggests an admirable open-mindedness, and I hope therefore that the Government will be open to adding the objective of greater gender equality to the benefit of both women and men.
There is a practical question about the review. We have heard that it will take 18 months followed by the publication of a set of findings and a road map, including the next steps of taking forward any potential reforms to implementation. It is not clear to me whether there will be further consultation on the proposals at this stage. Can my noble friend please clarify that? If there is to be a further round of consultation, when do the Government envisage any reforms finally being implemented? I hope it will be possible for the Government to make a practical commitment so that it will not be necessary for the noble Baroness to call a vote.
Lord Aberdare (CB)
My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend Lord Hampton, who added his name to this amendment but is unable to be here, I will speak in support of Amendment 100. I will be brief as the noble Baronesses, Lady Penn and Lady Lister, have already set out the case for the amendment so comprehensively and so powerfully. I am more than likely to get parental and paternal confused at some point in my speech, but I will try to avoid that. Sadly, I am well beyond the age when increased paternal leave might be relevant to me, and even grandpaternal leave would be unlikely to help.
The amendment addresses an important issue, not least when the UK has the least generous paternity leave in Europe. Many men currently lack either the option or the financial resources to take an adequate period of leave to learn parenting skills, support their partners and bond with their new children. There is no point at all in making leave available if many families cannot afford to take it.
The Government’s review into parental leave and their desire to improve the system are welcome but, as the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, has said, the review must lead to action. We have heard evidence of the financial benefits for businesses, as well as the economy as a whole, and I will not repeat those, but in addition there are significant social benefits, including better mental health outcomes, better relationships between family members and more engaged and loyal workers. All those benefits would come at a relatively modest net cost.
The amendment starts from the Government’s own aims and sets out the action needed to achieve them through regulations to deliver a new paternal leave regime in terms of the length and rate of pay for statutory paternal leave, in line with the recommendations of the Women and Equalities Select Committee and within a clear timescale consistent with stated government goals. As we have heard, that does not pre-empt the findings of the very welcome review.
The amendment seems to represent a win for the Government, for the economy, for society and, above all, for individual families—mothers as much as fathers, and their children. I very much hope to hear a positive response from the Minister.
Lord Harlech (Con)
My Lords, I support Amendments 100, 101 and 102 in the name of my noble friend Lady Penn and I declare my interest as the father of a six-month old son. This package of amendments has the potential to transform the lives of families, children and fathers. Polling this year by the charities Dad Shift and Movember found that 45% of new fathers experienced multiple symptoms of depression in their child’s first year. We do not speak of this as a national mental health emergency, but it is. Fathers are not just facing financial pressure; they are being denied time to bond with their children, to adjust to fatherhood and to share care equally with their partners. It can be deeply isolating.
I think of my own experiences as a new father. Mother and child should rightly be the priority for healthcare professionals. I am not saying that fathers should be the priority, but they should not be seen as the enemy either. Not once on any visits to or from midwives or community caregivers did anyone ask how I was coping. What do fathers say would make the biggest difference? Not counselling, not hotlines, but time. Some 82% of surveyed fathers say the single most effective thing the Government could do to improve their mental health is to increase paid and protected paternity leave.
Longer paternity leave is associated with better mental health in fathers. Studies show that fathers who are present from the earliest days develop deeper emotional bonds with their children and become more engaged parents over the long term. As we have heard, this disparity does not hurt just fathers; it hurts mothers too. Evidence confirms that countries with higher levels of paternity leave experience lower levels of maternal postnatal depression. When fathers share the load, mothers recover more fully, return to work more easily and experience fewer long-term career penalties. The current disparity hurts children. A 2025 study in the American Journal of Preventative Medicine found that children of fathers with poor mental health are more likely to develop behavioural problems at school. So, this is a childhood developmental issue, a school issue, and ultimately a public spending issue.
We have heard the arguments that this is pro-business, so I will not repeat them now in the interest of time, but the mental health crisis among men is real. Suicide remains the leading cause of death for men under 50 in the UK. We do not know how many of those male deaths by suicide involve fathers, because the ONS does not collect that data. My question for the Minister is: will this data be collected as part of the review? If we are serious about tackling the male suicide epidemic—not just treating it but preventing it—this is one of the most direct and evidence-based tools at our disposal. Fatherhood should not begin in burnout and guilt; it should begin with time, presence and love. I urge noble Lords to support these amendments.
Lord Jones of Penybont (Lab)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 100. I was born in 1967. My mother received a less than generous 12 weeks of paid maternity leave. I was born with a condition that required me to have physiotherapy twice a day every day for the first two years of my life. To save me having to go to the hospital every single day, my father volunteered to be trained in that physiotherapy, and he was not entitled to time off to do that. He did it anyway and he is the reason why I am able to stand straight in this Chamber today. Paternity leave would have been thought of as some kind of dangerous idea in those days, no doubt.
When our children arrived at the beginning of this century, my wife got extended leave—paid leave of course. I was a young and ambitious Minister at the time, keen to please my then boss, the First Minister, so I took no leave at all. Even then, there was no talk of paternity leave; you were expected to get on with it. I missed out on the early months of my children’s life in our family—something they, as teenagers, often reminded me of, usually asking for money at the same time.
I cannot support the amendment because it is too prescriptive, in my view, but it seeks to address important issues. I ask my noble friend the Minister to consider these three questions in her response. I very much welcome the review the Government have announced, and we know that its timescale will be some 18 months. When is the review due to start? Will any documentation be published beforehand so we are able to see the remit and terms of reference of that review? Will those documents be laid before Parliament? We are a long way behind the European norm when it comes to paternity leave. We owe it to so many families up and down the length and breadth of this land to continue to address this issue, and I look forward to the response from my noble friend the Minister.
Baroness Sugg (Con)
My Lords, I will speak very briefly to support Amendment 100. My noble friend Lady Penn and other noble Lords have made the case for this amendment clearly and compellingly. We have heard that better paternity leave can help increase women’s labour force participation and about the other benefits to the economy, and I would just like to add one more. It would also help to narrow the stubborn gender pay gap, which was still at 13.1% in 2024. I hope that all noble Lords would support narrowing that, but at our trajectory we will not reach gender parity for several decades without systemic change. If this amendment passes, it can be part of that change. Analysis of OECD data shows that countries that have more than six weeks paternity leave have a four percentage point smaller gender wage gap than those that do not. I hope that noble Lords from all sides will support this amendment.
Lord Mott (Con)
My Lords, I add my support for Amendment 100 from my noble friend Lady Penn. I will be brief. The thing that struck me most about my noble friend Lord Harlech’s comments is that when I first returned to work after the birth of my first child, having taken two weeks’ paternity leave, I went back with a feeling of guilt. If this amendment does anything, it takes away that guilt that many new fathers feel after the birth of their first child and their return to work.
Lord Bailey of Paddington (Con)
My Lords, I support Amendment 100 from my noble friend Lady Penn. I want to focus on the societal and class element of this. I come from a community that has some of the poorest social outcomes in the whole of Europe. One of the features of my community is the lack of a father in the home. I have watched my community struggle for multiple generations with the reality of that—poor educational outcomes and lots of prison attendance by fathers and by children who are unattended. This is an opportunity to reverse many of the social challenges that we face, in one fell swoop. If the Government are serious about addressing child poverty and helping the poorest working communities in this country, levelling up paternal leave would be such a profound thing to do.
I have been a youth worker for over 38 years and one of the things that I ran was a single parent group with over 200 members. When you spoke to the young men involved, they all talked about a lack of connection to their family. If we can help to repair that, we can start to get into why our children fail so badly in school, why they spend so much time in prison and why their behaviour is so challenging in a school environment. The Government have a real opportunity to do this here. The economic impact of not doing this is significantly more than the tiny difference it will make economically to do it. This is a real opportunity for the Government to make a real impact for the poorest communities in this country. I beg that it happens.
Lord Ashcombe (Con)
My Lords, I, too, support my noble friend. In my view, these proposals are long overdue. When my children were born in the 1990s, paternity leave was not even part of the conversation. Much has changed but the statutory provision for paternity leave, currently just two weeks, still reflects a significant imbalance in the pursuit of gender equality. I am fortunate to work for the same employer— Marsh Ltd, the insurance broker—as I did at that time. It now offers 16 weeks’ paternity leave, to be taken within the first year after the child’s birth.
We have heard that the UK ranking in international standards is low. For many fathers, especially as household costs rise, taking time off is simply not financially viable, even if permitted. Better paternity leave benefits everyone: fathers; mothers; the child; the other children, if there are any; and, in the long term, the economy, as we have heard.
Although I recognise that the four months offered by my company may not be realistic for all, particularly SMEs, we must aim for a fair balance between the business realities and family needs. Research shows that around six weeks of leave is the point at which the broadest benefits are achieved, as proposed in Amendment 100. I believe that this is a reasonable balance and would make paternity leave viable for most fathers.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, I have signed this amendment in support of the noble Baroness, Lady Penn. I will not add to what many noble Lords have said, but I want to deal with one point.
The noble Lord, Lord Jones, talked about being too prescriptive. We need such prescription to help new fathers. The idea that this is mind-boggling is ridiculous. It would extend paternity leave from two weeks to six weeks, at 90% of pay. We are not talking about a revolution. We are talking about a modest increase to make some connection between fathers and their children in their very early years. It is needed, because the UK has the least generous paternity leave in Europe. It is good for fathers, bonding and mental health. It supports mothers, with a more equal division of care, and it is good for children’s development. It supports business, because employees will be happier, more contented and not stressed with trying to get back to the family home and their young children. This is not revolutionary. This is a modest step forward. I was delighted to be able to sign the amendment of the noble Baroness Penn, which we on these Benches support.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Penn for bringing forward this amendment, which raises matters of genuine importance to families, working parents and, frankly, society as a whole.
The arguments that my noble friend has made for extending non-transferable paid leave for fathers and second parents is a serious and well-intentioned one. A more balanced system of leave can play a role in promoting gender equality, increasing participation in the labour market and supporting children in their earliest years. As my noble friend explained, it is therefore good for fathers, mothers and children.
I wholeheartedly agree that we should continue to review and refine our parental leave system so that it remains fit for the realities of modern working life. The commitment in proposed new subsection (1) to a comprehensive review is, in itself, a sensible and comprehensive step. I note that this was a manifesto commitment that should have been completed by now, yet the Government are only just starting it. Given the Government’s enthusiasm for consultation, that seems curious to say the least.
We must recognise and acknowledge the broader context in which we find ourselves. The Employment Rights Bill, as it stands, already promises to impose significant new obligations on businesses, at a time when many are still struggling with the increase to employer national insurance contributions, the Government’s constant U-turns, inflation and ongoing global economic uncertainty. Frankly, the Government have asked a great deal of British businesses in the last year—too much, in the view of many—and the effect of these measures has been entirely negative, undermining growth, reducing our competitiveness and rapidly stifling job creation, especially at the margins. If the Government were to think again and accept some of our perfectly reasonable amendments—on the right to request an unfair dismissal, for example—it would be easier to argue in favour of amendments such as this, which could be implemented after careful consultation with business.
While the intentions behind this amendment are commendable and there is certainly room for discussion about the long-term evolution of paternity and shared parental leave, without wider changes from the Government to their most damning plans, this is not the time, nor the Bill, in which to make these commitments. However, I hope the Government will continue to engage seriously with the questions and the comprehensive arguments advanced by my noble friend, and that we will revisit them in a context that allows for a comprehensive economic and perhaps demographic evaluation, along with genuine and meaningful consultation with businesses of all sizes and shapes, and indeed wider society as a whole.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, this has been an important debate on the issue of parental leave and pay. It has been wonderful to hear consensus on how important some of these fundamental issues are to individuals and to our society. I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Newcastle, the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, and my noble friend Lady Lister for their prior engagement on these important issues. The noble Baroness, Lady Penn, spoke eloquently and with conviction on these matters. I assure her that it is a conviction that I and the Government share.
We need to reform our confusing patchwork of parental leave and pay rights so that they are fit for a modern economy and deliver the wider societal benefits that noble Lords have raised in this debate. The Government are committed to making life better for families and we know that the current system needs improvement. This is why, through this Bill, we are making paternity leave and parental leave day-one rights, meaning that employees will be eligible to give notice of their intent to take leave from the first day of their employment. This brings these entitlements in line with maternity leave and adoption leave, simplifying the system. We are removing restriction preventing paternity leave and pay being taken after shared parental leave and pay to further support working parents in accessing these entitlements. Crucially, the changes in this Bill are not the limit of our ambitions.
Moving specifically to the amendments, Amendment 100 was tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Penn. While I appreciate what the noble Baroness is attempting in her amendment, I regret that the Government cannot accept it. Let me reassure her that work is already under way to deliver on the spirit of her amendment. Since Committee, the Government have delivered on their manifesto commitment to launch their parental leave review. In doing so, they have listened carefully to concerns raised by noble Lords and stakeholders as to the details and scope of that review.
To answer the questions from a number of noble Lords, the published terms of reference make it clear that all current and upcoming parental leave and pay entitlements will be in scope of the review. The review gives us a chance to consider what we want the system to achieve, while giving due consideration to balancing costs and benefits to families, businesses and the Exchequer. As stated in the published terms of reference, we expect the review to run for 18 months. This will conclude with the Government producing a set of findings and a road map, including next steps for taking the reforms forward to implementation.
In response to my noble friend Lady Lister, we will want to engage and consult with stakeholders throughout that process to inform the conclusions of our work. In response to my noble friend Lord Jones, the call for evidence is already live; it began on 1 July.
I stress that the fact that the review is a manifesto commitment underlines the seriousness with which we are taking it and our obligation to act on its conclusions. However, we cannot predetermine the outcome of the review, nor can we justify the proposed cost increase without a thorough evidence-based assessment. This is why we cannot accept an amendment that would place a duty on the Secretary of State to lay regulations that would almost quadruple the rate and triple the length of paternity pay from current levels.
Amendment 102 seeks to make paternity pay a day-one right for all employees by removing the current continuity of working requirements. I reassure all noble Lords that we understand the importance of fathers and partners having time away from work to support their partner and to be with their developing family. As we have heard, the Secretary of State at the Department of Business and Trade recently met with Dad Shift and others at the launch of the review to hear first hand about their campaign. We are determined to do everything we can to encourage proper shared parenting for the improved well-being of both the parents and the children involved.
While we are removing the qualifying period for paternity leave to make it a day-one right, statutory pay remains conditional on an average earnings test and a requirement to work for the same employer for 26 continuous weeks. This is standard across all statutory parental pay work entitlements, including maternity pay. The only exception is maternity allowance, which is a benefit, not a work entitlement. Maternity allowance is designed to support health and recovery following childbirth for those who do not qualify for maternity pay.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, given the hour, I shall be brief. The Minister said that the Government have delivered on a manifesto commitment to launch a review, but the manifesto commitment was to complete a review by now. We should have seen the outcomes and be taking action, which is what my amendment seeks to do.
The challenge is that this change is long overdue and there are hundreds of thousands of new fathers who need a firm commitment that change will happen in this Parliament. Not only that, but the Minister seemed to cast doubt on the fact that six weeks at 90% of pay is a reasonable and incremental change, as the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, pointed out. On that basis, I am afraid that the Minister’s commitments were not sufficiently reassuring, and I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Holmes of Richmond
“Prohibition of unpaid work experience for a period exceeding four weeks(1) The National Minimum Wage Act 1998 is amended as follows.(2) After section 3(3) (exclusion of, and modifications for, certain classes of person) insert—“(3A) “No provision shall be made under subsection (2)(a) in respect of persons participating in a scheme designed to provide work experience for a continuous or non-continuous period which exceeds four weeks.””(3) After section 41 (power to apply Act to individuals who are not otherwise “workers”) insert—“41A Application of this Act to persons undertaking work experience (1) The Secretary of State must, in exercising the powers under section 41, provide that this Act applies to a person undertaking work experience with the same employer for a continuous or non-continuous period which exceeds four weeks.(2) The Secretary of State must make regulations in accordance with subsection (1) within a period of six months, beginning with the day on which the Employment Rights Act 2025 is passed.(3) Such regulations must provide that a person undertaking such work experience who has ceased to be of compulsory school age, but has not attained the age of 26, is eligible to receive the national minimum wage at the rate specified for workers of the person’s age.(4) In this section—“employer” has the meaning given to it by subsection 54(4) of this Act (Meaning of “worker”, “employee” etc.), and also includes any organisation which provides an individual with work experience;“work experience” means observing, replicating, assisting with and carrying out any task with the aim of gaining experience of a particular workplace, organisation, industry or work-related activity.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that unpaid work experience cannot be used to avoid National Minimum Wage regulations.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to move Amendment 103 in my name. As this is the first time I have spoken on the Bill on Report, I declare my relevant interests as set out in the register as a member of the global advisory board of Endeavour plc and of the science and technology advisory committee of the Crown Estate, and I had a speaking engagement with the FCSA earlier this year.
Amendment 103 is incredibly simple and extraordinarily important for all those young people who have the most appalling start to their career through finding themselves on the wrong end of an unpaid internship. This has been going for decades and it goes on in some of our smartest industries in the 21st century.
The amendment is a reincarnation of a Private Member’s Bill that I brought forward in 2017. I am delighted to say that when I brought that Bill, which is now Amendment 103 to this Bill, it received full-throated support from the Labour Opposition, whom I thank. It also received full-throated support from the TUC and the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, whom I thank.
The amendment simply seeks to give young people the right to have a positive experience—often their first—of entering the labour market. Unpaid internships are already illegal under the National Minimum Wage Regulations, but this amendment further clarifies and specifies what work experience is and, crucially, what it is not. It stops work experience being used as a cover for unpaid internships.
When I drafted the amendment, my first inclination was to have work experience paid from day one. But after wide consultation with businesses and trade unions and across civil society, it was clear that four weeks was the right point to suggest that young people—indeed, any person—could do genuine work experience, overseeing, learning and replicating tasks. If that person is brought on board and is doing work from day one, they are protected by the National Minimum Wage Regulations and are entitled to pay. Work experience has a vital role to play in our society and, as the results of my consultation underpin, four weeks is the right point at which to set the limit.
When the amendment was debated in Committee, when sadly I could not be present, a number of views were put forward that suggested there were difficulties with it because unscrupulous employers could simply have numerous rounds of four-week or part-of-four-week periods, but that is not accurate. The wording describes it as a
“continuous or non-continuous period which exceeds four weeks”,
so the drafting already caters for employers who might seek to get around it by having continuous periods of unpaid work experience.
As one young person put it to me, you cannot pay the rent or pay for food with a glowing CV. Ultimately, it is just a question of talent. Why would we want businesses and organisations not to be able to take from the widest, broadest and most diverse talent pool to go into these roles? Some of these roles are at the classier end of the labour market, but it goes through all strata of the labour market. Surely these positions should be open to all on a fair and equitable basis. That is what this amendment would allow for.
We have the ideal opportunity with this Bill to put this right. It seems more than extraordinary, with so many of the other issues that are covered in this not unsizeable Bill, that there is nothing on unpaid internships, nothing to protect those people who find themselves being exploited at the beginning of their career. I ask the Minister: if not this Bill, what Bill? If not this amendment, will the Government not bring forward some wording to end this pernicious practice, which still prevails in 21st-century Britain—a desperate, dispiriting, Dickensian practice that still goes on across our labour market? Why would the Government, alongside all their other measures, not take this opportunity to close this loophole? It would allow young people, or any person seeking to get their first foothold in the labour market, to have a positive, supportive work experience into paid employment. I very much look forward to the Minister’s response. I beg to move.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
I thank my noble friend for introducing this important debate. As he has pointed out, the challenge is to strike the right balance. We must protect individuals from being exploited or drawn into extended unpaid roles that are in effect jobs by another name, but we also must avoid placing undue burdens on organisations whose motives are benign and whose placements offer genuine social and developmental value. I welcome the debate that the amendment has prompted, and I hope that as the Bill progresses, the Government will engage closely with stakeholders to ensure that any future regulations achieve the twin goals of fairness for individuals and viability for those offering valuable early opportunities.
Lord Katz (Lab)
I thank noble Lords for this short but interesting debate around Amendment 103 moved by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, which seeks to prohibit work experience for a period exceeding four weeks. With regret, as he said, the noble Lord was unable to join us in the Chamber in Committee when we debated this amendment, which was moved on his behalf very ably by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, who I do not believe is in his place at the moment.
The Government have always been clear that a fair day’s work deserves a fair day’s pay. You need only look at the Government’s track record on the national minimum wage and the provisions in this Bill to see how the Government are delivering on this commitment. I will reiterate what I have said on this issue previously because it is worth emphasising: the existing legislation is clear that aside from a very small number of exemptions, workers who are entitled to the national minimum wage should be paid accordingly. No ifs, no buts. These are the rules that our enforcement body enforces, and these are the rules that we expect businesses to abide by. Of course, the vast majority do, but those that do not undercut the responsible businesses unfairly, and we should all be agreed that this is not behaviour that we should tolerate. This means that an employer cannot call a worker an intern to avoid paying them. I want to repeat this very important point, not only for your Lordships’ House but for those who are listening to this debate outside: an employer cannot call a worker an intern to avoid paying them.
If workers who are entitled to the national minimum wage are not being paid what they are due, there are protections in place so that they can receive what they are owed. The Government and His Majesty’s Revenue & Customs have raised and continue to raise awareness on workers’ rights, so that no one is left out of pocket. I have previously stated that the Government will be consulting on this issue soon. In fact, and in response to the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, I am pleased to be able to tell your Lordships’ House that this consultation will indeed begin tomorrow with a call for evidence. I do not believe that I am overstating the case when I say that all of us in this House care about this issue, in particular, ensuring that our young people have access to opportunities, regardless of their background, whether they can afford to work for free or where they are based in the country. The noble Lord, Lord Holmes, spoke powerfully on that basic right and I think that we are all in agreement with the principle.
This amendment, while well-intentioned, risks creating loopholes, where existing workers who are entitled to the national minimum wage from day one could find themselves working for free for up to four weeks. I am sure that we would all agree that this is not right and not what any of us wants to see. Adopting this amendment could well lead to an influx of four-week roles appearing, with only those who can afford to work for free accessing them. We do not want to lock away valuable opportunities and create unintended consequences by rushing through this amendment. These issues are complex, which is why I reiterate that it is important that the Government consult on this issue first. To make clear, we are standing by our words in Committee. When we said that we would be starting the consultation “soon”, in this case, that means tomorrow. As I stated in our debate in Committee, the issues that the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, wishes to address can be dealt with most effectively outside of this Bill. I therefore ask him to withdraw Amendment 103.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, before the Minister sits down, does he have to hand the number of prosecutions that HMRC has taken under the NMW regulations in this instance? If he does not have that to hand, I would be very happy for him to write.
Lord Katz (Lab)
I do not have that information to hand. I am happy to write to the noble Lord with the detail. I take the opportunity to point out that the fair work agency that we are creating in this legislation will be responsible for enforcing this aspect of employment rights regulation as well as others. We would expect that work to be taken forward by the fair work agency. I undertake to write to the noble Lord with that detail.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. As the hour is late, I will not run through them all by name. I am thankful to the Minister for his response. I very much look forward to the consultation tomorrow and, for now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill
“Statutory carer’s leave pay(1) The Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 is amended as follows.(2) After Part 12ZE insert—“Part 12ZFStatutory carer’s leave pay171ZZ25 Entitlement(1) Any person who satisfies the conditions in subsection (2) and any condition prescribed under subsection (3) is entitled in accordance with the following provisions of this Part to payments to be known as “carer’s leave pay”.(2) The pay conditions are—(a) that the person satisfies prescribed conditions as to carer’s leave;(b) that the person has been in employed earner’s employment with an employer.(3) Regulations may provide that a person is not entitled to pay in respect of carer’s leave unless, at the beginning of that period of leave, the person is in employed earner’s employment with the employer by reference to whom the condition in subsection (2)(b) is satisfied.(4) For the purposes of this Part “carer’s leave” means carer’s leave under section 80J of the Employment Rights Act 1996.171ZZ26 Entitlement supplementary(1) A person is entitled to payments of statutory carer’s leave pay in respect of any relevant period only if the person gives notice to whoever is liable to make the payments stating the days or half days in respect of which they are to be made.(2) Regulations may provide for the time by which notice under subsection (1) must be given.(3) The notice must be in writing if the person who is liable to pay the statutory carer’s leave pay so requests.(4) Regulations may set out the definition, type and manner of leave to be taken. (5) The Secretary of State may by regulations—(a) provide for amounts earned by a person under separate contracts of service with the same employer to be aggregated for the purposes of section 171ZZ25;(b) provide that—(i) the amount of a person’s earnings for any period, or(ii) the amount of the person’s earnings to be treated as comprised in any payment made to the person for the person’s benefit,is to be calculated or estimated for the purposes of section 171ZZ25 in such a manner and on such a basis as may be prescribed, and that for that purpose payments of a particular class or description made or falling to be made to or by a person shall, to such extent as may be prescribed, be disregarded or, as the case may be, deducted from the amount of a person’s earnings.(6) Where an employee is entitled to leave under this section the employee is entitled to leave during any period within 12 months, for which statutory carer’s leave pay is payable.171ZZ27 Liability to make payments(1) The liability to make payments of statutory carer’s leave pay under section 171ZZ25 is a liability of any person of whom the person entitled to the payments has been an employee as mentioned in subsections (2)(b) and (3) of that section.(2) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision as to a former employer’s liability to pay statutory carer’s leave pay to a former employee in any case where the employee’s contract of service with the employer has been brought to an end by the employer solely, or mainly, for the purpose of avoiding liability for carer’s leave pay.(3) The Secretary of State may, with the concurrence of the Commissioners for His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, by regulations specify circumstances in which, notwithstanding this section, liability to make payments of statutory carer’s leave pay is to be a liability of the Commissioners.171ZZ28 Rates and periods of pay(1) Statutory carer’s leave pay is payable at such a fixed or earnings-related rate as may be prescribed by regulations.(2) The Secretary of State may, by order, amend the fixed or earnings-related rate of pay as prescribed by regulations in subsection (1) above.(3) Statutory carer’s leave pay is payable in respect of—(a) such a day or half day within the qualifying period, or(b) such number of days or half days not exceeding the prescribed number of days or half days,as the person entitled may choose in accordance with regulations.(4) Provision under subsection (3)(b) must secure that the prescribed number of days is not less than half a day.(5) Regulations under subsection (3)(b) may permit a person entitled to receive statutory carer’s leave pay to choose to receive such pay in respect of non-consecutive periods.(6) Regulations may make provision where, for any purpose of this Part or of regulations, it is necessary to calculate the daily rate or half-daily rate of statutory carer’s leave pay.171ZZ29 Restrictions on contracting out(1) An agreement is void to the extent that it purports— (a) to exclude, limit or otherwise modify any provision of this Part, or(b) to require a person to contribute (whether directly or indirectly) towards any costs incurred by that person’s employer or former employer under this Part.(2) An agreement between an employer and an employee authorising any deductions from statutory carer’s leave pay which the employer is liable to pay to the employee in respect of any period is not void by virtue of subsection (1)(a) if the employer—(a) is authorised by that or another agreement to make the same deductions from any contractual remuneration which the employer is liable to pay in respect of the same period, or(b) would be so authorised if the employer were liable to pay contractual remuneration in respect of that period.171ZZ30 Relationship with contractual remuneration(1) Subject to subsections (2) and (3), any entitlement to statutory carer’s leave pay does not affect any right of a person in relation to remuneration under any contract of service (“contractual remuneration”).(2) Subject to subsection (3)—(a) any contractual remuneration paid to a person by an employer of that person in respect of any period is to go towards discharging any liability of that employer to pay statutory carer’s leave pay to that person in respect of that period, and(b) any statutory carer’s leave pay paid by an employer to a person who is an employee of that employer in respect of any period is to go towards discharging any liability of that employer to pay contractual remuneration to that person in respect of that period.(3) Regulations may make provision as to payments which are, and those which are not, to be treated as contractual remuneration for the purposes of subsections (1) and (2).171ZZ31 SupplementaryIn this Part—“employer” in relation to a person who is an employee, means a person who—(a) under section 6 is liable to pay secondary Class 1 contributions in relation to any of the earnings of the person who is an employee, or(b) would be liable to pay such contributions but for(i) the condition in section 6(1)(b), or(ii) the employee being under the age of 16;“employee” means a person who is gainfully employed in Great Britain either under a contract of service or in an office (including elective office) with earnings;“earnings” and “relevant period” have the meanings given to them by regulations;“carer’s leave” has the meaning given by the Carer’s Leave Act 2023 and the Carer’s Leave 2024 regulations.””Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause makes provision for a statutory entitlement to carer’s leave pay, including eligibility, rates of pay, employer liability, and the relationship with contractual pay. It seeks to make the length of paid entitlement equivalent to the unpaid entitlement provided for by the Carer’s Leave Act 2023.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, many noble Lords get up and say that they will make a short speech; mine will indeed be very short, because all I wish to say is that we debated this matter at length on a previous day. The amendment would establish paid carer’s leave as a statutory entitlement. I hope that this support for carers will have the support of this House, as these Benches will indeed be supporting Amendment 105, which talks about seasonal workers. They should both be supported. I would like to test the feeling of the House.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
“Definition of seasonal work(1) In making regulations under Part 1 of this Act, the Secretary of State must have regard to the specific characteristics and requirements of seasonal work as defined in subsection (2).(2) “Seasonal work” means work that—(a) is performed during a particular period or periods of the year,(b) recurs substantially in the same periods each year,(c) is directly linked to a predictable and temporary increase in demand for labour during those periods,(d) includes work in sectors where such patterns are common, including but not limited to—(i) agriculture and horticulture,(ii) the creative industries, including theatre and live performance,(iii) retail,(iv) hospitality, and(v) tourism and events, and(e) is entered into for a fixed duration not exceeding 26 weeks to meet the temporary demand.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment introduces a baseline definition of “seasonal work” to clarify its recurring and time-limited nature for the purposes of the Act.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I would like to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Leigh of Hurley
“Consultation on Part 1(1) The Secretary of State must initiate a consultation on the effects of the provisions in Part 1 of this Act.(2) As part of the consultation under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must ensure that views are specifically sought from at least 500 small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs).(3) The Secretary of State must lay before each House of Parliament, within 18 weeks of the initiation referred to in subsection (1), a report on the outcome of that consultation, including a summary of responses received from SMEs.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to undertake a consultation on the effects of the provisions in Part 1 and to ensure that at least 500 small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) are consulted as part of that process.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
My Lords, the Labour Party manifesto promised consultation; it has not happened. The Minister, when batting away amendments promises consultation, and it has not happened. The SME community of this country is petrified about provisions in Part 1 of the Bill. They want to be heard, and I think noble Lords do as well. I wish to test the opinion of this House.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
“Exemptions for individuals employed by a farm business(1) Sections 1 to 13, 23, and 26 of this Act do not apply to employment by a farm business.(2) For the purposes of this section— “farm business” means any business, undertaking or activity carried on wholly or mainly for the purposes of agriculture, horticulture or forestry, and includes—(a) the growing of crops, including cereals, fruits, vegetables and flowers;(b) the rearing or fattening of livestock or poultry;(c) dairy farming;(d) the management of woodlands where ancillary to agricultural operations;(e) land used for grazing, mowing or market gardening;(f) any business conducted on land that is occupied under a farm business tenancy within the meaning of section 1 of the Agricultural Tenancies Act 1995 or section 109(3) of the Agriculture Act 1947.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment exempts all individuals employed by a farm business from the application of Sections 1 to 13, 23, and 26 of the Act.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, British farmers have been hammered by this Government. Requiring farmers to give guaranteed hours and day one rights on sick pay and unfair dismissal, as well as to make payments for cancelled shifts, is unworkable, so I would like to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Moynihan of Chelsea
“(A2) Subsection (A1)(a) shall not apply where the employer is undergoing relevant insolvency proceedings.(A3) Where the employer is undergoing relevant insolvency proceedings, the duty to consult under this section shall not arise.(A4) For the purposes of this section, “relevant insolvency proceedings” means any formal insolvency process under the supervision of an insolvency practitioner, including but not limited to—(a) administration;(b) administrative receivership;(c) Company Voluntary Arrangement (CVA); (d) Creditors’ Voluntary Liquidation (CVL);(e) compulsory liquidation.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that employers undergoing formal insolvency proceedings under the supervision of an insolvency practitioner are not subject to the collective consultation duties ordinarily required under subsection (A1)(a).
Lord Moynihan of Chelsea (Con)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 108, I will speak to Amendment 109, also in my name. My declaration of interest is that I have worked in my career with hundreds of companies, many of which had to create redundancies at one time or another and a few of which had to go into liquidation. I am not an insolvency practitioner.
The first of these amendments, Amendment 108, is a small but very important proposal. First, a disclaimer: I am not seeking to alter the vast majority of what is proposed under Clause 27, only that small minority of redundancy cases that occur when a company goes into insolvency. Also, I am not proposing any override of TUPE legislation, in particular in so-called pre-packs. I am proposing that on a non-partisan basis, we take advantage of the passing of this Bill to rectify a long-standing conflict between two separate laws—a conflict that often places insolvency practitioners in an impossible position.
What is this conflict? It is between the provisions of the Insolvency Act 1986 versus the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, the latter of which, as your Lordships know, today’s Bill seeks. The conflict has long existed; it is not a function primarily of the Bill we are discussing today. Let me explain briefly what it is. Insolvency practitioners are required to act quickly, so that value is not eroded. The 1992 Act, however, requires consultation of between 30 to 45 days, which would utterly frustrate the imperative to move swiftly. The liquidator is basically required to break one or the other laws, and always chooses to break the 1992 law—and will choose to break it as amended by this Bill, because the liquidator has to act speedily. A long consultation, whether 30 or 45 days, is always found to be impossible.
As a result, ambulance chasers write offering “free money” to all employees because the law has been broken and therefore the provision comes in that penalty money should be paid to these workers. This does not happen in all cases—only when trade unions are involved or the insolvency is large enough for the no-win no-fee crowd to move in. Much of the money in bankruptcies then ends up in the hands of lawyers rather than any of the creditors. We should note that in most non-liquidation situations these stringent provisions make such penalty awards rare. An employer would be foolish to flout the requirements. It happens only in liquidation, where the liquidator is essentially forced to choose to flout one law or another.
Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)
My Lords, we on these Benches do not support these amendments. The obligation to consult collectively in redundancy situations is a vital safeguard for workers, providing them with a voice and an opportunity to understand and respond to proposed job losses. Reducing consultation rights, especially during the turmoil of insolvency, would leave employees even more vulnerable at a time of significant uncertainty. Similarly, cutting the notice period would deny workers essential time to plan, seek advice and make necessary financial and personal arrangements. We believe strongly that these protections must be preserved and not weakened.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, we are very grateful to my noble friend Lord Moynihan of Chelsea for his amendments. I thank the Minister and her team for the way in which they have entertained and thought through some of the key points made by my noble friend. As he rightly pointed out, collective redundancies are, sadly, not uncommon in cases of employer insolvency. In such circumstances, the role of the insolvency practitioner, which my noble friend has outlined so clearly, is both time-critical and highly constrained. The legal duties placed upon practitioners can come into direct tension with the obligation to consult collectively with employees, a tension that is not merely theoretical but is borne out time and again in practice.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Goddard of Stockport, that the amendment does not seek gratuitously to diminish the rights of employees. My noble friend has drawn the Government’s attention to a genuine gap in the law, one that has become more acute in the light of the changes that the Bill introduces. As it stands, the duty to consult can place insolvency practitioners in an impossible position, bound by law to take urgent decisions to preserve value or manage a collapse while also facing legal jeopardy for failing to comply with collective consultation obligations that were not, and never were, designed with insolvency in mind.
We have to be realistic. Where a company is collapsing, consultation—however desirable—cannot always be carried out in the prescribed way. It is in nobody’s interests, least of all that of employees, to put insolvency practitioners in a position where they are forced to choose between compliance with employment law and their fiduciary responsibilities.
I believe that the Government should take my noble friend’s arguments seriously. This is not a theoretical concern; it is a matter of practical urgency. I therefore urge the Minister to reflect carefully on the implications of the clause and to engage with my noble friend’s proposal in the constructive spirit in which it is offered.
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken. Amendments 108 and 109, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan of Chelsea, would amend Clause 27. I thank the noble Lord, as well as the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe of Epsom and Lord Hunt of Wirral, for their engagement in this matter when we met.
On Amendment 108, the clause as drafted does not alter how collective redundancy obligations apply to insolvent employers. It is right that, when employers know that their business is in trouble and redundancies will be necessary, they should be required to do as much as possible to collectively consult on those redundancies. That was the case before and it will be the case after this legislation comes into force, so nothing has changed.
Employers should consult when they propose to make a qualifying number of redundancies, and they will face penalties if they do not. However, crucially, as my officials and I have discussed with noble Lords, those penalties are set by a tribunal, which will take into consideration the seriousness of the employer’s default, as well as any mitigating factors. The amount set out in legislation is a maximum award, but tribunals may award less where the employer or insolvency practitioner has taken all reasonable steps to consult for as long as possible in the circumstances.
Section 188(7) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 already affords flexibility for employers who cannot fulfil their collective consultation obligations. It allows employment tribunals to assess on a case-by-case basis whether there are special circumstances which make it not reasonably practicable for an employer to comply with their collective consultation obligations.
Lord Moynihan of Chelsea (Con)
I apologise for intervening, but is the Minister saying that R3 stated that it was against this amendment?
Lord Leong (Lab)
The R3 website said that it was concerned about the amendment because it may devalue a company’s valuation on an ongoing basis because of the day-one rights accorded to employees. That is what it said on the website.
Lord Moynihan of Chelsea (Con)
I do not want to detain the House, but I am in ongoing discussions with R3, and it has never said this. Is the Minister quite sure that it is not saying that it is concerned about the clause, rather than the amendment?
Lord Leong (Lab)
I may be wrong. Sorry: it is not the noble Lord’s amendment; it is the clause. I apologise for that. But it is the same thing: if it is against the clause, it is because it is concerned about the valuation of the business. My point is, why should the employees suffer because of the taking into account of day-one rights?
On Amendment 109, I inform the noble Lord that the notification period in the current law aligns with the consultation period. This means in practice that whenever an employer begins a collective consultation, they must also notify the Secretary of State at that point. Setting these periods at different times could cause confusion for employers and increase the risk of non-compliance. The objective of the notification provision is that such notifications may be distributed to appropriate government departments and agencies that are best placed to support affected employees. This amendment would mean that those agencies would be less prepared to support large volumes of individuals who have been made redundant. We have had extensive engagement with employers throughout the passage of the Bill, and the notification timeline has not been raised as a concern. Therefore, this amendment is unnecessary.
I take this opportunity to say to the noble Lord that we will engage with the Insolvency Practitioners Association, raise and discuss the issues that noble Lords have raised, and listen to what it has to say. With that in mind, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw Amendment 108.
Lord Moynihan of Chelsea (Con)
I thank noble Lords for their patience in enduring at this late hour this somewhat arcane discussion. The noble Lord, Lord Goddard, emphasised the importance of consultation and, indeed, the essential nature of it, and said how vulnerable employees are. But they are not vulnerable in this particular circumstance; they have priority as creditors above all other creditors. If there is money, they will get it. If there is no money, they will get it from the Redundancy Payments Service. But why, having got their full amount of redundancy money, should they then scoop the pot and get three times as much because of a flaw in the law that will leave, for example, small trade creditors not receiving anything and possibly facing bankruptcy? That is not to mention the fact that a lot of this money will usually come from the taxpayer—ultimately, the source of funds for these penalty payments—via HMRC, where the Redundancy Payments Service is, thus increasing the deficit. It would create a mini black hole, if I could be so foolish as to mention that.
My noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral ably reinforced the need for this amendment. The Minister emphasised the importance of consultation. I understand that, but I believe Hansard will show that I have already dealt with most of the items in his response. I will not delay noble Lords any longer by going over that ground again, except to say once again that when he asks why employees should suffer, the answer is that they will not suffer. I hoped I had explained that. I am chagrined to understand that I have not. They have total priority above all other creditors in receiving their full redundancy payments.
All I ask is, why should they, as a result of a glitch in the law, receive in total three times that much as a so-called penalty payment? They will not be paid by the employer because the employer will be long gone. They will not be paid by the insolvency practitioner, in facing the impossible task of obeying both laws at the same time. They will be paid mostly by us, first through HMRC and through it the taxpayer.
The hour is late and so, if only on compassionate grounds, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Holmes of Richmond
“(A1) After section 5(1)(ec) of the Employment Agencies Act 1973 (general regulations), insert—“(f) requiring the Secretary of State to introduce regulations for employment businesses participating in employment arrangements to underpin recognised certifications and industry standards, particularly for businesses acting as payment intermediaries.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would ensure that the regulations the Government intend to bring forward for Payment Intermediaries (also known as umbrella companies) make use of the compliant part of the market's existing industry led codes and accreditations. It does not involve the creation of a new body or the creation of a new framework.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, I will be blessedly brief. I tabled a similar amendment on this issue in Committee to ask the Government, through the Bill, to introduce regulations to designate a body to bring clarity, consistency and fairness and, in effect, to level the playing field in this area of umbrella businesses, on which the Bill is curiously silent. These entities differ dramatically from other sectors of the employment market, the recruiter market and many other sectors of the economy in not having consistency and clarity of approach in how they are treated.
My amendment in Committee suggested the designation of a body to address this issue. At that stage, it was taken by the Government and others around the Committee that I was suggesting the creation of an additional body. Not a bit of it. It was about the designation of an existing body rather than the creation of a new one. With this amendment on Report, I have moved that on and seek to ask the Government to introduce regulations to ensure that existing codes of practice in good standing—ways of operating that all bona fide businesses in this sector of the market already adhere to—apply to all umbrella businesses.
This extraordinarily moderate amendment would bring fairness, clarity, consistency and a levelling of the playing field. I very much hope the Government will accept it. I beg to move.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond for his Amendment 110. What this amendment does is simple but important. It encourages the Secretary of State to ensure that in bringing forward regulations under the Employment Agencies Act 1973, they draw upon existing recognised certifications and industry standards. These standards, developed and refined by responsible actors within the market, offer a ready-made baseline for compliance which the Government can and should use.
There is consensus that regulation of umbrella companies is overdue, but as we take this opportunity, let us ensure that the regulation is done well and in a way that is pragmatic, proportionate and effective. This amendment helps point us in that direction, so I hope the Minister can offer some reassurance that the spirit of the amendment will be reflected in the Government’s approach to umbrella companies.
Lord Katz (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, for tabling Amendment 110, which covers the regulation of umbrella companies. The amendment seeks to place an obligation on the Secretary of State to utilise pre-existing industry codes and accreditations as a basis for the regulation of umbrella companies.
We recognise the important role accreditation and trade bodies play in sharing information and best practice with their customers and members. The work of these bodies in the umbrella company industry has had some success in driving up standards. However, this success has been fairly limited, and we would not want to assume that an organisation that is a member of an accreditation or trade body is necessarily compliant with everything. We therefore believe that now is the right time for the Government to step in to protect businesses that already do the right thing and also protect workers.
Many in the umbrella company industry, and those who use umbrella companies, welcome regulation, especially as it will help to level the playing field. This includes public positions taken by the Freelancer & Contractor Services Association, Contractor Calculator, the Recruitment and Employment Confederation and several other bodies’ responses to the consultation run under the previous Government.
We have been clear since Clause 34 was introduced to the Bill that the Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Business Regulations 2003 will be amended to apply to umbrella companies. The Government recognise that the regulations in their current form are not appropriate to regulate the activities of umbrella companies. That is because the regulations predominantly focus on entities providing work-finding services or supplying individuals to end clients, which, generally, umbrella companies do not do. Where umbrella companies do provide such services, they would indeed already be covered under the regulations.
The Government have a statutory requirement to consult before any changes are made to these regulations, and as referenced in the recent roadmap publication, the consultation on umbrella companies regulation will be published this autumn. As part of the consultation process, the Government are keen to get views from trade unions, workers and industry bodies in the umbrella company sector. This will enable the Government to better shape policy development. Following consultation, an appropriate and proportionate umbrella company regulatory regime will be introduced in 2027. Once those regulations come into force, they will be enforced by the Fair Work Agency, which will take a risk-led and intelligence-led approach to its compliance regime.
I hope this provides some of the reassurance that the noble Lords, Lord Holmes and Lord Sharpe of Epsom, were seeking, and for that reason I ask the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, to withdraw his Amendment 110.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
I thank the Minister for his response. It is good to hear that the consultation is coming in the autumn, and we can only hope that is the early autumn and that following that, perhaps there can be some more pace, and it will not be put out to 2027. We also hope the Minister will consider what happens in the interim for all those businesses currently doing the right thing that are disadvantaged by being in a market where some others are perhaps not operating to the same standards and codes of practice. But for now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Goddard of Stockport
“Employment law code of practice(1) Within 30 months of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must publish a code of practice containing guidance for small and medium-sized enterprises on their legal obligations under this Act.(2) It is the purpose of the document to provide clarity for smaller and medium sized enterprises on compliance with the provisions contained in this Act.(3) The document must include, in particular—(a) an overview of the relevant legal duties placed on employers under this Act;(b) a practical framework outlining how such businesses can meet those duties;(c) guidance on best practice suitable to businesses of this size.(4) The Code of Practice may be updated by the Secretary of State as they see fit.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to publish a statutory code of practice for small businesses in adhering to the employment and legal requirements of this Act.
Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)
My Lords, this is a small group of amendments—only three—dealing with small businesses. I will briefly address my Amendment 111 and the other two. Simply put, we would require the publication of a code of practice applicable to small and medium-sized enterprises with the express intention of ensuring that the code must simplify employment law and the regime that the Bill will create, thereby enhancing the ability of SMEs with limited capacity to adhere to the principles of the Bill.
Amendment 166 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, would require the Secretary of State to undertake a review of the impact on small businesses. We support this amendment, as we believe that SMEs are suffering excessively from the consequences of some of the proposed legislation. However, we cannot support Amendment 194, which would repeal Parts 4 and 5 and Clauses 149 and 150 of the Bill at the end of the Parliament in which it passes. Quite frankly, we feel that this is nothing more than a wrecking amendment that would create provisions to be adhered to only for a short period of time before reverting back to pre-employment framework, thus causing real havoc in legislation.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Goddard of Stockport, for his important words when he talks about the impact of the Bill on small and medium-sized enterprises. The fact is that while the Government recognise the impact, they have not really taken enough time and trouble to identify the extent of that impact. The Government may argue that they cannot predict the future. We are not asking them to, but we are asking for greater effort in understanding the likely incentives that their policies will create and for a thorough, transparent review of the impact on small businesses. Only then can this House exercise proper scrutiny and ensure accountability.
I will now deal primarily with Amendment 166 in the names of my noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom and the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough. The Regulatory Policy Committee has given the Government’s existing impact assessment a red rating. We have referred to this before, and the Government have never denied that rating. The rating means that they have failed to provide an adequate analysis of most of the Bill’s provisions. The Government talk about the Bill representing the biggest upgrade to workers’ rights in decades, and one that is long overdue. If that is indeed the case, we should expect a comprehensive, evidence-based analysis of its effect, in particular on small businesses, which make up 99% of all businesses in the UK.
Amendment 194 is not a wrecking amendment. The fact is that the Government have provided no evidence of any tangible benefit from their proposed trade union reforms—we will deal with those in much more detail on our next day on Report. The Government optimistically suggest that the changes might improve industrial relations, but no one seriously believes that—I doubt that even the trade unions do. We have seen the chaos that these types of measures have caused in the public sector. Our worry is that the Government now want to import that chaos into the private sector. Even if strike days are reduced, it will come at a high price: unaffordable pay rises and extreme regulatory burdens designed to placate union demands. That will ultimately harm hiring, weaken competitiveness and make the UK a far less attractive place in which to invest.
As for Part 5 of the Bill, the Government are proposing to hand sweeping powers to the new fair work agency without any meaningful safeguards. Will a minor accounting error mean that family-run businesses face raids from civil servants and property seizures? Will everyday employees with small workplace grievances, who simply want to resolve them informally, find themselves sidelined as the Secretary of State pushes their case to a tribunal, without their knowledge or consent?
Let us be clear: when the Conservative Party wins the next general election, we will repeal these sections and restore a labour market rooted in growth and prosperity.
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, for his contribution and to the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, for speaking to his amendment.
Amendment 194, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, seeks to repeal Parts 4 and 5 of this Bill, as well as Sections 149 and 150 at the end of this Parliament. In Committee, we debated at length the merits of Part 4 and 5 of the Bill, as I am sure we will again next week, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, mentioned. Parts 4 and 5 are key to delivering the biggest upgrade in workers’ rights in a generation, so I do not wish to repeat myself to your Lordships’ House tonight.
Amendment 166, also tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, proposes a review process that effectively duplicates what we are already doing. As I have outlined previously, the Government already have robust monitoring and evaluation plans in place. The Government’s impact assessment sets out how we will review the Bill and any secondary legislation that follows, including effects on small businesses, which we know are vital to the economy. The recently published road map shows that implementing this Bill will take several years and its full effects will not be realised until long after Royal Assent. Significantly advancing a post-implementation review would not allow for an effective assessment of its impact, including on small businesses.
On Amendment 111, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Goddard of Stockport, this Government know the importance of making sure that employers of all sizes are supported in preparing for employment rights reforms. As set out in our road map, the Government are committed to ensuring there is sufficient support and guidance for employers of all sizes. As set out in paragraph 24 on page 8 of the road map, we will be working closely with ACAS and others to develop codes of practice and guidance on measures where these are needed. We have committed to ensuring time is built into our implementation plans to allow stakeholders, including many small businesses, to familiarise themselves with changes in law, codes of practice and guidance. Many of the measures in the Bill build on existing legislative provisions which already have guidance and codes of practice. When we make changes to regulations, we will also work to update relevant guidance and codes of practice as a result.
We know one of the main places that people turn to for reliable, accurate information on legal requirements is GOV.UK. Work is currently under way to ensure that our digital content is usable, easy to navigate and accessible for all stakeholders. In addition, we have engaged, and will continue to do so, with stakeholders of all sizes to understand what support will be useful for them in implementing these changes.
The noble Lord’s amendment is unnecessary and duplicative. An additional code of practice on top of the guidance and support that the Government have already planned risks causing confusion among stakeholders as to where they should turn for clarity and certainty. I therefore respectfully ask the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, to withdraw Amendment 111.
Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)
I thank the Minister and the other speakers in this small group. Although it is three minor amendments and it is 11 o’clock at night, for us, and, I think, for the Conservatives, small businesses are the heartbeat of the economy in this country. We will keep nagging about small businesses, and we want clarity and certainty.
Yes, codes of practice are great. I have read the road map; it is very interesting. I understand the direction of travel with the road map. It requires patience, trust and a little bit of honesty about what is deliverable in time periods. The road map is a good thing, and I recommend people to read that road map.
Small businesses need to know now the impact of this proposed legislation. Asking for reviews of that, after a period of time, does not seem unreasonable to this group. We are not being awkward for the sake of being awkward, we are just trying to protect small businesses and small companies that are, quite frankly, bewildered. They do not have a political view on the Employment Rights Bill. They are bewildered as to how someone can come in and affect how they try to make a small profit and a small living.
We will continue to probe, not forcing votes for the sake of votes. I speak to Ministers regularly, probably more with these Ministers than on any other Bill—apart from the football Bill, perhaps, with the Minister who is sat next to the noble Lord. The Ministers have been really helpful and supportive, and I appreciate that. I think they understand where we are coming from on this—we are not trying to be obstructive, but we are just trying to tease out a little bit more detail and promise of certainty for people. At the moment, life is difficult, and to put more uncertainty in front of people who are trying to do the things the Government want them to do—grow their business, employ more people and create GVA—those things have to be compatible with the things they are trying to do for the employees. On that basis, I will stop wittering on, and I withdraw my amendment.
Employment Rights Bill
Monday 21st July 2025
(8 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Employment Rights Act 2025 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 113-III(a) Amendments for Report (Supplementary to the Third Marshalled List) - (21 Jul 2025)
18:12 - Division on Amendment 111B - Ayes: 266 / Noes: 162 - Amendment 111B agreed.
19:38 - Division on Amendment 126 - Ayes: 216 / Noes: 143 - Amendment 126 agreed.
Lord Clement-Jones
“Workplace AI risk and impact assessments(1) Before implementing or developing an AI system which may have significant risks or impacts on employment rights and conditions in the workplace, an employer must conduct a workplace AI risk and impact assessment (a “WAIRIA”)(2) A WAIRIA must be conducted under this section if there is a potential significant risk or impact on—(a) the identification or exercise of rights;(b) recruitment;(c) work access or allocation;(d) remuneration or benefits;(e) contractual status, terms or conditions;(f) mental, physical or psychosocial health.(3) A WAIRIA conducted under subsection (1) must—(a) document the intended purpose and functionality of the AI system;(b) establish a process for undertaking the monitoring of significant risks and impacts; (c) document the definitions, metrics and methods selected for the WAIRIA;(4) Employers must review and update the WAIRIA—(a) at least once every 12 months,(b) whenever substantial changes are made to the AI system to which it relates, or(c) when evidence emerges of unforeseen significant risks or impacts.(5) The Secretary of State must require any Fair Work Agency to issue guidance on the conduct disclosure and enforcement of WAIRIAs within 6 months of this section coming into force.”
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, Amendment 111ZA seeks to introduce a requirement for workplace AI risk and impact assessments. This amendment is focused on addressing the profound and rapidly evolving impact of artificial intelligence systems on the modern workplace. There are many opportunities for its adoption but also risks and impacts. There is potentially massive job displacement. AI could displace 1 million to 3 million UK jobs overall. There are workplaces skills gaps; more than half the UK workforce lacks essential digital skills and the majority of the public has no AI education or training.
AI recruitment algorithms have resulted in race and sex discrimination. There are legal vulnerabilities. Companies risk facing costly lawsuits and settlements when unsuccessful job applicants claim unlawful discrimination by AI hiring systems. Meanwhile, AI adoption accelerates rapidly, and the UK’s regulatory framework is lagging behind.
Organisations such as the Trades Union Congress and the Institute for the Future of Work have consistently highlighted the critical need for robust regulation in this area. The TUC, through its artificial intelligence regulation and employment rights Bill, drafted with a multi-stakeholder task force, explicitly proposes workforce AI risk assessments and emphasises the need for worker consultation before AI systems are implemented. It also advocates for fundamental rights, such as a right to a human review for high-risk decisions. IFOW similarly calls for an accountability for algorithms Act that would mandate pre-emptive algorithmic impact assessments to identify and mitigate risks, ensuring greater transparency and accountability in the use of AI at work. Both organisations stress that existing frameworks are insufficient to protect workers from the potential harms of AI.
When I spoke to a similar amendment—Amendment 149—in Committee, the Minister acknowledged this and said:
“The Government are committed to working with trade unions, employers, workers and experts to examine what AI and new technologies mean for work, jobs and skills. We will promote best practice in safeguarding against the invasion of privacy through surveillance technology, spyware and discriminatory algorithmic decision-making … However, I assure the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, that the Institute for the Future of Work will be welcome to make an input into that piece of work and the consultation that is going forward. I reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and all noble Lords that this is an area that the Government are actively looking into, and we will consult on proposals in the make work pay plan in due course”.—[Official Report, 5/6/25; col. 878.]
This was all very reassuring, perhaps, but I have retabled this amendment precisely because we need more concrete specifics regarding this promised consultation.
The TUC and IFOW have been working on this for four years. Is it too much to ask the Government to take a clear position on what is proposed now? The Minister referred to the importance of proper consultation. This is a crucial area impacting the fundamental rights and well-being of workers right now, often without their knowledge, and AI systems are increasingly being introduced into the workforce, so the Government need to provide clarity on what kind of consultation is being undertaken, with whom they will engage beyond relevant stakeholders and what the precise timescale is for this consultation and any subsequent legislative action, particularly given the rapid introduction of AI into workplaces.
We cannot afford a wait-and-see approach. If comprehensive AI regulation cannot be addressed within this Bill as regards the workplace, we need an immediate and clear commitment to provision within dedicated AI legislation, perhaps coming down the track, to ensure that AI in the workplace truly benefits everyone. I beg to move.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, who, in his single Nelsonian amendment, has covered a lot of the material in my more spread-out set of amendments. I support his Amendment 111ZA and will speak to my Amendments 168 to 176. I declare my interests in the register, particularly my technology interests, not least as a member of the advisory board of Endava plc and as a member of the technology and science advisory committee of the Crown Estate.
I will take one brief step backwards. From the outset, we have heard that the Government do not want to undertake cross-sector AI legislation and regulation. Rather, they want to take a domain-specific approach. That is fine; it is clearly the stated position, although it would not be my choice. But it is simultaneously interesting to ask how, if that choice is adopted, consistency across our economy and society is ensured so that, wherever an individual citizen comes up against AI, they can be assured of a consistent approach to the treatment of the challenges and opportunities of that AI. Similarly, what happens where there is no competent regulator or authority in that domain?
At the moment, largely, neither approach seems to be being adopted. Whenever I and colleagues have raised amendments around AI in what we might call domain-specific areas, such as the Product Regulation and Metrology Bill, the data Bill and now the Employment Rights Bill, we are told, “This is not the legislation for AI”. I ask the Minister for clarity as to whether, if a cross-sector approach to AI is not being taken, a domain-specific approach is, as opportunities are not being taken up when appropriate legislation comes before your Lordships’ House.
I turn to the amendments in my name. Amendment 168 goes to the very heart of the issue around employers’ use of AI. Very good, if not excellent, principles were set out in the then Government’s White Paper of 2023. I have transposed many of these into my Amendment 168. Would it not be beneficial to have these principles set in statute for the benefit of workers, in this instance, wherever they come across employers deploying AI in their workplace?
Amendment 169 lifts a clause largely from my Artificial Intelligence (Regulation) Private Member’s Bill and suggests that an AI responsible officer in all organisations that develop, deploy and use AI would be a positive thing for workers, employees and employers alike. This would not be seen as burdensome, compliant or a mere question of audit but as a positive, vibrant, dynamic role, so that the benefits of AI could be felt by workers right across their employment experience. It would be proportionate and right touch, with reporting requirements easily recognised as mirroring similar requirements set out for other obligations under the Companies Act. If we had AI responsible officers across our economy, across businesses and organisations deploying and using AI right now, this would be positive, dynamic and beneficial for workers, employees, employers, our economy and wider society.
Amendment 170 goes to the issue of IP copyright and labelling. It would put a responsibility on workers who are using AI to report to the relevant government department on the genesis of that IP and copyrighted material, and the data used in that AI deployment, by which means there would be clarity not only on where that IP copyright and data had emanated from but that it had been got through informed consent and that all IP and copyright obligations had been respected and adhered to.
Amendments 171 and 172 similarly look at where workers’ data may be ingested right now by employers’ use of AI. These are such rich, useful and economically beneficial sources of data for employers and businesses. Amendment 171 simply suggests that there should be informed consent from those workers before any of their data can be used, ingested and deployed.
I would like to take a little time on Amendment 174, around the whole area of AI in recruitment and employment. This goes back to one of my points at the beginning of this speech: for recruitment, there currently exists no competent authority or regulator. If the Government continue with their domain-specific approach, recruitment remains a gap, because there is no domain-specific competent authority or regulator that could be held responsible for the deployment and development of AI in that sector. If, for example, somebody finds themselves not making a shortlist, they may not know that AI has been involved in making that decision. Even if they were aware, they would find themselves with no redress and no competent authority to take their claim to.
Lord Pitkeathley of Camden Town (Lab)
My Lords, I am aware that many of the amendments in this group have a rather different focus from the points I wish to make. I acknowledge the amendments by the noble Lords, Lord Clement Jones and Lord Holmes of Richmond. I believe they provide a valuable opportunity to reflect on the particular nature of working in tech and AI. This is, as has already been alluded to, a sector that makes a significant and growing contribution to the UK economy, and it is rightly seen as one of the priority strands of the Government’s modern industrial strategy.
As the rather scary AI 2027 forecast by Daniel Kokotajlo and other makes clear, developments in this space are accelerating incredibly rapidly and are already reshaping how we live and work. Even as I say that, I wonder whether I may have triggered an algorithmic alert somewhere—let us hope that parliamentary privilege covers some of it. AI is happening, regardless of how we feel about it, and the opportunity it provides makes it all the more important that firms are based and regulated here rather than elsewhere.
Jobs in this area tend to be highly skilled and well paid, but that does not mean workers do not need some protections. In many cases, the things that matter most are not issues such as minimum wage and paid leave but how easily people can move between companies, start their own ventures and work across several fast-growing enterprises. Here, it is non-compete agreements which pose a particular challenge. Understandable concerns over safeguarding intellectual property have led some firms to restrict employee movement, yet this comes at a cost to innovation, competition and the free flow of ideas that underpin these industries. I know the last Government carried out a review of these clauses in general terms, but no meaningful reform followed. Does the department have a view on how widespread these clauses now are, particularly in fast-moving and competitive sectors? Has any formal assessment been made of their impact on innovation, start-up activity, and people’s ability to move freely and fairly between roles?
I fully appreciate that this Bill is focused on establishing baseline rights for all workers rather than addressing sector-specific concerns. However, I hope the Minister can say something about how these challenges are being considered as part of the Government’s wider thinking on the future of work and on how we ensure that the UK remains a good place to innovate, as well as a fair place to work.
Lord Freyberg (CB)
My Lords, I support the timely and vital amendments tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Holmes of Richmond, concerning the use of artificial intelligence in the workplace. These amendments, which cover transparency, accountability, consent, fairness and the protection of workers’ rights, speak to one of the central challenges of our time: how we align the rapid deployment of AI with the rights, dignity and agency of working people.
Just 11 days ago, a few of us, including the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, had the privilege of attending the round table on aligning AI for human flourishing, hosted here in the House of Lords by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and convened by Oxford University’s Institute for Ethics in AI and the Accelerator Fellowship Programme. It was led by Professor Yuval Shany and brought together leading international voices, including Professor Alondra Nelson, who designed the US Blueprint for an AI Bill of Rights, later embedded in President Biden’s executive order on AI.
That discussion made one thing clear: we are at a crossroads. As Professor Nelson put it at a recent AI action summit in Paris:
“We can create systems that expand opportunity rather than consolidate power for the few”.
If we are serious about that aspiration, we need laws that embed it in practice. I hope we will soon see legislation introduced in this House—an AI Bill of Rights rooted in the UK context—that reflects our democratic values, legal traditions and the lived realities of British workers. That will require leadership from the Government and support across parties, and I believe this House is well placed to lead the way.
That is precisely what the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, seek to do. Amendment 168 outlines the core principles employers must uphold when using AI on workers: safety, fairness, transparency, governance, inclusion and the right to redress. These are the bedrock of responsible innovation. Amendment 169 proposes the appointment of designated AI officers within organisations, ensuring that someone is directly accountable for the ethical and unbiased use of these powerful technologies.
Amendments 171 and 172 tackle perhaps the most urgent concern: consent. No worker’s data should be ingested by AI systems—or decisions made about their employment by algorithm—without their meaningful, informed opt-in. We are not speaking in abstractions; AI is already determining who is shortlisted, scheduled, surveilled or sidelined. These systems often operate in secret and carry forward the biases of the data they are trained on. If we do not act now, we risk embedding discrimination in digital form.
This is not the first time that this House has stood up for fairness in AI. On 12 May, and in subsequent ping-pongs on the data Bill, many of us voted in support of the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness,sb Lady Kidron, which called for transparency over copyright and AI. That debate too was about rights—to control one’s work, one’s data and one’s identity. The same principle is at stake here. If the UK is to lead on AI, we must lead not just in capability but in ethics. The amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, are not radical but responsible; they bring our values into alignment with our technologies. I therefore urge all noble Lords to support them, even though it is highly unlikely that they will be accepted.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
From these Benches, all I can say is that I echo those words. I hope that the Government have listened to the arguments about AI and will respond positively.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, I too congratulate my fellow solicitor, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond on their amendments.
We are following up on the exchanges that took place at Question Time earlier today, when the Minister—the noble Lord, Lord Vallance—offered to give us a reading list so that we could peruse the subject during the vacation, when he explained that, sadly, the Government are not yet able to produce their consultation paper. When the noble Baroness the Minister sums up this debate, can she identify for us what her noble friend had in mind? We are anxious to make sure that we are up to date on these very important subjects.
AI technologies are evolving at pace, touching every corner of the economy, from manufacturing and logistics to retail, healthcare and particularly—as my noble fellow lawyer knows—professional services. In the context of work, AI offers real potential: it can support productivity, streamline processes and free individuals from repetitive and burdensome tasks. It may also, if properly deployed, open up new opportunities for people who have historically faced barriers to employment.
However, as the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, just reminded us, alongside that, there are real concerns. He instanced a number of them, and they are set out in Amendment 168; they are about fairness, transparency, accountability and, indeed, the role of human oversight in the decisions that affect people’s lives and livelihoods. It is therefore important that we take a balanced, thoughtful approach.
The noble Lord, Lord Pitkeathley of Camden Town, pointed out, quite rightly, that a number of non-compete agreements are now emerging. We have to be aware that these could so easily stifle innovation, and this must be all about encouraging and stimulating innovation. Therefore, it is very important that we take a balanced, thoughtful approach. But we should not allow technological change to outpace our frameworks for fairness, ethics and employment rights.
In conclusion, AI is not a distant or abstract issue; it is here, evolving and shaping the future of work. I hope we can move forward in a way that is both pro innovation and firmly rooted in the values of fairness, dignity and accountability. We very much look forward to hearing the Minister’s thoughts on these subjects.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Information and Technology (Baroness Jones of Whitchurch) (Lab)
My Lords, I will begin with Amendment 111ZA, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and Amendments 168, 169, 171, 172, 175 and 176, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, whom I thank for his engagement on these important issues.
I start by reassuring all noble Lords that we agree that AI should be deployed and used responsibly, including within the workplace. As the noble Lord knows, in January 2025, we published the AI Opportunities Action Plan, which included a commitment to
“support the AI assurance ecosystem to increase trust and adoption”
of AI. One of the key deliverables in this area is the AI management essentials tool. We are developing this tool to support businesses, particularly SMEs, to implement good AI governance practices. Following public consultation earlier this year, I hope to update your Lordships’ House on the consultation response and an updated version of that tool soon.
Regarding these amendments, I remind noble Lords that our plan to make work pay makes it clear that workers’ interests will need to inform the digital transformation happening in the workplace. Our approach is to protect good jobs, ensure good future jobs, and ensure that rights and protections keep pace with technological change.
To be clear, we are committed to working with trade unions, employers, workers and experts to examine what AI and new technologies mean for work, jobs and skills. We will promote best practice in safeguarding against the invasion of privacy through surveillance technology, spyware and discriminatory algorithmic decision-making. In response to the noble Lords, Lord Freyberg and Lord Hunt, of course we will put ethics and fairness at the heart of that.
I am keen to stress that we are taking steps to enhance our understanding of this area. This has included engagement and round-table events with a wide range of stakeholders and experts to help enrich our understanding. I reaffirm that we will consult on the make work pay proposals in due course.
The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, asked what would be in the scope of the consultation. The consultation plan includes examining: what AI and new technologies, including automation and AI, mean for work, jobs and skills; how to promote best practice in safeguarding against the invasion of privacy through surveillance technology, spyware and discriminatory algorithmic decision-making; and how best to make the introduction of surveillance technology in the workplace subject to consultation and negotiation with trade union or employee representatives.
The noble Lord, Lord Holmes, asked whether or not this was going to be domain-specific. As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, just reminded us, this was dealt with in an Oral Question earlier this afternoon, when my noble friend Lord Vallance said that existing regulators will oversee most AI systems, supported by enhanced AI skills and cross-regulatory co-ordination through forums such as the Regulatory Innovation Office. Some cross-cutting issues will be addressed also in the planned consultation on AI.
Looking specifically at Amendment 171, let me reassure the noble Lord that we believe that data protection legislation provides sufficient protection for workers and individuals where their personal data is being used in line with the key data protection principles, including lawfulness, fairness and transparency. Consent is a lawful ground to process personal data. However, due to the power imbalance between the employee and employer, it is often inappropriate for employers to rely on consent from employees to process their data. This is why we have an additional lawful ground to carry out such processing, such as legitimate interest under the data protection law. Therefore, we do not wish to limit data processing in these situations to consent alone. I also point out that while data protection principles establish the requirements that we expect the use of AI systems to adhere to, AI assurance provides ways to evidence that these requirements have been met in practice.
Amendment 170 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, would require workers and employers to maintain records of data and intellectual property used in AI training and to allow independent audits of AI processes. As he will know, this issue was debated extensively during the passage through your Lordships’ House of the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025. Only last month I confirmed that we will publish a report, including on transparency in the use of intellectual property material in AI training, within nine months of Royal Assent to the Act, which will be due by 18 March next year. The Government have also committed to setting up expert stakeholder working groups to help drive forward practical, workable solutions in this area, alongside a parliamentary working group to engage with policy development.
Amendment 174 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, proposes a review of the use of AI in recruitment and employment. As the noble Lord will be aware, last year the previous Government published detailed guidance on responsible AI in recruitment, which covers governance, accessibility requirements and testing. This was developed with stakeholders and relevant regulators, such as the Information Commissioner’s Office and the Equality and Human Rights Commission. Employers and recruiters may find this guidance useful to help integrate AI into their recruitment practices in a responsible way.
Furthermore, I am excited about the opportunities of AI in supporting the UK’s workforce, as well as creating jobs and growing our economy. However, we must also understand how it may affect the labour market, including any potential disruption. The AI Security Institute has begun assessing this issue, and I hope to be able to update your Lordships’ House on this as work progresses.
Regarding our position on general AI regulation and the establishment of a new AI regulator, we believe that AI is best regulated at the point of use by the UK’s existing sectoral regulators. As experts in their sector, they are in the best place to understand the uses and risks of AI in their relevant areas, and we will support them to do this. I emphasise that in response to the AI Opportunities Action Plan, we have committed to supporting regulators in evaluating their AI capabilities and understanding how they can be strengthened. I assure your Lordships’ House that we are committed to making sure that workers’ interests inform the digital transformation taking place in the workplace.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Pitkeathley for raising non-compete clauses. There has been extensive research and analysis in recent years looking at the prevalence of non-compete clauses in the UK labour market and their impact on both workers and the wider economy. Government research published in 2023 found that non-compete clauses were widely used across the labour market, with around 5 million employees in Great Britain working under a contract that contained a non-compete clause, with a typical duration of around six months. As my noble friend identified, this can adversely impact both the worker affected, through limiting their ability to move between jobs, and the wider economy, due to the impacts on competition.
It is often assumed that non-compete clauses are found only in contracts of high earners. However, research published last year by the Competition and Markets Authority found that while non-competes are more common in higher-paid jobs, even in lower-paid jobs 20% to 30% of workers believe that they are covered by non-compete clauses. The Government have been reviewing the research and work done to date on non-compete clauses, and I am pleased to be able to confirm that we will be consulting on options for reform of non-compete clauses in employment contracts in due course.
Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, asked for my suggested reading list following my noble friend’s kind offer earlier this afternoon. I can do no better than to recommend the excellent book by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, on AI. In that spirit, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, to withdraw his Amendment 111ZA.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
The noble Baroness nearly won me over at that point. I thank her. I feel like someone who was expecting a full meal but receives a rather light snack. I will explain why as we go through.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Holmes. I feel that I am somewhat upstaging him by putting an amendment at the front of the group, but we have many common themes that we both have pursued over the years together. I agree with him on the desirability of a cross-sector approach. He is much more patient than I am and, in putting down individual amendments and hoping that the Minister will give satisfactory answers, he is clearly more optimistic than I am. Whether his optimism has been justified today, I am not so sure.
The Minister could not even acknowledge the work done by the TUC, which has been ground-breaking in so many ways. It has taken four years, so it is extraordinary that the Government are doing what they are doing. I acknowledge what the noble Lord, Lord Pitkeathley, had to say. I was not quite sure how it connected to AI, but he very cunningly linked the subject of non-compete clauses to innovation, which does link to AI. I was encouraged by what the Minister had to say about consultation on reform.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, reminded me that I was a solicitor. Unlike him, I do not still have a practising certificate still, but there we are. He has much more stamina than I have. Non-compete clauses can be extremely important in making sure that know-how is preserved within an existing business. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, for what he had to say on making sure that AI ensures human flourishing and that we preserve agency. That is what the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, and me are all about.
The Minister talked about an AI assurance ecosystem and AI management essential tools that there will be a consultation on, but I could not sense any intention to do anything other than a sort of voluntary approach. We have a lot of employment law that has developed over the years, but the Government seem to be allergic to doing anything with any teeth. She mentioned recruitment practices, but that again seems to be very much a voluntary approach. The AI Security Institute is not a regulator. I cannot feel that the Minister has given much more than the noble Lord, Lord Leong, gave last time. For instance, the Minister talked about consultation over make-work proposals. This involved talking about best practice on the adoption of AI and how best to deal with surveillance technology. Again, I did not sense any real intent to make sure that we have a new set of protections in the workplace in the face of AI.
I very much hope that, as time goes on, the Government will develop a much more muscular approach to this. As many noble Lords have said, AI presents a great number of opportunities in the workplace, but we absolutely do not want to see the opportunities overwhelmed by mistrust and a belief that AI presents unacceptable risks on the part of those employees. We want to see employees understanding that in the face of AI adoption, they have the right to be consulted and there is proper risk assessment of the introduction of these systems into the workplace, so that there is a proper, consensual approach to AI adoption.
I really do not feel that the Government are keeping up to date with the issues in this respect, and I am afraid that is rather reflected in some of the issues that we are going to talk about on Wednesday as well. In the meantime, however, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Barran
“(A1) In the case of staff employed under subsection (3)(b) of section 148C, matters within the SSSNB’s remit are limited to the establishment of a framework to which employers of school support staff must have regard when discharging their functions.(B1) A framework under subsection (A1) must include information on—(a) the remuneration of school support staff,(b) the terms and conditions of employment of school support staff,(c) the training of school support staff,(d) career progression for school support staff, and(e) related matters.(C1) When taking any action related to the matters in subsection (B1), an employer may disregard the framework only in exceptional circumstances.(D1) For the purposes of subsection (C1), the definition of “exceptional circumstances” shall be set out in regulations. (1) In the case of staff employed under subsection (3)(a) of section 148C,”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would change the matters within the SSSNB’s remit in relation to academy staff, limiting it to the creation of a framework to which academy employers must have regard in all but exceptional circumstances.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, Amendments 111A, 111B, 116A and 116B in my name seek to improve the Government’s proposal to mandate a single, detailed set of terms and conditions for all support staff.
As we debated in Committee, the status quo is not perfect. The current national joint council arrangements have significant weaknesses in their application to schools, which has led some local authorities to opt out of the Green Book terms and conditions. I hope the House will forgive me if I remind noble Lords why these amendments are necessary. First of all, we are talking about a very large workforce: about half a million people are employed within the school support staff workforce. Half of those, roughly, are teaching assistants, and the other half have a huge range of roles, literally thousands of different roles. This is a very complicated area. There is variety in roles and in pay and conditions, which reflects local needs, whether it is the organisational structure of a trust, pressures on a local authority where it opts out of the NJC, or where employers have particular needs because of geographic local market conditions. I mentioned in Committee the difference in trying to recruit an IT assistant in Cambridge versus Oldham.
The landscape is very different today from the early 2000s when the SSSNB previously existed. We now have around 2,500 trusts, with about half our schools in trusts and half in local authorities. But the innovation that we have seen in relation to pay and conditions for school support staff has of course been largely in the trust sector.
I will just recap our specific worries about the Bill as currently drafted. The first is that it will add to the complexity, workload and cost of every single school in the country at a time when we know that schools are under considerable pressure and when the Government are rightly focusing on recruitment and retention of the teaching and support staff workforce. My Amendment 111A seeks to mitigate the potential damage of this by limiting the SSSNB’s powers to creating a framework that academies must consider regarding remuneration, terms and conditions, training, career progression and related matters.
I tried to work out roughly how many role profiles the department will need to create to meet the breadth of roles that the SSSNB will cover. I think it is realistic to say that across about 22,000 schools and around 2,500 trusts, there will literally be thousands of ways of dividing up and specifying roles, so that if the SSSNB is to try to articulate role profiles in detail, it will have to produce thousands of them. We just debated the power of AI; maybe these are all going to be drafted by AI—who knows? If not, it could take a very long time.
I will just give one example of the complexity of this. If we think just about finance roles in schools and trusts, they could vary from the chief financial officer of a large trust to the chief operating and financial officers in medium-sized trusts who manage estates and technology, through finance directors of smaller trusts who might be more like executive business managers in larger trusts, and to finance directors in single-academy trusts who have a role not unlike a business manager in a maintained school, but with more accountability. Then we have finance managers, finance assistants, management consultants, senior management consultants, financial accountants, finance business partners, payroll managers—the list goes on. These are all in endless combinations that change over time as trusts and schools grow, shrink and change. The same is true for HR, technology, data and projects, as well as pastoral roles.
This illustrates that we are looking at a vast undertaking, and more importantly a needless one, given my Amendment 111A and the Government’s very welcome Amendment 112 and associated amendments that clarify that there cannot be an agreement that cuts the pay of a school support staff member. But any national framework that fails to acknowledge this reality risks becoming either so vague as not to be useful or too rigid to serve communities effectively. We have not had clarity yet from the Government about how this is going to be addressed in the real world.
We are also worried that there is no estimate at all for the additional costs that this approach will create for schools, and my Amendment 116B aims to address this. It seems extraordinary to introduce a measure that will increase costs to schools and costs to the public purse without working out how much that would be. I do not know whether the Minister can update the House on that point.
Our final concern is that the Government’s Amendment 112 will not fully address the ability of trusts to innovate and improve the terms for their support staff, which, rightly, the Government have as their priority for recruitment and retention. As I read it, it appears to say that new subsections (2) to (5), introduced by Schedule 4 on page 207, do not apply if each individual term and condition is to the advantage of the employee. I phrased that in a positive sense; the amendment is phrased the other way around.
Across the House, I hope we are keen that innovation around terms and conditions is possible where it provides an advantage to the employee in the round, but not necessarily looking at every element separately. For example, some trusts currently have a policy that everybody who joins in a child-facing role must either have or work towards achieving a level 3 qualification. That is clearly good for children. It leads to higher pay, which is good for the member of staff. But the duty on an employee to work towards a level 3 qualification is clearly a new requirement on that employee. My understanding is that anything that requires a person to acquire a qualification or undertake training is not defined as an improvement in their terms and conditions. An employee could reasonably say, “I don’t have to do that under the new national terms and conditions”, even where the unions think it is a good idea and other employees are in favour of it. So trusts would not be able to stick with such approaches, which benefit children and staff. I hope that the Minister can confirm that my understanding of this is right.
It is frequently the case that contracts for support staff in trusts are constructed very differently from those in the maintained sector. If contracts specify that hours, holidays, allowances, pay scales et cetera are set out in a completely different way from the SSSNB terms and conditions, but the overall impact is better for everyone, why would we want to rule this out?
The noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Malvern, kindly met the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, and me last week. She pointed out that school support staff are the only public sector workforce without a pay negotiating body. She is right about that but, if the Government are interested in the outcomes rather than the process, my amendments, particularly Amendment 111A, achieve their aims but avoid complexity and cost.
We believe that the Government have addressed the issue of setting a floor not a ceiling on pay, but, although I understand it is their intention to address innovation, the amendment as drafted does not address the reality of innovation and improvements of terms and conditions—hence my Amendment 111B. I hope that the Minister is able to be clear when she sums up that the Government agree with me and the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, and that we can find a way to address this effectively. I beg to move.
Lord Hendy (Lab)
My Lords, may I rather impudently congratulate the Government on their Amendments 112 to 116 and 117 to 119? In Committee, I moved a series of amendments to similar effect; namely, that the output of the negotiating body should not impose a detriment to existing terms and conditions and should permit any enhancement to existing terms and conditions by negotiation or otherwise. I am not so immodest as to imagine that there is any causal connection between my amendments in Committee and the appearance of these amendments on Report. I recall that the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, also had amendments to similar effect; it may be that she had much more traction with my noble friends on the Front Bench than I had. Whatever the process—it is of course irrelevant—I congratulate my noble friends on the Front Bench for the introduction of these amendments, which make solid that this is a floor and not a ceiling.
Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)
My Lords, I support my noble friend Lady Barran in her Amendments 111A, 111B, 116A and 116B. I have not spoken on the Bill before, so I refer noble Lords to my registered interests, in particular as a founder of a multi-academy trust with 18 schools and around 1,400 staff.
This new negotiating body—a central bureaucratic body dictating terms and conditions and pay for all to obey across our whole nation—literally drives us back to the 1970s. It would remove any ability to take note of local employment conditions. My own multi-academy trust completed a secondary school core structure review in 2022 and we have just finished the same review for our primary schools. We now have in place posts and grades that meet the needs of each school and, most importantly, those of our pupils.
We have set out a grading system to reflect the local conditions in which we operate. Primary and secondary staffing levels are strong and sustainable. The SSSNB would undo all this, and the cost of going through this new legislation would be bureaucratic and increase the overhead in our human resources. Administering these changes would take resources away from the front line with no meaningful benefit. I congratulate the Government on at least accepting that there is a floor to this whole arrangement, but it still leaves an extremely complicated central bureaucracy.
To provide good education we need flexibility. We operate harmoniously with our unions; we share a common mission and believe we have created a first-class cadre of support staff. Indeed, only two weeks ago, one of our support staff saved the life of one of our children, who had a cardiac arrest on a playing field when playing away. The local defibrillator had broken and he kept the child alive for 20 minutes.
I am looking at this whole Bill more widely. If we zoom out beyond the area of education, we start to see the impact of the aggressive anti-employer strategy being deployed by this Government. We have already seen the impact of VAT on private schools, with them going out of business and staff losing their jobs. We have already seen the escalation of employers’ national insurance and the widening of the bands, which has contributed to some 60,000 jobs being lost in the hospitality sector. Last week, we tried to warn the Government about the banter clause, which will drive another nail into the coffin of the hospitality sector.
Private sector employment market vacancies are under great pressure. At the beginning of last year, there were 900,000 vacancies and, by May this year, that was down to about 720,000. We heard earlier in the debate from the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, on AI, and we are already seeing the impact of this—perhaps more dramatically in the US, where Microsoft has got rid of 15,000 staff in the last two months.
Baroness Wolf of Dulwich (CB)
My Lords, I support Amendments 111A and 111B in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran. I declare an interest as a governor of King’s College London Mathematics School and as a member of its finance and pay committees.
I have been trying to get my head around the implications of these clauses for support staff ever since the Bill was introduced. The more I think about it, the more unworkable it seems to be. As the noble Baroness pointed out, the complexity of support staff roles and the way they vary with different types of schools has become much greater in the last 20 years.
My experience is of a rather unusual 16-to-19 academy. We do outreach and projects in collaboration with charities and the university. We engage in a large number of things that are not about just standard school teaching. The standard scales for teaching staff are not a problem for us but, for support staff, we have specific roles that are suited to the particular activities in which people are engaged. We certainly pay as much as we can afford to; in the London market, we do not have much choice.
The point that I want to stress is that, while it is very welcome that the Government recognise that people’s pay should not be reduced as a result of this, the real problem is that there are huge numbers of important and central jobs and roles out there, which vary hugely according to the nature of the school, the nature of the environment and what people are doing. The complexity that this will introduce when we do our workforce planning and try to work out where a new role fits on these scales really worries me. I hope that, as things roll out, the Government think very hard about how to move forward in a way that allows successful schools, which are going beyond traditional classroom teaching and doing a huge number of important things, to continue to create support staff roles that fit what they are trying to do.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a governor of King’s Leadership Academy in Liverpool. Schools face two challenges, some might say crises. First, the shortage of staff is becoming quite a serious concern. Secondly, there are real pressures on school budgets.
It was easy when all schools were local authority schools, because they all had the same framework and structures. We now have a very different landscape, which we all accept. There is no difference now in how we see that landscape. Half the schools are what I call maintained schools and the other half, with a preponderance towards secondary schools, are academies within large multi-academy trusts, which in a sense are bigger than the local authorities. The local authority where I worked for a number of years had 50 schools. There are multi-academy trusts with far more schools than that.
We want a system that is fair to all our non-teaching staff. We do not want to see anybody seeing a cut in their salary. But we also have to recognise that you have to have a system that is not bureaucratic and gives the freedom to schools in both cases to be able to do what is best for their staff. I fear that that will not be the case if the Government have their way. I am hopeful that the Minister will give us real reassurance on this.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, that we have a more varied system, but I slightly disagreed with her when she said, “All schools, particularly the successful ones”. It is all schools, not just the successful ones, that will face difficulties.
Lord Storey (LD)
So I hope that the Minister will really consider this. It is a huge issue. We cannot see our schools have to face more costs, and we do not want to see any staff disadvantaged by a well-meaning move by the Government.
Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)
My Lords, we are dancing on the head of a pin with these amendments. The noble Lord, Lord Hendy, is right that these are welcome amendments that begin to address something I never knew anything about, which is that support staff have never had a baseline figure. That should be addressed.
I spoke to the Minister the day before yesterday or today—time flies—and the fact is that there are 520,000 of them. That is 52% of everybody employed at schools. That is more than teachers. Those support staff have a whole range of duties and the majority are tailored to their specific needs, as other speakers have said. Government Amendment 114 provides that, where an SSSNB
“has been unable to reach an agreement about a matter and the Secretary of State makes regulations about the matter, the regulations cannot alter a person’s terms and conditions of employment to make the person worse off, and do not prevent an employer from offering more favourable terms and conditions than those provided for by the regulations”.
We agree with that.
All that the amendment by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, would change is that it would prevent
“the SSSNB from blocking employers who wish to adopt new or improved employment terms and conditions”,
provided that they meet the standards of minimum support. What we are trying to say here is, where they cannot come to a negotiation, the Government can step in by regulation, if that is what they want to do, but, where a body comes to an arrangement, why should you stop somebody wanting to offer more, above the floor and above the base—there is no argument about that; we all agree to the base—and say, actually, why would an SSSNB want to block some employer offering an employee better terms? If the Government reject this amendment, that is the alternative to what we are arguing.
If somebody wants to pay somebody more, above the base, that is surely better for the employee. Surely that is better than somebody saying, “Well, you can’t”, which is what the Government might do. The difference is quite subtle. Sooner or later, somebody will have to work out the maths for 520,000 people and then go to all those local authorities, academies and private schools, all of a sudden, as I have said before, there are bound to be winners and losers, unless you make set the level at a sufficiently high so there are no winners and losers. I cannot imagine what that number will be, because it will be a high number.
If this is about empowering people and lifting society, I am all for that. But, again, there is a level of detail. This is not a small group of people; it is an enormous number of people. It is more than the number of teachers. The teachers have had pay, and more pay, and are now going on strike for more money. Support staff do not do that. Support staff are vulnerable. They do not have that power to take industrial action to fight their corner. They negotiate their terms individually with local authorities and academies and, by and large, none of these people is paid below the minimum wage or the living wage. So, this is a bit of a sledgehammer to crack a nut.
I get the principle. I understand that there has been no base figure, and that should be addressed. But, if the Government are addressing that, and it is a philosophical Labour belief, they must put a price tag on it, because people need to know what the costs are, not only for their local authority but for every local authority and every academy in the country. If the noble Baroness is willing to push this to a vote—I do not know whether she will or will not—we on these Benches will support her.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Goddard. I agree with pretty much all that he said. I thank my noble friend Lady Barran for her amendments. I thank my noble friend Lord Agnew for his interesting and timely perspective, and I salute the teaching assistant whom he mentioned.
Amendment 111B would ensure that the establishment of national frameworks does not, by accident or design, limit the ability of employers to go further in improving conditions for their staff. It makes it clear that, while national terms may set the floor, they must not become the ceiling.
As we have heard, we must leave space for innovation and ambition at the local level, particularly for those schools, academies and trusts that are actively seeking to lead in areas such as flexible working, staff well-being or enhanced support for recruitment and retention. This amendment does not undermine the national framework. On the contrary, it reinforces it, because it allows it to act as a strong foundation on which more can be built, where employers have the capacity and willingness to do so.
We should not inadvertently create a situation where the national body becomes a constraint rather than a support. I therefore welcome the clarity that this amendment brings. I commend my noble friend for bringing it forward and, if she decides to press it to a vote, we will support her.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak first to government Amendments 112 to 116. The school support staff negotiating body will recognise the essential roles and responsibilities of over 800,000 support staff working in our schools, supporting our children to achieve and thrive. Like the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, I very much pay tribute to the teaching assistant whom the noble Lord, Lord Agnew, mentioned. We all know examples of support staff who have played significant interventionist roles in helping to run a school—roles that are often underrewarded and unrecognised. It is about time we put them and their pay and conditions on a proper footing.
It is right that we have a mechanism for employer and employee representatives to come together to negotiate and to agree pay and conditions that reflect the varied and vital role that support staff undertake. We have heard arguments made across the House that we must make the legislation itself clearer, that the SSSNB will not mandate a one-size-fits-all approach and that individual employees will be protected from any moves to their detriment as a result of the SSSNB process. We have listened to noble Lords on this issue and, while we have always been clear that this is the Government’s intent and can be achieved through existing provisions, we have decided to amend the SSSNB provisions to ensure that both principles are established in primary legislation.
This change will mean that all school support staff will benefit from a minimum offer—or floor—for pay and conditions, and that there will be no ceiling to prevent employers offering better pay or conditions. This protects individual employees and allows employers to go beyond agreements reached, should they choose to do so in response to their local circumstances. That was the argument made in Committee. A number of noble Lords argued that, particularly in academies, employers want to pay more and provide better conditions. We are making it clear that that is absolutely the right thing to do, and our amendments will deliver that.
I turn to the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran. Amendment 111A would change the SSSNB’s remit for academies so that academy employers would be required to have regard only to the framework. As outlined in response to this amendment in Committee, it would be wrong to create a two-tier system for support staff. Since roughly half of the 22,000 state-funded schools in England are now academies, it is right that academies are included in the SSSNB’s statutory remit in the same way as maintained schools. There is no need to take a different approach for academies when there will be ample room for innovation for all schools, irrespective of their structure.
I hope the noble Baroness understands and agrees that all school support staff deserve to know what they can expect as a minimum for pay and conditions, and that they can continue to benefit from more favourable terms where employers offer them. However, her amendment risks creating a two-tier system that undermines the role of the new negotiating body in establishing minimum standards which will work for all schools and recognise the vital roles that support staff undertake.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who contributed to this short but important debate. My noble friend Lord Agnew, the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, and the noble Lord, Lord Storey, gave good, practical examples of the risk of this approach and of undoing some of the good and innovation that have happened in the sector over several years.
The noble Lord, Lord Goddard, said he thought we might be dancing on the head of a pin. He may be right, but there is a fundamental principle at the heart of this, which seems to differ between the Department of Health and the Department for Education, about the amount that you trust leaders in the sector to take these decisions. We have seen really positive change in the education sector in relation to school support staff as a result of innovation and of delegation to school and trust leaders. We on these Benches regret that recentralisation very much, and what appears to be a change and diverging policies between two government departments.
The Minister said that we would not have a one-size-fits-all approach. I tried to be clear in my remarks that we will not have a one-size-fits-all approach; that clearly cannot happen. We will have several thousand sizes, and that is just unworkable. I know the Minister does not agree, but I think that is the reality.
The Minister talked about ample room for innovation but not wanting a two-tier system. I find it hard to follow the logic. If we have enough room for flexibility, by definition, there will be evolution. There will be a floor but, rightly, there will be differences in different areas.
I understood the Minister to say—she will correct me if I misunderstood—that the Government would cover any costs associated with these changes. I remind her that the Government imposed the new employers’ national insurance contribution and have not covered all the costs for schools. Schools are having to try to cover part of it themselves. I hope that, in this case, we can take her word literally that it will be 100% of the cost.
One the one hand, I do not think we disagree about innovation, but on the other the Minister did not address the two examples I gave of where it is the package of conditions that is innovative and to the advantage of an individual employee. Her Amendment 112 seems to me—I am not a lawyer—to have been extremely carefully framed. It says:
“Subsections (2) to (5) … do not apply in relation to a term or condition”—
that is singular—
“to the extent that, giving effect to the agreement would alter the term or condition to the person’s detriment”.
It goes on in new paragraph (b) to say,
“do not prevent the terms and conditions”—
plural—
“of a person’s employment from including a term or condition”,
here it is singular,
“that is more favourable to the person than that which would otherwise have effect”.
When I talk to leaders in the sector, they are worried. They put together a package of conditions. I gave the example of where someone has a requirement to reach a level 3 qualification and is then entitled to higher pay, which benefits children and that individual. The Minister did not address that point, and I am left not with a concern that we want a different thing, although I have a nagging doubt that this phrasing would exclude that, but with the reality that, as drafted, we need my Amendment 111B. I shall test the opinion of the House when we come to that amendment. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 111A.
Baroness Barran
“(3) The SSSNB must not restrict employers from introducing innovative or improved terms and conditions of employment beyond the national framework, provided that such terms meet or exceed any minimum standards set by the SSSNB.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment prevents the SSSNB from blocking employers who wish to adopt new or improved employment terms and conditions.
“(6) Subsections (2) to (5)—(a) do not apply in relation to a term or condition of a person’s employment if, and to the extent that, giving effect to the agreement would alter the term or condition to the person’s detriment; (b) do not prevent the terms and conditions of a person’s employment from including a term or condition that is more favourable to the person than that which would otherwise have effect by virtue of those subsections.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment provides that an agreement of the School Support Staff Negotiating Body cannot alter a person’s terms and conditions of employment to make the person worse off, and does not prevent an employer from offering more favourable terms and conditions than those provided for by the agreement.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment of Schedule 4 at page 208, line 4.
“(8) Subsections (4) to (7)—(a) do not apply in relation to a term or condition of a person’s employment if, and to the extent that, giving effect to the regulations would alter the term or condition to the person’s detriment;(b) do not prevent the terms and conditions of a person’s employment from including a term or condition that is more favourable to the person than that which would otherwise have effect by virtue of those subsections.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment provides that, where the School Support Staff Negotiating Body has been unable to reach an agreement about a matter and the Secretary of State makes regulations about the matter, the regulations cannot alter a person’s terms and conditions of employment to make the person worse off, and do not prevent an employer from offering more favourable terms and conditions than those provided for by the regulations.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment of Schedule 4 at page 208, line 4.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment of Schedule 4 at page 208, line 4.
“(5) Subsections (2) to (4)—(a) do not apply in relation to a term or condition of a social care worker’s employment if, and to the extent that, giving effect to the agreement would alter the term or condition to the social care worker’s detriment;(b) do not prevent the terms and conditions of a social care worker’s employment from including a term or condition that is more favourable to the social care worker than that which would otherwise have effect by virtue of those subsections.” Member's explanatory statement
This amendment provides that an agreement of a Social Care Negotiating Body cannot alter a person’s terms and conditions of employment to make the person worse off, and does not prevent an employer from offering more favourable terms and conditions than those provided for by the agreement.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment of clause 45 at page 67, line 10.
“(8) Subsections (5) to (7)—(a) do not apply in relation to a term or condition of a social care worker’s employment if, and to the extent that, giving effect to the regulations would alter the term or condition to the social care worker’s detriment;(b) do not prevent the terms and conditions of a social care worker’s employment from including a term or condition that is more favourable to the social care worker than that which would otherwise have effect by virtue of those subsections.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment provides that, where a Social Care Negotiating Body has been unable to reach an agreement about a matter and the appropriate authority makes regulations about the matter, the regulations cannot alter a person’s terms and conditions of employment to make the person worse off, and do not prevent an employer from offering more favourable terms and conditions than those provided for by the regulations.
“(3A) Regulations under this section that by virtue of subsection (2)(b) make provision about the consequences of a failure to comply with a duty imposed by the regulations in relation to a provision of guidance or a code of practice must provide for the guidance or code to be laid before the appropriate legislature and subject to the procedure specified.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment provides that, where regulations under clause 46 provide for the issuing of guidance or a code of practice by the Secretary of State, and make provision about the consequences of a failure to comply with a duty imposed in relation to the guidance or code, the regulations must provide for the guidance or code to be laid before Parliament and to be subject to the procedure specified in the regulations. The amendment also imposes an equivalent duty in relation to regulations made by the Welsh Ministers or Scottish Ministers.
“the appropriate legislature” means—(a) in the case of regulations of the Secretary of State, Parliament;(b) in the case of regulations of the Welsh Ministers, Senedd Cymru;(c) in the case of regulations of the Scottish Ministers, the Scottish Parliament;”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my other amendment of this clause.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment of clause 45 at page 67, line 10.
Lord Hendy
“Statutory rights of GB-linked ships’ crews(1) The members of the crew of a GB-linked ship shall be entitled to the statutory rights to which employees in the UK are entitled under statute.(2) In this section, “GB-linked ship” means a ship providing a service—(a) for the carriage of persons or goods, with or without vehicles, and(b) that is within subsection (3) or (4).(3) A service is within this subsection if it is operated between a place in Great Britain and another place in the United Kingdom.(4) A service is within this subsection if—(a) ships providing the service entered a harbour in Great Britain on at least 120 occasions in the period of 12 months ending with the day on which one or more of the statutory rights referred to in subsection (1) is claimed, or(b) 15 if the service has been provided for less than 12 months before that day, ships providing the service entered a harbour in Great Britain on at least 10 occasions in each month for which the service has been provided.(5) But a service is not within subsection (4) if the service—(a) is for the purpose of leisure or recreation, or(b) is provided by a fishing vessel.(6) In this section—“harbour” has the same meaning as in the Harbours Act 1964;“ship” has the same meaning as in section 193A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (see subsection (4) of that section).” Member's explanatory statement
This new clause is intended to extend entitlement of the rights of GB-linked ships’ crews from the right to collective redundancy notification in clause 29 to entitlement to all statutory rights enjoyed by UK employees.
Lord Hendy (Lab)
My Lords, the purpose of this amendment is to probe the extent to which the new category of seafarers, “GB-linked ships’ crews”, should benefit from other employment rights apart from the one bestowed by the Bill, which gives them a right in relation to consultation over collective redundancies, as a consequence of the P&O Ferries scandal. I understand that there have been discussions between the unions representing these seafarers and the ministerial team. In the light of that, I shall leave it to the Minister to set out the situation. I beg to move.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
Having raised these issues at the beginning of Committee, I just want to say that, following the favourable response of the Front Bench to the idea of arranging a meeting at which they can be discussed, I very much look forward—at least, I hope I can—to the reply of my noble friend the Minister.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Hendy for moving his amendment.
Amendments 123 and 124 in my name relate to Clause 54, which provides powers to make regulations giving effect to two named international conventions and to give effect to international agreements as they relate to maritime employment. I thank the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee for its thoughtful consideration of these powers, and its recommendation to amend the procedure for new Section 84A(2) from first-time affirmative to affirmative for all uses. I wrote to the committee on 7 July, setting out our response in full.
These amendments will change the parliamentary procedure applicable to regulations made under the power in new Section 84A(2) of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995, giving effect to international agreements as they relate to maritime employment. The amendments mean that all uses of the power to give effect to future or unspecified international agreements will now be subject to the affirmative procedure, and not just the first use. They will mean that Parliament has greater oversight of these agreements and amendments to them.
I turn to Amendment 122A tabled by my noble friend Lord Hendy. The amendment would specify that the statutory rights to which shore-based workers in the UK are entitled also apply to ships’ crews working aboard services that enter ports in Great Britain 120 or more times per year, or that operate
“between a place in Great Britain and another place in the United Kingdom”.
The scope of services covered follows the approach taken in Clause 29, where the Government have sought to ensure that those employed aboard these services are captured by the requirement to provide proposed notification of collective redundancy.
I thank my noble friend for this amendment on the application of employment rights to seafarers, and the maritime trade unions for their continuing engagement on these issues. I hope to be able to provide some clarity today, but we can also commit to continuing ongoing discussion about how we can ensure that seafarers are receiving robust protections.
The Government want to see stronger employment rights for seafarers. That is why, in addition to the broader changes to employment rights, we have included a package of maritime-specific measures in this Bill. As my noble friend knows, we are closing the loophole that meant that P&O Ferries could avoid prosecution for failing to provide advance notice of proposed collective redundancies. We are also providing powers for a mandatory seafarers’ charter, which will allow us to set a higher minimum standard for wages and for how long seafarers can spend at sea without a break. This will establish a level playing field that will help prevent the undercutting of working conditions in the way that P&O Ferries sought to do.
The new power to give effect to the Maritime Labour Convention, and other international agreements as they relate to maritime employment, is also important. Where international agreement is needed to improve protections, we can implement those changes.
Lord Hendy (Lab)
My Lords, in the light of my noble friend the Minister’s recognition of the shortfall in employment rights for seafarers and the commitment to continued engagement with the maritime unions, and indeed employers, to discuss the ways in which the intent behind the amendment might be ultimately achieved, I am happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, together with my other amendment of this clause, provides that regulations under new section 84A(2) of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 giving effect to international agreements relating to maritime employment will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my other amendment of this clause.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
“Right to opt out of collective agreements(1) A worker who is not a member of a trade union may elect, in writing, to opt out of the terms of a collective agreement that would otherwise apply to them under this Act. (2) In such a case, the worker shall be entitled to rely on the statutory rights conferred by this Act without reference to the collective agreement.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides non-union workers with the right to opt out of collective agreements, reinforcing individual freedom of contract and protecting access to statutory entitlements.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 125 in my name speaks to a fundamental principle that we should run through every piece of employment legislation that we consider, and that it is the right of the individual to determine their own path.
Too much of the Bill rests on an implicit and rather patronising assumption that workers are somehow incapable of managing their own affairs—that they must be corralled, collectively represented, spoken for and ultimately told what is best for them. This amendment challenges that assumption head on. It affirms the right of a worker who is not a union member to say that they wish to stand on their own two feet and do not wish to be bound by collective agreements that they had no part in negotiating and no say in accepting. That is not anti-union; it is pro-choice and pro-individual. If we believe in personal responsibility then we must also believe in personal freedom. Some workers are independent-minded individuals, who want to make their own decisions about their pay and their terms and conditions.
We have to be clear: statutory rights remain in place. This amendment would do nothing to undermine minimum standards; it would simply allow the worker to rely on those rights without being bound by a collectivist framework that they never opted into. That is not a threat to fairness but the definition of fairness.
The Government treat workers as a monolith. They are defined not by merit or initiative but by membership and conformity. This proposed clause offers a quiet but powerful alternative: that the individual workers matter, that their preferences matter, and that freedom of contract is not some abstract legal concept but a cornerstone of liberty. I beg to move.
Lord Hendy (Lab)
My Lords, before I speak to my Amendment 127, I will say a few words about Amendment 125, from the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe. He and other noble Lords on that side of the House often accuse those on this side of ignorance of business, but his amendment shows ignorance of what happens in industrial relations on the ground.
I will make three points. First, there is nothing in the law to prevent an employer and an individual employee agreeing an improvement to terms and conditions on an existing collective agreement, save in exceptional circumstances such as that illustrated by the case of Wilson and Palmer v the United Kingdom, where the employer offered to pay workers a higher rate of pay if they surrendered their union membership. That principle would also apply to prevent the penalisation of workers on the grounds of any other protected characteristic. However, as a general principle, workers and employers can agree to improve on an existing collective agreement.
Secondly, why would an individual employee agree to detrimental terms worse than an existing collective agreement—lower wages, longer hours, fewer holidays, fewer breaks, and worse terms and conditions? There can be no reason why a worker would wish not to abide by the existing collective agreement. Employees need protection against bad employers who might otherwise exploit the proposed loophole by saying to an individual employee, “I want you to opt out of the collective agreement”, hence undermining it.
Thirdly, collective agreements are not dictated by the trade unions but are agreed by an employer and, usually, by a vote of the employees. We need more negotiation and less litigation.
With that, I turn to my Amendment 127, which is intended to provide my noble friend the Minister and the Secretary of State with a mechanism to promote and encourage collective bargaining on a sector-wide basis without prescribing in detail the model to be deployed. It would be used when needed and would not compel the Government to put it into operation. I will not repeat the arguments about collective bargaining that I developed in Committee over the course of three speeches, but I think I may be permitted to summarise the gist of those arguments in six points.
First, the Bill makes commendable reforms to the legal machinery to establish collective bargaining between trade unions and a single employer, but there is no mechanism in the Bill or anywhere else for multi-employer collective agreements or sector-wide collective agreements.
Secondly, sectoral collective bargaining was the norm for the United Kingdom from 1918 until 1990. It established a coverage of over 80% of British workers between 1945 and the late 1980s. The percentage of workers covered by collective agreement has now declined to 25%. That means that three-quarters of our workforce are employed on “take it or leave it” terms, without any possibility of negotiating anything better than that which the employer offers.
Thirdly, 80% collective bargaining coverage is curiously—or coincidentally—the level now set for the 27 member states of the European Union, after two decades during which the EU undermined sectoral collective bargaining. That policy was reversed in 2024 by means of a directive. Collective bargaining is now advocated by the OECD, since 2017, the IMF and, of course, the ILO.
Fourthly, Labour’s Green Paper, A New Deal for Working People; its subsequent publication on making work pay, implementing the new deal for working people; Labour’s election manifesto; and the King’s Speech all endorsed the extension of collective bargaining.
Fifthly, I come to the benefits of sectoral collective bargaining, which need spelling out again. There are at least eight benefits, as I identify them. The first is that sectoral collective bargaining increases wages. Let us recall that the real value of wages has risen only 0.5% in the past 20 years. Secondly, a rise in wages increases demand in the economy—demand for the goods and services produced by employers. Thirdly, collective bargaining contracts the differentials that have emerged: the gender pay gap, the ethnic-minority pay gap, the disability pay gap and so on. Fourthly, by increasing wages, collective bargaining diminishes the need for state benefits by way of subsidy to low wages. Let us not forget that 31% of those in receipt of universal credit are in work, which gives an indication of the lowness of wages in this country. Fifthly, increasing wages increases the Government’s tax take, which diminishes the need to find money elsewhere. Sixthly, sectoral collective bargaining prevents employers undercutting each other on labour costs. Seventhly, the other side of that coin is that it encourages employers to compete on productivity, investment, efficiency and innovation. Eighthly—this is an important point—it achieves a form of democracy at work. It gives workers a say in the terms and conditions on which they work.
I said there were six points, and the sixth and final point is one of particular interest to me as a lawyer. It is the observation that the rule of law plays a part here. The rule of law, Lord Bingham’s eighth principle, is that states must abide by the treaties they have ratified. That principle has been endorsed in almost every speech I have heard my noble and learned friend Lord Hermer KC, the Attorney-General, give since his appointment to that office. This is significant because International Labour Organization Convention No. 98 and Article 6.2 of the European Social Charter 1961 impose the duty on ratifying states, which includes the United Kingdom, not just to permit collective bargaining but to promote and encourage it. The Bill was the opportunity to promote and encourage collective bargaining at sectoral level, but it does nothing to do so in any sector of the economy.
Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 127 in the name of my noble friend Lord Hendy, but I am conscious that some of my comments may also be relevant to Amendment 125, which I oppose.
According to the latest LFS figures, 6.4 million people hold a union card, making trade unionism by far the largest democratic membership movement in the UK. Many of Britain’s most innovative companies recognise trade unions and the real value that an independent voice for workers adds, including Rolls-Royce, Uber, Virgin Media and EDF Renewables, to name but a few.
We have heard on several occasions how union membership has declined since the 1980s, and no doubt we can debate the reasons for that. But it is also worth recording that the ONS’s annual survey of hours and earnings, which is a survey of employers, shows that today the pay of more than four in 10 jobs in the UK is set with reference to a union agreement. In other words, collective bargaining still sets the pace for the pay and conditions of a substantial part of the workforce, well beyond union membership—but expanding collective bargaining coverage has never been more urgent.
OECD analysis shows that the UK has one of the highest levels of income inequality in Europe. The picture on wealth inequality is even worse. That is bad for society and a brake on fair growth. It is not just about the families who work all the hours God sends yet still rely on benefits and food banks, or that under the previous Government living standards stagnated for 15 long years, or that the real threat to the survival of pubs, hospitality and small businesses on the high street is the prolonged squeeze on disposable income that has hammered consumer spending. It is more than that.
Ever since the previous Government’s austerity cuts, Brexit, and then Covid, there has been growing public anger that sacrifice has not been equally shared. The so-called trickle-down theory of economics has proven to be an elaborate con. To take one glaring example, in the financial year from 2023, the CEO of the outsourced services giant Mitie was paid nearly £15 million. That is 575 times that of a median worker at the company. I challenge any noble Lord to justify that.
Some noble Lords opposite may not like what trade unions stand for. In the other place, their party joined Reform in voting against better sick pay, an end to exploitative zero-hours contracts, and protection against fire and rehire. But when it comes to collective bargaining, I have yet to hear the Opposition come up with a better plan for workers so that workers can win a fairer share of the wealth that, after all, they helped create. Perhaps we can hear an alternative today.
In the meantime, as we have heard, the evidence is clear: when individual workers combine their working power, they are much more likely to win better pay, safety, skills training, family-friendly policies, workforce engagement and, ultimately, higher productivity—a good deal for workers and for their employers.
I congratulate my noble friend the Minister on the Government’s plan to reinstate the school support staff negotiating body and to establish a fair pay agreement for social care. This could be transformative, not only for the workforce but for the service and everyone who relies on its dedicated care. But we cannot stop there. We can debate the detail, but at the heart of my noble friend Lord Hendy’s amendment is the objective to spread the benefits of collective bargaining to more sectors of the economy. That would provide a level playing field for business, lift living standards, improve workforce well-being and boost company productivity, which in turn would aid fair growth.
In her response to the debate in Committee on 5 June, my noble friend Lady Jones, the Minister, said that the Government
“intend to learn from the first fair pay agreement process … before considering rolling out agreements in other areas”.—[Official Report, 5/6/25; col. 943.]
I understand the concern to learn from the success of the commitments already contained within the Bill, but it would seem sensible to take powers to introduce more sectoral agreements now, so that the Government are ready to act quickly in the future.
I know that the Government understand the absolute urgency of the need to tackle inequality in this country, to get living standards rising and to boost business investment in skills and productivity. Sectoral collective agreements are one of the quickest, most flexible and most effective ways to do just that. But, in the meantime, will my noble friend the Minister kindly undertake to facilitate a meeting with the relevant Cabinet Office Minister to explore how government procurement social value rules can promote fair work and a collective voice for workers?
Lord Monks (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Hendy for directing our attention to collective bargaining, its historic importance in our national life and its relevance today.
Many in this Chamber today might know that the hero of establishing that collective bargaining system, which has been talked about by others, in 1928 was Stanley Baldwin, who was concerned about the excesses in the boardrooms of Britain. He regarded a lot of directors as profiteers. He promoted collective bargaining and trade unions as an antidote to that kind of greed. We now have another era of excessive boardroom remuneration and, in the absence of strong collective bargaining, too many boards do not seem restrained at all by the possible reaction of their workforce—and, boy, do they take advantage. More collective bargaining would help check this greed.
A start has been made. I will not go into the technicalities, but a start is made in the Bill’s provisions on fair pay agreements, including in the social care and school support staff sectors. We need a major step-up in British employment relations. We need a new system to improve productivity, investment and training. We need a new system based not on short-termism but on respect and investment in skills and capital. We need a new system which puts “them and us” behind us and bases itself on priorities, consultation and more equality.
Once this Bill—which does rebalance relations in this country to a considerable extent—is put to bed I ask the Government to go further and build an ambitious system which raises the national game. We can all do better in this country.
Baroness Verma (Con)
My Lords, in response to the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, I want to explore the fact that we currently have strong representation from the unions. We have seen, through recent strikes, that there is an ability to go out there and voice your opinion.
My worry—I would like to have this recorded—as a businessperson, as my registered interests lay out, is that most of the businesses impacted will be SMEs, which are already predominantly very good employers. Most small and medium-sized businesses work with their workforce. We all wish to do well because we want better productivity, and it is not in our interests not to do so.
I remind noble Lords that my own grandfather was one of the founders of the Indian Workers’ Association because, at that time, unions were not properly representing minority communities. My worry is that we are going to go back to a place where people from minority communities, who do not actually know whether they have a choice to be part of a union or not, will have to come back into a union—whether or not they know that they are a member. I want to know from the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, how that would be clarified. There will be many from minority communities who work incredibly hard, are ambitious and aspirational, and want to end up owning their own business, who find that working and learning from employers is the best way to do it.
I fully support my noble friend’s amendment because I think that the world has moved on so much. Technology has enabled us to do so many things differently so that we are far more able to hold employers to account. There is no place to hide for bad employers. I do not think that the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, will actually make a lot of difference to today’s workforce, as we are using a lot of new technologies to be able to make sure that the workplace is a much fairer place.
Lord Hendy (Lab)
I do not really recognise the workplace that the noble Baroness describes. The fact of the matter is that only some—
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)
I think I am right in saying the Companion says that the noble Lord is not allowed to speak twice in the debate as he has not moved the amendment.
Lord Balfe (Con)
Maybe I could say what I think the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, was going to say. The workplace is not necessarily quite as put. Both my grandmothers were businesspeople in their own right, with small businesses. The one we always call my English grandmother—because she was not the Irish one—was asked towards the end of her life whom she thought were the best politicians. She, rather like her grandson, had managed to vote for all the parties before she died. She said that the greatest politician in Britain was Stanley Baldwin, because he cooled down Britain after the general strike and, as she used to put it, he got rid of our Nazi King. So I have a lot of time for Stanley Baldwin. He is also one of my heroes, and the fact of the matter is that this is a thoroughly good amendment. Collective bargaining is a thoroughly good thing, and I hope I have not misrepresented too much what I think my friend was about to say.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
I want to intervene very briefly to reflect on the difference between the debate this afternoon and the debate we had at the time of the P&O disaster—I call it a disaster for all the people who were basically sacked. It was very difficult to get information about what was right and what was wrong, and who was their employer. We were fed a load of, frankly, bad information from the company, and we got some good information from the trade unions.
Let us just reflect, however, on what my noble friends Lord Hendy and Lady O’Grady said about how things have changed. It would have been wonderful if we had heard their speeches before we debated P&O, because the problem is still just as bad and still needs resolving. I am very glad to welcome these two people in particular, and I hope we will hear much more from them.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
Will noble Lords allow me to say a word in support? I was a little late coming in because I misread the screen; I thought we were on Amendment 122. I support my noble friend’s Amendment 125 because it would reinforce the individual freedom of the workplace and the freedom of contract, and it would protect access to statutory rights. I say this in response to some of the points made about what other arrangements could be in place. I will refer to one law firm commenting on the importance of freedom of contract in our laws. It reflected—
Lord Katz (Lab)
I apologise for interrupting the noble Baroness in full flow. She said she was not here for the start of the debate on the group, so it would be a courtesy to the House to leave it at that.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Leong) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who spoke—my noble friends Lord Hendy, Lady O’Grady, Lord Monks and Lord Berkeley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Verma.
The noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, tabled Amendment 125, which seeks to give workers the right to opt out of collective agreements. Workers are free to join or not to join a trade union. It is their choice. They are not compelled to pay any union subscriptions, or any part thereof, where a union is recognised by the employer for collective bargaining purposes—so they do not need to pay any union subscription or join a union.
Many employers choose to recognise a union voluntarily. One advantage of trade union recognition is that this enables the employer to negotiate collective agreements, the terms of which may apply to all workers in a workplace. My noble friend Lord Hendy explained so clearly the principles of collective agreements—he said all that I needed to say.
The application of the terms of collective agreements to workers generally depends, in any event, on incorporation of those terms into the workers’ contracts, either expressly or by implication. That is the normal position. But providing some individual workers with a new statutory right to withdraw from the provisions agreed under a collective agreement, even where they can rely on statutory entitlements, would create an unnecessary risk of a multi-tier system, with workers on different terms and conditions of employment. We believe that this would not be beneficial to employers as it would likely create more red tape and confusion. We cannot, therefore, support this amendment.
Amendment 127 was tabled by my noble friend Lord Hendy. We welcome any support for sectoral collective bargaining and we appreciate the informed and wide-ranging debate we had in Committee on these points. We are demonstrating our commitment to sectoral collective bargaining with the social care and school support staff sectors, as was debated on the earlier group.
We believe that bespoke primary legislation will be required to allow such bodies to operate as effectively as possible. This will allow Parliament to fully consider any such sectors and scrutinise the frameworks for the new bargaining processes. We welcome all representation regarding next steps on sectoral collective bargaining, and we are working hard to consider the groundwork required for future models. However, before this work is done, we do not seek the sweeping powers that my noble friend’s amendment aims to give the Secretary of State without a sufficiently clear purpose or plan.
I say to my noble friend Lord Hendy that we are committed to supporting sectoral collective bargaining where appropriate, and we recognise the positive contribution it can make to Britain’s economy. However, different sectors will have different needs, so we need to ensure that any legislation on collective bargaining is fit for purpose for each of the specific sectors. Developing the legislation in collaboration with the sector and workers will be key to success. I hope this offers my noble friend some comfort and that he will not go further with this amendment.
I referred to my noble friend Lady O’Grady, and I will ensure that I mention this to my noble friend Lady Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent, the Cabinet Office Minister, so that she can organise meetings for her with officials in the department. I totally agree with the point of the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, about ethnic minority business. Most businesses are good businesses. What this Bill does is go after those minority unscrupulous businesses that exploit workers. I therefore respectfully ask the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, to withdraw Amendment 125.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who spoke in this brief debate. I confess that I will have to go back and bone up on my Stanley Baldwin history—I was not expecting that. The noble Lord, Lord Hendy, accused me of ignorance of industrial relations. He asked why anyone would agree to detrimental terms, but that is missing the point, I fear. We are saying that they should be allowed to agree to different terms. Why should a worker not be allowed to trade some holiday entitlement for extra pay, for example?
We agree that we need significantly less litigation. We have been discussing that throughout the passage of the Bill. Unfortunately, as we have also discussed, so much of the Bill is likely to lead to rather more. I was very interested in the noble Lord’s comments about the workforce up until 1990, but my noble friend Lady Verma hit the nail on the head when she talked about small businesses. The fact is that the workplace has changed so dramatically in the last 35 years that I do not think that necessarily remains a valid comparison.
We have argued that free negotiation between employers and employees must be the foundation of any fair and modern employment framework. But we regret that what we see here is a model rooted in uniformity and prescription. That is flawed not just in detail but in principle, because a one-size-fits-all approach flattens the complexity and diversity of real working life and ignores the dignity and agency of the individual. Having said that, I have listened to the noble Lord, Lord Leong, carefully and, on this occasion, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment 125.
“Chapter 4Industrial undertakingsRestriction on the employment of children in industrial undertakingsIn section 1 of the Employment of Women, Young Persons, and Children Act 1920 (restrictions on the employment of women, young persons, and children in industrial undertakings), at the end of subsection (1) insert “(but voluntary work on a heritage railway or heritage tramway is not employment in an industrial undertaking)”.”
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 126 stands in my name and the names of the noble Lords, Lord Faulkner of Worcester and Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, and the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty. The amendment is identical to one which the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, and I proposed in Committee, although noble Lords may have noticed that we have swapped round: whereas he served as the driver in Committee and I took on the role of fireman, shovelling extra fuel into the firebox, we have now swapped places, and a more diligent and experienced secondman I could not hope for. We are very glad to have support from the Liberal Democrat Benches and the Cross Benches as well, from the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, and the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty. The Minister very kindly arranged a helpful meeting with us following the debate we had in Committee, and we are very grateful to him and to his officials, as well as to colleagues from the Health and Safety Executive and the Office of Rail and Road, for the time they gave us.
Our helpful discussion highlighted the very good relationship that the heritage railway sector has with its regulators. The Heritage Railway Association, for instance, works closely with the ORR to produce guidance and examples of best practice for its members across the country. As we set out in Committee, this is a sector that takes its responsibilities to its staff, its volunteers and its visitors very seriously, and which is scrupulous in following the laws and regulations that govern it. That brings us to the problem that our amendment seeks to remedy. While there have been helpful assurances from the regulators that they would not rely on outdated legislation as the basis for a prosecution regarding the use of young volunteers, the statute book says otherwise, thanks to a law passed more than a century ago seeking to protect women and children in the decimated workforce that the country found in the aftermath of the First World War.
Let me briefly restate the problem. The Employment of Women, Young Persons, and Children Act 1920 makes it unlawful to employ young people under the age of 16 on the railways. That 1920 Act was passed more than 30 years before the first preserved railway started operation with the aid of volunteers, but by slightly confused extension through later legislation, the work the Act prohibits includes unpaid work by volunteers—far from what the original Act envisaged. This has had a chilling effect on the responsible law-abiding businesses and charitable organisations that look after this important part of our national heritage. So concerned were they that in 2015, the Heritage Railway Association sought counsel’s opinion, which confirmed that the 1920 Act remained in force and that it was unlawful to allow volunteers under 16 to undertake voluntary work on a heritage railway or tramway.
For the past decade, the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, has been seeking to put that right. The Private Member’s Bill that he brought in during the last Parliament passed all its stages in your Lordships’ House without amendment, but was regrettably not taken up in another place, so did not become law. It did, however, win some important and helpful reassurances from the regulators, but these do not have statutory force and do not cover the threat of civil action or of prosecution by other public authorities. I stress that nobody in the sector wants to be accused of misapplying the law. If the law is unclear, it is our duty to clarify it, rather than asking voluntary organisations to spend many hours and many thousands of pounds trying to disentangle the confusion that legislators have caused.
The amendment that the noble Lords and I have brought is deliberately very narrowly framed. It seeks to make it clear that voluntary work on a heritage railway or tramway is not to be considered
“employment in an industrial undertaking”
for the purposes of the 1920 Act. It leaves that Act on the statute book. The Minister mentioned in Committee a case some 16 years ago in which the Act was used in connection with the illegal employment of a child in a factory. We can see its importance in such cases, but these are a world away from the volunteering that we want to encourage in young people in our heritage sector. The benefits of such volunteering are manifold. It helps young people to gain valuable experience and life skills, which will help them in their future employment. It brings people together across the generations and from diverse backgrounds to celebrate our shared heritage and to keep it alive for the benefit of future generations. It is an essential boost to the organisations that look after that shared heritage, which operate on very tight margins and in the face of many other challenges.
On Friday, I had the great pleasure of visiting, along with the noble Lord, Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill, the touring exhibition “Inspiration”, which is travelling the length and breadth of Britain by rail throughout this anniversary year, when we mark the bicentenary of the first passenger rail journey. Over two days at Waterloo this weekend alone, it welcomed more than 1,400 people, not just telling them the proud story of our industrial past but showing how they can get involved in the future of our railways, as coders, camera operators, ecologists, weather analysts and so much more, and how they can help to write the next exciting chapter of our railways. The exhibition in those carriages is brilliantly targeted at schoolchildren in school years 7 to 9—the time when they are choosing the subjects that will steer them towards their future careers. These are exactly the young people whose passion our heritage railways want to ignite, to help them in whatever direction life takes them.
The unintended consequence of this Act of Parliament, passed more than a century ago, stands in the way of unleashing that potential. The noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, has campaigned long and hard for it to be remedied. I do hope that his noble friend the Minister is able to help do that today. I beg to move.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, for making an excellent speech which I could very easily have made myself—there was nothing in it with which I disagreed. He rightly referred to the fact that he and I tabled an identical amendment in Committee. We have come back tonight because this issue really has to be settled one way or another. I have previously declared my interest as president of the Heritage Railway Association. I should also say that I am the sponsor each year of an HRA award for young volunteers, to encourage a continued influx of young people to learn the skills and enjoy the satisfaction that working on a steam railway brings.
Last month, in my role as president of the HRA and co-chair of the All-Party Group on Heritage Rail, I was fortunate enough to take part in the 70th anniversary celebrations of the Ffestiniog Railway in north Wales, which was brilliantly organised and fitted in admirably with National Rail’s Railway 200 programme. It involved a cavalcade of every steam locomotive that the railway possesses, in procession on the Cob in Porthmadog, and it was a very fine tribute to the railway’s history and its contribution to the economy of north Wales. I met many young people who are keen to join the railway but are prevented from doing so because of their age, and I took the opportunity also to talk to older volunteers who are now part of the very successful team on the Ffestiniog. Almost without exception, those older volunteers started at ages as young as 13, back in the 1970s, in blissful ignorance of the Employment of Women, Young Persons, and Children Act 1920—an Act which, frankly, had disappeared from public consciousness. Indeed, many were involved in the hard physical labour of building the deviation that some of your Lordships may know, which allowed the railway to be carried above the waterline of a new reservoir to reach the northern terminus of Blaenau Ffestiniog.
As the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, said, once the HRA received the wholly unwelcome advice that the 1920 Act had been interpreted to extend to under-16s and included volunteering as well as paid work, things changed. The safety regulators have made it clear that they would not prosecute under the 1920 Act and would maintain safety and safeguarding under more recent and appropriate legislation; but if that is so, I have to ask why this anachronistic legislation is still on the statute book.
I am most grateful to the Minister, my noble friend Lord Katz, for the discussions he initiated with the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, and me on this, and I know how sympathetic he is to the points we have been making. I understand that the possibility of further guidance from the safety regulators remains, but that guidance must be reinforced by statutory force, because while the 1920 Act is in force, responsible Heritage Railway managers will not wish to break it. Even if the ORR would not prosecute, what is to stop a local authority or a parent doing so? It is time to make things clear and simple by removing this outdated restriction that is holding heritage railways back from encouraging the next generation, preventing them enjoying the opportunities that so many leading figures in the railway heritage movement had as youngsters.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, I will be exceedingly brief. I put my name to this amendment in the spirit of support for our heritage, of which our heritage railways are a significant part. We need to do everything we can to allow young people who wish to do so to work as volunteers in this area. I hope that the Government will look favourably on this amendment.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, I have played no part in this Bill, but I have come in especially for this amendment—although I voted on an earlier one. However, my elder brother was a passionate railway supporter, and he would have been horrified if he had realised that any support that he could give would have been illegal. Respectfully, it is no use the Minister saying that guidance shows that they will not prosecute. The fact is that the law forbids it. Speaking as a former lawyer, if the law forbids it, no respectable organisation should allow it to go forward.
It does not matter that the advice is that you will not be prosecuted. If, in the future, a 13 year-old is a passionate supporter and a different member of the organisation who looks after this says, “We must prosecute”, the fact that they have been told they would not be prosecuted would not be the slightest defence in a court of law. This is the important thing. It is anachronistic, as has been said, and it is time it was changed. I hope the Minister is not going to offer the bromide that it does not matter because it will not happen. The law has to be obeyed, and we cannot have government departments saying that you can shut your eyes to a piece of law.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I support this amendment wholeheartedly. I have attended many meetings of the heritage rail group, and I congratulate my noble friend on the way he has taken it forward.
One thing we have not mentioned is the quite regular reports from members who run the small railways about the fear of breaking the law and the effect it could have if there are legal cases and they run out of money. Most of them are very short of money, and they rely on as much voluntary work as they possibly can. The thought of being taken to court—whether it is by the regulator, which is unlikely, as my noble friend says, or others—really puts them off welcoming younger people. It is the fear of legal action against a voluntary organisation which is the most serious part of this debate.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, the incredible thing about this amendment is that it has signatures and support from the Conservative Benches, the Labour Benches, the Liberal Democrat Benches and the Cross Benches. It is something the Government should take into account. It is not some weird idea from one part of this House, it is across the House. I applaud the initiative which started with my old friend, the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner—if he would allow me to say that. The principle here is to try to stop unintended consequences. The law is as it is, and it cannot be ignored. We have an opportunity to tweak the employment rights legislation to put that right.
We are dealing with young people who are doing voluntary work on the railways. There was an incredible programme on television recently—which I referred to in a previous speech—where the young people were doing all the jobs on this heritage railway, except running the engine, which was dangerous and they were not allowed to do; they were the porters, the inspectors, et cetera. We all gain from it: the young people gain from it and the community gains from it. However, there is a possibility that someone could be prosecuted because the law says what it does.
We are not talking about one small heritage railway. As the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, said, there are many; he mentioned the Ffestiniog Railway—if I pronounced that correctly. There is also the North Yorkshire Moors Railway, the Bluebell Railway, the West Somerset Railway, the Middleton Railway, the Spa Valley Railway, and many others. There is a long list.
This is a very understated thing. People have asked me why I signed the amendment from the noble Lords, Lord Faulkner and Lord Parkinson; I told them it was because we are dealing with real matters of the moment in the employment rights legislation. This is an opportunity to put right a small error in history. I invite everybody, if we go to a vote, to support this.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, I rise briefly to support my noble friend Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay’s amendment, supported as it has been by very effective speeches from the noble Lords, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, Lord Berkeley and Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss.
It is a sensible measure that recognises the value of voluntary work on heritage railways and tramways, especially for young people. The current statutory framework treats such activity as though it were employment in a heavy industrial setting, when in reality it is community-based, educational and often intergenerational. These are voluntary efforts undertaken not for profit but for preservation, learning and public enjoyment. To continue to classify this as if it were unsafe or exploitive is to misunderstand both the activity and its value. This amendment corrects that without undermining the original protections of the 1920 Act. My noble friends deserve support, and I hope the Government are about to respond positively.
Lord Katz (Lab)
My Lords, it was going so well, then it hit the buffers. I am trying to make that not the last of the rail-related jokes—noble Lords will note the groans from behind me. I thank noble Lords for a stimulating debate—as we had in Committee—and, as several speakers have pointed out, it was a debate on a subject that inspires support from across the House, which is fairly unique in this piece of legislation. It is good to see and is obviously because so many in your Lordships’ House—like those in the rest of the country—enjoy and revel in our industrial heritage, as seen through heritage railways.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, for bringing the amendment back for further discussion. I think it was the noble Lord himself who outed me as a bit of a rail nerd in Committee, so noble Lords will know that heritage railways is an issue I am familiar with and fully support. It is an issue close to many hearts here in your Lordships’ house and it is great to see the interest we saw in the impassioned debate—it says here, and I agree—repeated here on Report.
In addition to the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, I thank my noble friends Lord Faulkner of Worcester and Lord Berkeley, the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, and the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty. I particularly thank the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, for making a little detour from her usual route to call by our station here tonight.
The UK heritage rail sector encompasses more than 170 operational railways, running trains over nearly 600 miles of track and operating between some 460 stations. It creates jobs and greatly supports local economies. I pay tribute to all those who run and maintain those railways; they not only preserve our heritage but contribute greatly to their local tourist economies. I mention this because it is notwithstanding the issues identified by this amendment.
The heritage railways are incredibly successful; they go from strength to strength, notwithstanding the issue the amendment raises about the Heritage Railway Association’s concerns. The benefits to all volunteers cannot be overestimated. However, as many speakers have said, it is particularly good for young people, and I wholeheartedly support efforts to encourage young people to take advantage of the volunteering opportunities that heritage railways offer, with their emphasis on teamwork, communication and helping to bring science and engineering topics to life.
It is vital that any work or volunteering is carried out safely and should be appropriate to the age and experience of the volunteer. It is also important to recognise that additional measures, such as effective supervision, need to be in place for young people, particularly those aged 14 to 16. Health and safety law requires heritage railway operators to protect a young person’s health and safety, taking account of their age, lack of experience and levels of maturity. Of course, not all work is suitable for young people; dangerous or high-risk work activities should not be carried out. Health and safety risk assessments help heritage railway operators to determine what work activity should be carried out and how to make sure it is done safely. After all, we want to preserve and revive heritage railways, not heritage employment practices. While the Health and Safety Executive and the Office of Rail and Road provide general guidance, it is for the Heritage Railway Association to support its operators with detailed guidance about suitable activities for young people.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to all noble Lords who spoke in this short but important debate, particularly to the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, who spoke with great clarity and authority about the legal problem that we are trying to fix. No responsible director or trustee wants to be put in the position of breaking the law, even if regulators or Ministers say that they will look the other way.
The Minister shares the passion of all noble Lords who spoke for the heritage rail sector. We saw that in our helpful meeting and in the first part of his speech today. He suggested in his closing remarks that it is for organisations such as the Heritage Railway Association to do the work: provide the guidance, take the risk and tell their members what to do. But the statutory problem remains. I stress that the Heritage Railway Association has a very good working relationship with the regulators. They have met since the letter that the Minister mentioned and they provide guidance. However, leaving this untidy situation on the statute book leaves them open to risk by civil action and prosecution by other local authorities, and in the invidious position of having to break the law, or appear to do so.
The Minister rightly mentioned other pieces of legislation which it may be important to look at, and said that we need a thorough cross-government review. This problem has been looked at for a decade by the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, the Heritage Railway Association and others, and there have been efforts to get that thorough cross-government review—under successive Governments, I admit. So I suggest that we put the noble Lord’s very modest amendment in the Bill and seek to expedite that work. I know that, with his great interest and passion in this area, the Minister can help us reach a happy solution. However, it is important that we get started and I would like to test the opinion of the House on this matter.
Employment Rights Bill
Monday 21st July 2025
(8 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Employment Rights Act 2025 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 113-III(a) Amendments for Report (Supplementary to the Third Marshalled List) - (21 Jul 2025)
21:15 - Division on Amendment 129 - Ayes: 106 / Noes: 140 - Amendment 129 disagreed.
21:40 - Division on Amendment 135 - Ayes: 92 / Noes: 130 - Amendment 135 disagreed.
“Review of the extent and impact of pay inequality(1) The Secretary of State must conduct a review of the extent and impact of pay inequality, with particular regard to the highest level of pay in comparison with the median and lowest pay in an enterprise, in large enterprises.(2) The review must be carried out no later than 12 months after the day on which this Act is passed.(3) The Secretary of State must publish the findings of the review within three months of its completion.(4) Large enterprises are those exceeding the medium-sized companies threshold under the Companies Act 2006.”Member's explanatory statement
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to conduct and publish a review of the impact of pay inequality in large enterprises.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, Amendment 127A in my name is a milder attempt to deal with the pressing issue of pay inequality and soaring executive pay in our society than the amendment I tabled in Committee, which was to provide for a 10:1 maximum pay ratio for enterprises. I hope this one has a slightly less inflationary impact on the blood pressure of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, while dealing with the excessive boardroom remuneration referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Monks, two groups ago.
The amendment simply seeks to put in the Bill a review of the impact of pay inequality in large enterprises, as defined by the Companies Act 2006—those with net turnover of more than £54 million, assets of £27 million and more than 250 employees. I hope that the Government will seriously consider this approach. It is not my intention to put this to a vote, but I want to be helpful to the Government here and offer them some constructive ways forward.
The noble Lord, Lord Katz, in part made the argument for this amendment for me in Committee when he said that:
“It is right that companies should be sensitive to wider workforce pay when setting pay for those in the boardroom and other senior leadership positions”.—[Official Report, 24/6/25; col. 201.]
However, suggesting that companies be sensitive is not really going to do it. That seems to be the Government’s position. I noted that the Water Minister, Emma Hardy, on LBC this morning, urged water company bosses to “read the room” and refuse huge wage hikes. Well, the room has been sending a very clear message about water company bosses’ pay for a long time and the voluntary approach has simply not worked.
We are talking here about the right of lower-paid workers not to be disrespected—insulted—by the soaring pay in the boardroom while they struggle to meet their basic needs, pay their bills and put food on the table. This is action that clearly needs to be taken, not just words of gentle encouragement.
As I said in Committee, the security and catering company Mitie, with a 575:1 ratio between its top-paid employee and the median employee, and a large number of low-paid workers, tops the High Pay Centre’s FTSE 350 companies hall of shame. I note that this month, the Labour Party postponed a London drinks reception for north-west MPs sponsored by Mitie after a backlash over the company’s employment practices. Unison had planned to picket the event. You have to question why it was ever planned in the first place.
A review such as the one proposed in the amendment could be a start towards the Labour Government generating policies such as those recommended by the High Pay Centre in its useful list of proposals—I recommend it to Ministers as a crib sheet, since the current Government were elected with so few policies of their own in place—such as all-employee profit-sharing or share ownership schemes. As the centre notes:
“One of the reasons why … the pay ratios between workers and CEOs are so wide is that CEOs receive large share-based payments in addition to their regular salary while workers do not … In France all companies are required to share an element of profits exceeding a set amount calculated using factors including taxable profits, net equity, wages and added value with their workforce”.
This has actually reduced inequality.
Another timely proposal from the centre, which again a review might throw up, is a cap on CEO-to-worker pay gaps for public service providers, such as water companies—here we have another way forward—or social care providers. The claim made by the noble Lord, Lord Katz, in Committee, that high pay means
“companies can compete for the best business talent in the UK and globally”,—[Official Report, 24/6/25; col. 202.]
certainly does not stack up in the water sector, if one looks at its outcomes. Fat cat pay has delivered only underinvestment, pollution and ill health for those unfortunate enough to have to rely on the services of the privatised companies.
Finally, I note that, responding to the call for even higher executive pay from the UK capital markets task force—drawn from the City of London and big business—a letter written by 20 leading academics specialising in executive pay, corporate governance and economic inequality made a number of points, including that there is a very “questionable” link between
“higher executive pay and better business performance”,
that any claim that there is a
“shortage of capable candidates for executive roles should … prompt scrutiny of companies’ leadership training and development processes”,
and that the “opportunity costs” of high top pay have impacts
“in terms of … pay for low and middle income workers or investment in the business”.
It is interesting that polling by the High Pay Centre suggests that the overwhelming majority of the public think that CEOs should not be paid more than 20 times more than their typical employee. If the Government want to consider the politics of this, I point to the conclusions in the report, The Spirit Level at 15, by Professors Kate Pickett and Richard Wilkinson, which articulates many of the ways in which inequality strengthens far-right politics. Executive pay is only part of that story, but it is a very visible part. This amendment offers the Government a way forward to start to tackle that political problem, as well as the economic and social issues. I beg to move.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Leong) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, for tabling Amendment 127A. Although it rightly raises the important issue of pay inequality, it effectively duplicates a review process that we are already undertaking.
It is undeniable that average salaries have stagnated. In fact, they have barely increased from where they were 15 years ago. Had wages continued to grow at the rate seen prior to the 2008 financial crisis, the average worker would now be over 40% better off. This is not just about stagnant wages; it is about persistent and deep-rooted inequalities.
The UK’s income inequality remains above both the OECD and G7 averages. In the financial year 2022-23, the richest 20% of the population received 44% of the UK’s gross income, while the poorest 20% received just 7%. The OECD has noted that higher inequality can lead to underinvestment in human capital and slower adoption of new technologies. It estimates that rising inequality between 1990 and 2010 resulted in UK output being nearly nine percentage points lower than it might otherwise have been.
As I said on day 2 on Report, in one of the world’s wealthiest nations, workers are still turning to food banks. Many cannot afford rent, let alone a mortgage. Morale is at rock bottom and motivation is vanishing. The noble Baroness is right: executive pay keeps climbing. In 2023 the average FTSE 100 CEO earned 118 times more than the median UK worker, up from 50 times in the late 1990s. This is not sustainable or fair.
The UK exhibits greater regional disparities in productivity, pay, educational attainment and health than many other developed nations. This Bill, by benefiting lower-paid employees most, will help reduce these disparities, not only in terms of income but in the quality of work experienced. Supporting this, analysis published in 2019 by the World Bank found that employment protections can play a significant role in reducing income inequality.
As I have previously outlined, we already have robust monitoring and evaluation mechanisms in place. By reinforcing the framework that supports our workforce, we are making work more secure and predictable. We are also putting more money into the pockets of working people by making wages fairer. I therefore respectfully ask the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, to withdraw Amendment 127A.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his answer, although I have to express disappointment that none of the other Front Benches wanted to engage with the issue of high pay. The Minister very much acknowledged the issues around low pay and talked about robust monitoring and evaluation of high pay, but he did not speak about any action on it nor even about any plans for action on it. We have a real problem with the inequality that has seen those executives’ salaries—those fat cat salaries—rise and rise. As I said in my introductory remarks, there is an opportunity cost where those resources are going to that, as well as, of course, the sense in society that there is a deep unfairness and the Government are not doing anything about it.
I remain disappointed. This is certainly an issue that I and the Green Party will continue to work on but, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Hunt of Wirral
“(8) The provisions inserted by this section do not apply to small businesses.(9) For the purposes of subsection (8), a “small business” means an undertaking which employs fewer than 50 employees.”
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, in moving this amendment, I will also speak to Amendments 129, 131 to 134 and 145 in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom. What we are talking about here is the extent to which the Government’s sweeping changes to trade union access rights, including the unprecedented extension of digital access, should apply to small businesses. These changes were introduced without any proper explanation on Report and they have generated serious concern, particularly for our small and medium-sized enterprises, which may suddenly find themselves subject to obligations they neither anticipated nor are equipped to manage.
These amendments have been directly endorsed by the Federation of Small Businesses, the principal organisation representing the voice of small employers right across the country. I quote from it directly:
“New growth and jobs in local communities rests squarely on our SMEs, which make up over 99 per cent of all UK businesses and employ around 16 million people—disproportionately recruiting those furthest from work.
The Federation of Small Businesses (FSB) supports this amendment, which recognises the distinct nature and limited resources that small employers face when it comes to managing industrial relations in what in many cases are more like family units or teams, than big corporates.
They simply do not have the HR infrastructure or legal teams that big firms rely on to navigate complex union access procedures and negotiations. This amendment provides a necessary and vital safeguard by ensuring that SMEs are not automatically subject to trade union access requests or changes to recognition thresholds.
Our recent research found that 92% of small business employers are deeply concerned about the measures proposed in the Employment Rights Bill, with 72% specifically worried about the increased cost of compliance, such as the need for specialist HR or legal support. These figures further demonstrate the importance of maintaining proportionate, practical and measured safeguards, such as those contained within this amendment.
We hope that Conservatives and Liberal Democrats will back the amendment to delay these measures, and that the Labour Government will agree to it, to guarantee proper consultation, and assessment of the practical impacts on SMEs, and that Parliament considers these before Ministers turn on these provisions”.
I beg to move.
Lord Londesborough (CB)
My Lords, I support all the amendments in this group but will speak specifically to Amendments 129, 131 and 145 tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe of Epsom and Lord Hunt of Wirral, to which I have put my name.
Increasing the right of trade union access, as well as lowering the membership thresholds and the required percentages for action, is, as we know, applying right across the board, whatever the size of the business or organisation. It is Part 4 of the Bill, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, just highlighted, that is causing considerable alarm and nervousness among SMEs, particularly small, micro and family business owners. I know this through multiple meetings with business owners and the steady flow of emails into my inbox.
At this point I remind the House of my interests as a chair of, adviser to and investor in a range of small start-ups and scale-ups. One of the key issues that keeps being raised by entrepreneurs and business owners is workforce culture, performance and collaboration within teams, which are so vital to achieving productive, profitable and ultimately sustainable businesses.
These employers are not simply against any sort of unionisation of their workforce. In many cases they can see the merits, but they are very concerned about the enhanced provisions of access in the Bill and the potential impact on owner/employee relations, teamwork and, indeed, the increased time that will need to be devoted to changing induction paperwork, negotiating with staff and their unions, facilitating meetings and possibly having to work with the Central Arbitration Committee and the fair work agency, which will have the right of entry to their businesses and, indeed, to their records.
In an era when we as a nation desperately need to see real economic growth, especially per capita growth and productivity advances, this part of the Bill threatens to dampen those prospects and distract owners and management from this core mission. Among small businesses, there is also the danger of creating divisions unnecessarily between owner and workforce and, indeed, between members of the workforce itself. I know this is not the Government’s intention, but we run the risk of damaging these unique cultures that we see in start-ups and family businesses.
In short, whatever the Government’s rather confusing claims on consultation, the SME community—which, as we have heard, accounts for nearly 17 million jobs and £2.8 trillion turnover per annum—clearly does not feel that it is being heard, let alone consulted. Amendments 129 and 131, in particular, seek to address this, in what I believe is a considered and structured way.
First, we need to see structured and representative consultations across micro, small and medium-sized businesses, across the key sectors, and involving start-ups, scale-ups and family businesses, from those employing two to three staff to those employing 20, 50 or 150 staff. These are very different enterprises, not just in size but in stages of development.
Secondly, we need to see coherent impact assessments for each of these groups, not the one-size-fits-all approach that dominates so much of this Bill, and not just by size but by sector. From agriculture to technology and telecoms, they will be impacted in very different ways. As we have heard, SMEs will need time and fair notice—certainly not before April 2028—to be ready to deal with the potential consequences of these clauses.
None of this is unreasonable in my view. These amendments would help the Government to avoid damaging the SME ecosphere at a time when we need to proceed with care and caution, and especially if we want SMEs to be the engine of real economic growth.
Lord Moynihan of Chelsea (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 130 in my name. It is purely an amendment to rectify a small perceived mistake in the legislation, whereby a trade union can, in theory, put in a demand to meet its members in a company immediately, without any delay or warning. This means that a company’s management must always be in fear of a sudden disruption to the company’s ongoing work.
I am sure that the Government did not intend to torment companies with this possibility. I have put forward this amendment with a view to giving the Government an opportunity to agree that some kind of advance notice—I am suggesting a delay between request and meeting of at least two days—is a good idea, and that the length of that advance notice should be put in the Bill.
We all agree that business is the engine of economic growth and the ultimate creator of jobs. Therefore, we all in this House must be agreed that helping business accomplish its ends is important. The Government want the economy and jobs to grow—they have told us so repeatedly. They do not want companies worrying unnecessarily about sudden disruptive swoops from the union. We can see at once that there are many circumstances where a request to meet immediately just would not work. Imagine, for example, the air traffic controllers having to suddenly down tools. Imagine a complex, just-in-time process of many interlocking parts suddenly being interrupted, with an appalling domino cascade of interruptions and failures as a result. Imagine a complicated safety audit being disrupted.
I am sure that the Government have no intention of this and I imagine that the Minister will tell us that it is not at all the intention. However, while it might not be the intention, the opportunity is there in the Bill for the trade unions to act in this way. Therefore, why not, in the Bill, prevent that opportunity?
We all agree that untrammelled regulation is a “boot on the neck” of business—we were assured that that was the case just last week by the Chancellor of the Exchequer herself—yet here in Clause 50 we have yet another regulator, not the first one that we have discussed that has been created for the Bill, with fining powers. Last week, in the same Bill, it was the FWA; now, we have the Orwellian-sounding central arbitration committee, again with fining powers.
Lord Moynihan of Chelsea (Con)
Noble Lords should read the Bill. Payments will be made if the Central Arbitration Committee decides that a request to meet was unfairly refused. I checked it all this afternoon. I did not really expect noble Lords to challenge me on it.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
I think the reaction from noble Lords was to the use of the word “Orwellian”. No one is questioning the facts; it is the suggestion that a central arbitration commission is Orwellian.
Lord Moynihan of Chelsea (Con)
My Lords, a central arbitration commission might not be Orwellian but I feel that a Central Arbitration “Committee” is. We can agree to disagree on that, but the word “committee” is in the actual name.
Imagine how all this will be taken by the neck on which this regulatory boot is going to be placed by the Bill. All my amendment does is suggest some small limit to when a trade union might announce the date on which it wishes to meet its members. That would provide a proper, proportionate and fair way of giving both sides, company and union, what they need. Indeed, the delay would actually help the union, by allowing it to find a time when more staff were present for the mooted meeting.
The Bill gives the union three months in which to complain if management refuse the proposed time to meet. Surely if three months can be given to the union, two days is not too much to ask for the employer to consider any such request.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
My Lords, I support my noble friend’s amendments. There are good reasons to exempt small businesses, which make up the backbone of our productive economy, from the measures in Clauses 55 and 56, both for the statement of trade union rights and for trade union access.
We know, as we discussed in Committee, how rapidly trade union membership is falling, and that it has fallen particularly in the private sector. We know that, although it has gone up in the public sector, it still represents a much smaller proportion of trade union members than in 1995, when statistics began. Small and medium-sized businesses account for 99.8% of our productive economy. If we impose additional compliance costs on 1.16 million micro businesses of up to 10 employees and on 4 million sole traders, we are saddling them with the kind of compliance costs to which noble Lords have already referred.
I wholeheartedly support my noble friend’s amendments to exempt the majority of small, tiny and medium-sized enterprises from the compliance costs of furnishing a letter and the costs—indirect, perhaps—of access arrangements for trade unions, when there may be no trade unionists in the workforce of these small, entrepreneurial businesses.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
My Lords, I rise briefly to mark that this is the moment—21 July, at 8.59 pm—when the Labour Government are going to put such unreasonable demands on small businesses that they will all come together and say, “This Government are not our friend. This Government are distracting us from growth, from employing more people and from productivity”. Just as small businesses are getting over Making Tax Digital, Covid and tariffs, this legislation will do irreparable harm. I wanted to make that point because I assure noble Lords that there will be future reference to this very moment.
Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)
My Lords, I too will be brief. I thought it might be helpful to inject a bit of balance into the debate. Noble Lords might recall that in Committee I spoke of how often there are positive voluntary agreements between employers and unions about access, because everybody recognises that in a modern, civilised society, workers should have the right to speak to a trade union. It is their choice whether to join, but it ought to be seen as a basic right to be able to meet a union at the workplace. In my experience, very often you go in and have a cup of tea and you get a chance to meet the workers, who will make up their own minds about whether they want to join.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
My Lords, last week the chairman of the junior doctors—or, now, resident doctors—committee of the BMA put out a tweet saying, “You do not have to tell your employer if you are striking”. I thought of that as I listened to the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, talking about how reasonable, collaborative and useful this union participation was. There is a difference between people wanting to work together and people seeking to inflict maximum disruption, as is plainly the case in the doctors’ strike. I have to say, by the way, that the Secretary of State for Health in another place has made the same point that I have: he thinks it is extremely disruptive and has said all the right things about it. But can we really blame the BMA or any other union for walking through a door that is being so ostentatiously unbolted with the passage of this legislation?
I do not want to get into a Second Reading speech, but I agree with my noble friend Lord Leigh of Hurley: we have done extremely well with low unemployment, unlike almost every other country in Europe. With the financial crisis and Covid, we have had structurally low unemployment because of a flexible labour market. That is beyond this amendment, but I do not see how anyone could reasonably oppose the amendment just put forward by my noble friend Lord Moynihan of Chelsea. If we are in a world of wanting to be collaborative, it seems to me that informing an employer before coming and organising in that company is a matter of minimal courtesy. It seems to be an oversight in the legislation, and I hope that Ministers will at least be able to concede that point.
Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)
My Lords, I have to say that this is probably the most difficult summing up from our group of all the amendments throughout Committee and Report, because I can see the merits of both sides of this argument.
On the one hand, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, is quite right. We are naturally suspicious of any new amendments on Report, as they have not had consultation or examination. Having said that, as a group, we have to be consistent, and our approach is that SMEs need the most support. They are the people who are the most insecure and who email me more than anyone else, and so you might think that I would be minded to support these amendments.
However, on the other hand, these amendments, in our view, would create the two-tier employment situation which we have consistently opposed throughout the legislation. I have stood here night after night saying that I cannot agree with amendments because we want one set of legislation for the entire SME sector. A two-tier arrangement would throw more upheaval and uncertainty on small SME businesses, leading them to wonder whether or not they qualify and whether they are in or out.
On balance, and probably for the first and only time in this Chamber, if this issue is pushed to a vote, our group will, unusually, abstain. That does not mean that I am not supportive of the thought behind the amendments, but we feel very strongly that there could be unintended consequences. The legislation should be clear, concise and uniform. This would cloud it a little, as it is looking for a two-tier arrangement. On balance, we are unable to give this group of amendments our full support tonight.
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken. I may not agree with some of the sentiments of some noble Lords, but I have listened to all the arguments in the last few years, such as when minimum wage was debated. The scaremongering that businesses will go bust does not hold water with me.
We are not anti-business; you cannot find someone more pro-business than me. I have started businesses and been a small business person myself. I strongly believe that this Bill works for workers and for business.
Before I address the amendments in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe and Lord Moynihan of Chelsea, let me say this: the Government are committed to supporting SMEs. We accept that they have been subject to a challenging operating environment and global uncertainty. That is why the Government have set up the new business growth service, to streamline access to support, and why the new strategy will span key areas, including access to finance, market expansion, business capability development, entrepreneurship, and the creation of a strong and stable business environment. In combination with our industrial strategy, trade strategy and, I hope, our SME strategy, which will be published shortly, it is a key part of this Government’s plan for change to encourage growth and put more money in people’s pockets.
Let me turn first to Amendments 132, 133, and 134. We introduced a streamlined route through the Central Arbitration Committee, which was established in 1975. It is a decision-making process for model access proposals to ensure that genuine and reasonable requests for access are not subject to unnecessary delay, while maintaining appropriate safeguards where complexity or dispute remains.
Regarding Amendments 129, 131 and 145, we believe that strong trade unions are central to tackling issues of insecurity, inequality, discrimination, enforcement and low pay across the economy. Right of access is key to this. The access framework allows for flexibility for SMEs. Unions and employers can negotiate an access agreement and employers may challenge proposals they consider unsuitable. Where an access agreement cannot be agreed, the CAC determines whether access should be granted, and this decision will be guided by matters prescribed by the Secretary of State.
On Amendment 128, the intention behind this measure is to ensure that all workers are informed of their legal rights at work without imposing undue burden on employers. Making it a requirement for employers to inform workers of their right to join a trade union is about fundamental fairness and transparency. Too many people, especially in low-paid or insecure jobs, do not know that they have this right. We are not telling anyone to join a union; we are simply making sure that they know it is an option. Just as employers are expected to inform staff about health and safety rules or their right to paid leave, they should also be clear about the right to union representation.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
Will the Minister agree that it is a bit heavy-handed to require an employer to furnish a new employee, at the same time as giving them the agreed terms and conditions of employment letter, with a statement on their right to join a trade union? I cannot see that that is proportionate.
Lord Leong (Lab)
It is just like any other right that employees expect, such as health and safety, annual leave and all that. The right to join a union does not mean that they have to join a union; it is still their choice. It is a small step that empowers workers and supports a fairer and more balanced workplace.
The statement of trade union rights will be provided at the start of employment, alongside an existing written statement of particulars already required under Section 1 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and at other prescribed times. Given that it builds on an established process, we believe that this measure places minimal burden on employers, including many small businesses. We will consult on the practical details of Clause 55 before this is set out in secondary legislation.
On Amendment 130, the right to access is a complex policy and will involve detailed practical consideration. We will therefore provide for the operational details of a responsible and regulated access framework in secondary legislation. Ahead of doing so, we will publicly consult on the operational details this autumn, including on model access terms that the CAC must consider reasonable for both employers and unions to comply with, and the appropriate amount of notice a union must give before access takes place. Consulting before setting out these operational details will ensure that we cater for a variety of scenarios and workplaces and will ensure that these measures are fair and workable in practice. We believe that providing for this operational detail now, ahead of consultation, would be premature. I therefore respectfully ask the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, to withdraw Amendment 128.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, I say with great regret that the response we have received today is totally unconvincing. At no point throughout the progress of the Bill have Ministers offered a satisfactory explanation as to why sweeping changes to trade union access rights, including digital access, were introduced on Report in the other place, with no consultation, no impact assessment and no regard for the realities facing small and medium-sized businesses. There has been no clarity whatever regarding how these measures will work in practice.
How right the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, is to stress that there has been no recognition of the burden they will place on the thousands of small and medium-sized employers across the country. There has been no proper answer to my noble friend Lord Moynihan of Chelsea, who was supported by my noble friends Lady Lawlor and Lord Leigh of Hurley. I have no need to reply to the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady of Upper Holloway, as she was shot out of the water by my noble friend Lord Hannan of Kingsclere. All I will say is that there has equally been no proper consideration of the broader impact these changes could have on the labour market, particularly on hiring, retention and business confidence, at a time of economic uncertainty.
I regard the noble Lord, Lord Goddard of Stockport, as consistent, but I disagree with him fundamentally. I hope he will issue a detailed explanation to the Federation of Small Businesses as to why he has felt unable to follow its guidance that there has to be a recognition of the special needs of small and medium-sized enterprises. I can well understand that the arguments that the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, introduced in support of Amendment 129, together with Amendments 131 and 145, provide a simple and proportionate safeguard. Given the seriousness of these issues and the complete lack of justification for how this has been handled, I shall seek to test the opinion of the House on Amendment 129, but, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 128.
Lord Hunt of Wirral
“(c) may not be made if the employer in question is a small or medium-sized enterprise.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment and others in the name of Lord Sharpe of Epsom provide that a trade union cannot give an access request if the employer is a small or medium-sized business, unless the Secretary of State has provided for this in regulations. Such regulations (where they affect small or medium-sized businesses) may not be made before 6 April 2028, and without prior consultation and publication of an impact assessment. They also provide that the Secretary of State must consult and publish an impact assessment prior to making regulations to vary the required percentage.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment and others in the name of Lord Sharpe maintain the existing 10% membership threshold for union recognition applications by removing provisions that would have allowed this threshold to be modified through secondary legislation.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendments 135 to 143, all in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral. When this power first appeared in the Bill, the Minister in the other place, Mr Justin Madders, admitted that the Government had not even decided whether they were intending to use it. First, they said there would be no consultation, then they changed their minds. That is not a serious way to make laws; it is confused and confusing, especially for, as ever, SMEs, which are, as we have discussed many times during the passage of the Bill, in a state of uncertainty about the basic rules governing their own workplace.
If the membership threshold was reduced to 2%, as the Government appear to envisage, in a company that employs 250 employees, it would require only five members in the bargaining unit to request a ballot. That would mean that a union could gain bargaining authority over workplace conditions, pay and leave arrangements for the entire bargaining unit based on the explicit support of a tiny number of employees. This raises questions about whether such an arrangement adequately reflects workforce preferences, particularly for employees who may value direct engagement. That potentially creates a situation in which unions may submit many speculative requests for recognition, with little depth of membership in a proposed bargaining unit. The process comes at a cost to the employer of both managing and arranging access and facilities, and to the Central Arbitration Committee for supervising these potentially speculative ballots.
I really think this speaks for itself; there is not a huge amount to say in addition, although I would note that the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, talked earlier about workplace democracy. Whatever it is, it is not this, so I beg to move.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I have Amendment 144 in this group. We discussed the same amendment in Committee. If we do not have a number, it means that, essentially, one employee could trigger union recognition. Surely that is not something we should impose on small businesses.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
My Lords, this set of amendments is a proportionate response to the Bill’s Schedule 6 to ensure that we have clarity in the Bill for all parties about the threshold to be met in respect of a union seeking recognition to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of a group of workers making a request for recognition. As matters stand, employers, unions and employees know that the threshold for recognition is 10%. This is established under Schedule A1 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, on trade union recognition for the union or unions seeking recognition to be entitled to conduct the collective bargaining on behalf of a group of workers.
The 10% threshold is set out in paragraph 36 and reinforced throughout Schedule A1 in the subsequent paragraphs that my noble friend’s amendments seek to reinstate. That includes paragraphs 45 and 51 on competing applications, paragraphs 86 to 88, and paragraph 14 on applications. As your Lordships know, this Bill substitutes the words “the required percentage”, including for paragraph 45 on the validity of applications. We know that the required percentage may be 2%, but it has become almost a euphemism for whatever a Minister may decide post consultation and impose via statutory instrument in whatever circumstances we may imagine. It may be that the union masterminding the Birmingham bin chaos, which finds its members fleeing to another union, wants the Government to get a 1% or 0.5% figure in the instrument—or else it would withhold its support from the Labour Party.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to all the amendments in this group. I approach it from the perspective that democracy is always about cherishing minority views and making reasonable allowances, with the proviso that the minority do not hold the majority over the barrel. If you allow the minority a veto or special qualification to enforce their narrow view of the world, it encourages extreme views and intransigence. If you give somebody a veto, do not be surprised if they use it. The effect of the Bill is perhaps to give minorities significantly lower than the 10% threshold a perverse incentive to exercise that veto. That is not good for the individual or the employer, and I believe that it is not even good for the unions, because it potentially weakens their members’ mandate.
I speak from the perspective of somebody who has negotiated the local government pay deal for many years as part of the national joint committee, alongside the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor. My experience is coloured by the knowledge that in local government there are three different unions involved—UNISON, Unite and GMB—and it is a complicated negotiating environment. It is hard enough to get consensus with three unions in the mix, still less with 10—but that is where the Bill is taking us.
If we do not accept these amendments, it will place the employers in the invidious position of choosing between various unions. The lower the threshold, the greater the incentive to fragment the union landscape—the Judean People’s Front phenomenon—and, in so doing, weaken the benefits of sensible recognition and union power. I cannot understand why the brothers are so keen to reduce the 10% threshold. Why should the employer be placed in an impossible position to arbitrate between warring unions, jostling for position and preference by allowing each to assert rights that they should be agreeing among themselves?
These amendments will not weaken the thrust of what the Government are trying to achieve, but they would provide the certainty of a materiality threshold that would otherwise allow the unintended consequences of negotiation chaos—too many cooks being allowed to spoil the broth. That would disadvantage the employee by reducing the negotiating power of the majority; disadvantage the employer by making it hard to negotiate with unions with sufficient critical mass; and, for the union movement, value fragmentation and the pursuance of special interests over building consensus.
Once more, we have an opportunity to ask the Government to support sensible and measured amendments that will help them achieve their purpose. To resist would risk delivering the opposite, and not for the first time.
Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)
My Lords, in Committee we tabled several amendments resisting this reduction from 10%, and the reason for doing that was that we think that is the existing and fair threshold. To go to 2% is not being done for the reason that the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, says, which is about competing unions and getting the one with the lowest threshold, but for a different reason.
When we have had these arguments, in Committee and tonight, the fall-back position of the Ministers and other speakers is, “Well, they don’t have to join a union—they don’t have to be in a union”. I was in the GMB—I do wish people would not list Unite and the other one, and put the GMB third; please put the GMB a bit further up the pecking order next time. But the point of the story that I am trying to tell noble Lords is that although the Minister says that you do not have to join a union, by reducing this to 2% from 10% you are effectively stacking the deck. You are setting them up there. If you believe that trade unions are free to join or not, and there is a threshold and it is 10%, that is your principle, and that has stood for years. Why, then, in employment law do you need to move that down to 2%? What brings you to that number? There is an obvious reason for that number, is there not?
On the unintended consequences again—it becomes a mantra, but I will say it very quickly—in small and medium-sized businesses employing 10, 15 or 20 people, they need only two, three or four people to say, “We want to join a union” for it to become complicated, with HR and all the other unintended consequences. So 10% is a reasonable threshold. The Government have given us no reason why they want to change it from 10% to 2%. They should leave it at 10%; leave the status quo. If the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, decides to press his amendment tonight, my depleted troops will be supporting him in the Lobby.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)
I thank all noble Lords for the short but focused debate we have had on this set of amendments, moved and spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom. I particularly pay tribute to my fellow GMB member, the noble Lord, Lord Goddard of Stockport.
As I set out in Committee, we believe that current thresholds pose too high a hurdle in modern workplaces, which are, as we know, increasingly fragmented. We want therefore to be able to consider whether the 10% membership threshold on application should be reduced in future. The reason why a range of 2% to 10% has been chosen is that, in 2020, the previous Government reduced the threshold that triggers information and consultation arrangements from 10% to 2% in the workplace, so what the Bill proposes aligns with that. But, to be absolutely clear, we want to consult before making any decisions on whether we should bring forward secondary legislation and by how much the threshold should be varied, if at all. We will consult businesses—including, of course, small and medium-sized businesses—as part of that consultation process.
Should we decide to bring forward secondary legislation in the future, that legislation will be subject to full debate in both your Lordships’ House and the other place. We will carry out an impact assessment at that time that will consider impacts on businesses, including, as before, small and medium-sized businesses.
I want to reassure all noble Lords, and the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, in particular, that, whatever the application percentage in the bargaining unit is or may be, the fact remains that unions would still need to obtain a majority of a bargaining unit in a trade union recognition ballot. That point is fundamental to the misconception that is coming from the Benches opposite about what this part of the Bill does or does not do. To be clear, this is not, to address the point of the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, the “tyranny of the minority”; in fact, it is absolutely contrary to that point. This is ultimately about a trade union having to win a majority.
Experience has shown that this is not easy to achieve. The union will have to make a good case to persuade the majority in the bargaining unit to vote for recognition in a recognition ballot overseen by an independent, qualified person. It is in the trade union’s interest to be confident that it can win a majority in the ballot, otherwise it would still be prevented, as is currently the case, from applying for another statutory recognition ballot in the same bargaining unit for three years. That is why it is highly unlikely that a union will apply for statutory recognition when there is only one worker who is a member of that union. Indeed, if experience tells us anything, it is that it is highly likely that trade unions will continue to focus their efforts on larger workplaces where there is greater bang for the organising buck.
The union recognition process is generally consensual, and that is a good thing. In the nine years from 2017 to 2025, only 375 recognition applications have gone to the CAC. Close to half of the 1,476 recognition applications received since 1999 were withdrawn by unions at various stages of the recognition processes, in many cases because the parties have reached a voluntary agreement for recognition. The confrontation that has been set up by some speakers from the Benches opposite is a chimera; this is not the reality of organised workplaces. Given that, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, to withdraw Amendment 135.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I am grateful to the Minister for setting out the context in a bit more detail, but I am afraid I am not entirely persuaded. I would like to test the opinion of the House.
Employment Rights Bill
Wednesday 23rd July 2025
(8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Employment Rights Act 2025 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 113-IV(b) Manuscript Amendment for Report (Supplementary to the Fourth Marshalled List) - (23 Jul 2025)
18:21 - Division on Amendment 147 - Ayes: 290 / Noes: 143 - Amendment 147 agreed.
18:34 - Division on Amendment 148 - Ayes: 271 / Noes: 138 - Amendment 148 agreed.
18:46 - - Ayes: 198 / Noes: 198 - Contents 198; Not-Contents 198.
19:30 - Division on Amendment 152A - Ayes: 171 / Noes: 189 - Amendment 152A disagreed.
Lord Burns
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would retain the 2016 cross-party compromise (agreed by the House without a division) whereby new members of a union contribute to the political fund only if they have actively chosen to do so. That compromise was based on the conclusions of the Trade Union Political Funds and Political Party Funding Committee.
Lord Burns (CB)
My Lords, my amendment proposes removing Clause 59 from the Bill. This would maintain the current arrangements whereby members joining the union since the passage of the Trade Union Act 2016 contribute to its political fund only if they give their active consent to do so. These existing arrangements stem from the compromise reached by the Trade Union Political Funds and Political Party Funding Committee in 2016. The compromise was that unions would not need to obtain active consent from existing members to continue paying into the political fund but would be able to collect the political levy from only those new members who had given their consent and made an informed choice to do so. Additionally, all members were to be reminded annually that they could change their decision.
My involvement in the issue was not because of a long-standing historical interest in political funds, I emphasise; simply, I was asked to chair that committee. In the process, I gained insights into the history of trade union political funds and the arguments for and against opt-in and opt-out clauses when individuals need to exercise a choice.
The 2016 compromise prevented the fear of a sudden and potentially significant reduction in the income of trade union political funds, which could have severely damaged the Labour Party’s finances. While the then Opposition welcomed the compromise, many Conservative Members in this House and the House of Commons were disappointed that the requirement for active consent was not extended to existing members.
Consequently, I was taken aback when I learned that the new Government wanted to abandon the compromise and revert to the pre-2016 position. This Bill proposes returning to a position where all new members make automatic contributions to political funds unless they deliberately choose not to, with reminders only once every 10 years.
During the recent debates on this Bill in Committee, several arguments were put forward from the Government Benches to justify the proposed change. I find none of them convincing. The first argument was that this was merely returning to an arrangement that had lasted between 1945 and 2016. This is a weak argument. Many things have changed since 1945, including the generally accepted view of how to treat customers fairly. It is now recognised that, in most circumstances, customers or members should give clear consent, especially in situations involving active and ongoing participation.
We know individuals could be misled by small print and bureaucratic barriers. What was acceptable in the past is now viewed differently. Automatically signing people up to spend their own money without their active consent is no longer seen as acceptable today. Requiring members to act only if they do not wish to contribute is introducing a bias in the decision which can skew the outcome—in the union’s favour, in this case. Exceptions usually are limited to situations where there is a clear public benefit or where it is proportionately expensive or bureaucratic for people to register their non-consent. I do not think either situation applies here.
It is an exaggeration to say that this was a settled issue between 1945 and 2016. The Thatcher Government closely examined requiring active consent and were dissuaded from moving to a system of active consent only by an agreement with the unions that they would provide more information about the choice available to members.
During Committee, it became clear that the second main argument for this change was a concern raised by trade unions about a decline in contributions since the introduction of the requirement for members to expressly give their consent. But surely finding that contributions are less than desired is not an ethical reason to withdraw a right to consent; it is a temptation that should be resisted, as we have seen in many walks of life. When faced with a decline in revenues, most organisations first consider how to improve their presentation. They try to make a more compelling offer, spend more time educating members about the benefits or point out that, as in this case, the financial commitment is not large.
Instead, the proposal in this Bill is to resort to obscurity, automatically making members contributors to political funds without first having their active consent. To make matters worse, the plan is to ensure that they will not be tempted to escape and will be reminded of their right to reverse their decision only every 10 years. Many of us have unwittingly been on the receiving end of this practice with things such as low-cost insurance for household devices.
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, I support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Burns. Several noble Lords, including me, spoke at some length in Committee, so I will not repeat the powerful arguments in favour of maintaining the outcome agreed in 2016 that new members should be explicitly asked to make an active choice about whether they wish to contribute to their union’s political funds.
I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Burns, said about moving away from the language of opt-in and opt-out and towards discussing the principle of making an active choice. The principle of moving from the opting out of making such contributions to opting in was unanimously accepted in the report from the cross-party Select Committee on Trade Union Political Funds and Political Party Funding in 2016. Support for the principle of making such an active choice has only grown in subsequent years. Opt-out has become the less preferred option, as it relies on people’s inertia and, as such, most companies and organisations offer their customers an active choice. Indeed, my noble friend Lady Cash has highlighted the potential legal issues of an opt-out policy. As such, it is astonishing that the Government would wish to revert to a policy of opting out and take such a regressive step.
The compromise agreement in 2016 that subsequent opt-in would apply only to new members was a sensible and proportionate way to deal with the potential cliff edge in the reduction of funds to the Labour Party. Importantly, it ensured that, in the future, members joining a trade union would be asked to make an active decision about whether they specifically wished their money to support the Labour Party or other political campaigns. This was, as the noble Lord, Lord Burns, has suggested, supposed to be a lasting solution to the issue of contributions to political funds.
The 2016 Select Committee report warned of the risk to parliamentary democracy if the then Government used their majority unilaterally to inflict significant damage on the finances of opposition parties. There is a danger now that the Labour Party, in order to improve its own finances by seeking to unwind the unanimously agreed principle that new members should make an active choice—this has been the case now for almost 10 years—could potentially be open to the accusation of abusing entrusted power for private gain.
These are the compelling arguments in support of the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Burns. I will end with another important observation. In Committee I listened carefully to the excellent speech by the noble Lord, Lord Prentis—I am not sure whether he is in his place today. I pay tribute to the noble Lord for his tireless and brilliant negotiations over many years on behalf of the members of UNISON. He and the noble Lord, Lord Barber, who is in his place, were formidable in their defence of their members in the negotiations with the coalition Government on the reform of public sector pensions.
I totally understand the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Prentis, that unions need political funds to run their campaigns. However—and I think the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, made this point in Committee—it is not right that trade union leaders should be able to pursue their own political issues without the need to actively ask their members whether they are willing to fund them. People who join trade unions believe they are joining an organisation that exists to defend their rights in the workplace. Many are not paid large salaries. It is surely wrong not to ask those who can potentially least afford it to pay into a political fund without necessarily realising that they are doing so. Trade union leaders do their members a disservice by relying on their inertia; they have a duty to make the case for the use of their members’ money for political campaigns. This is another reason why I support this amendment, which makes the case for retaining an active choice so that the preferences of members can be reflected more accurately.
Lord Whitty (Lab)
My Lords, I would like to correct, in a sense, the impression given by the noble Lord, Lord Burns, of the activity of his Select Committee at the time. I was a member of that Select Committee, along with my noble friend Lady Drake, representing the interests of the Labour Party. We did agree on a compromise, but it was not seen as a long-term compromise. It was seen as a holding position until we had an overall review of the financing of political parties in general. Both my noble friend Lady Drake and I made that point clearly, and it is reflected in part in the report.
As the noble Lord, Lord Burns, says, we wanted to get away from the chances of having new Governments switch every few years between the opt-in and opt-out options. I agree that it needs to end, but only at a time when we take account of the way in which political parties, including the Labour Party itself, can be financed by other organisations and institutions. Unless we look at the financing of political parties as a whole, any decision by a particular Government is likely to be biased towards the interests of their own political party’s funding.
I hope that this Government will set up a commission looking at political funding as a whole. Until that point, we should recognise, as we recognised at the time, that the long-term effect of removing the opt-in decision would be, in effect, to bankrupt the Labour Party. We therefore need to look at the totality of political funding, and not at unravelling this particular proposition until we have done so. To be frank, some of the ways in which the Conservative Party accepts funds without the consent of company shareholders, and in which individuals give contributions to all political parties, need examination. I would like the Front Bench to commit this Government, and I hope the other parties will also commit, to such a comprehensive review before we swing one way and the other on opt-out as against opt-in. I hope the Government can give me some comfort that they will do just that at some time in this Parliament.
Lord Barber of Ainsdale (Lab)
My Lords, this is an issue with a long history. In 1909 the Osborne judgment ruled that trade unions could not legally use their general funds for political purposes. Subsequently, the Trade Union Act 1913 was passed by the Liberal Government led by HH Asquith to allow trade unions to establish and maintain political funds. These political funds had to be supported by a ballot of a union’s members and maintained separately from its general funds, and union members had the right to opt out of contributing without facing penalties or disadvantages.
Remarkably, apart from the period from 1927 until 1946, the opt-out rights of trade union members—rather than more onerous opt-in requirements—persisted all the way up to 2016, when new trade union members were required to decide whether they wanted to opt in. This history lesson is a long way of explaining that, for well over a century, the prevailing system of regulating union members’ rights in respect of their union’s political fund has been through their individual right to opt out if that is their choice.
The variation to this dominant model came in 2016 as a result of the excellent work of the noble Lord, Lord Burns, chairing a Select Committee of this House convened to consider this issue. Under his skilful leadership, that Select Committee hammered out a consensus that a change should be made by moving to an opt-in decision to be made by every new member of a union on the point of joining. The noble Lord, Lord Burns, makes the argument today that the Bill should not disturb that 2015 consensus. In particular, he fears that making a change now, after a change of Government, would provide an excuse for a new Government to disturb these arrangements yet again. I must say that I do not have the confidence to anticipate the make-up of that alternative Government, let alone their inclination to tamper again with this issue.
It is no criticism of the 2015 report by the Select Committee, or the decisions made by its members, to note that the agreement that was made was forged in a particular political context, with the alternative to the compromise likely to be the declared intention of the Conservative Government of the day to go for opting in right across the board, including for the millions of existing members. Not surprisingly, for trade unions that was regarded as a highly threatening possibility. The political context today is very different, and proposing returning to the opt-out model that has been so dominant for more than a century is reasonable and fair. Lightening some of the administrative burdens associated with the running of the funds is also desirable in this view.
Much of the debate on this part of the Bill has centred on the role of political funds in supporting the Labour Party. That is one issue, of course, but it is not the only issue. Only 11 of the TUC’s affiliated unions also affiliate to the party and make financial contributions to it. Ten other TUC affiliates have also decided to establish political funds, as the only way they can feel confident that they will be insulated against legal challenges. Just like Labour-affiliated unions, their members see a host of issues in the political sphere in which they have an interest and want their voices to be heard, with the views articulated decided through the unions’ democratic procedures. They too have been burdened by the additional administrative requirements of the 2016 Act and will benefit from the provisions of this Bill.
Looking all the way back to 2013, where I started, I wonder how it came to be decided to single out activity in the political world for this complex set of arrangements around political funds. Unions have a host of functions: they support members in collective bargaining, promote greater opportunities for skills development, represent individuals in grievance and disciplinary issues and provide legal representation when needed. Naturally, they want to play their part in civil society, in contributing to the debates in the sectors in which their members work, where they are deeply invested, and all the other issues that shape the world around us. Why this area of work for democratic organisations has to be so closely and differently regulated in an age when people can now choose to join or not is, to me, something of a curiosity. But that is not the issue before us today, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Burns, may be prepared to reconsider and not press his amendment.
Lord Monks (Lab)
My Lords, I oppose Amendment 147. The compromise formula that my noble friend Lord Barber has just talked about was a very practical solution to a tricky problem in the period when the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and his committee did such good work. However, I take issue with his claim that it was some kind of permanent solution, any more than was an agreement on contracting out reached by the Thatcher Government in 1984, headed by the noble Lord, Lord King of Bridgwater, who I am sorry is not in his place today, with the TUC. The provisions of that meant that the unions would be obliged to notify people regularly about the right to contract out, in the union journal and on the website, along with all the kinds of things that unions communicate with members about.
It is worth briefly dwelling on that. It stipulated obligations on unions, as I said—and we thought that we had a lasting settlement then, but we were wrong. In 2016, the then Government came along with a Bill to provide for general contracting in; they did not initially mention the King-TUC agreement and gave no initial examples of union abuses of it. They had made no approaches to the TUC or to any unions about things that were not quite working. The certification officer was happy with what was going on. It seemed to me that the Government at that time were either forgetting about the agreement—which they might have done, I guess, given the interval—or ignoring it. Only when I gave notice to the noble Lord, Lord King, that I was going to raise the question of the agreement in this Chamber in the initial debates on the Bill did the Government embark on a frantic quest to find examples of union non-compliance, which were later challenged by the TUC.
The Burns committee did its work and came up with a good deal—but why should it be regarded as permanent, any more than the TUC-King agreement was regarded as permanent? There is another problem with the Burns formula being regarded as permanent. Initially, in 2016, the bulk of union members remained contracted out only; it was only the new members that unions had to actively recruit. Of course, in the past nine years, the relative proportion of contracted-out and contracted-in members has changed considerably. If we give it another nine years, as in the period from the 2016 agreement to now, there will not be many contracted-out members left. In effect, what we will have seen is that the Burns formula in practical terms becomes a phased introduction of contracting in—and that is just not acceptable.
This is not an attack on the Burns formula, far from it, but it was of its time, as was the TUC-King agreement. The only permanent solution to this historic and bitter issue—because the history that my noble friend Lord Barber spoke about is a bitter one—will be a fair agreement on the fundraising of all the political parties, as my noble friend Lord Whitty has spoken about already. I oppose the amendment.
Lord Balfe (Con)
My Lords, it will probably not surprise noble Lords that I support the amendment. This situation has cursed the whole of the trade union movement’s relations with the Labour Party for far too long. As some of you will remember, I am the president of BALPA, the pilots’ union, a non-political union that does not have a political fund. In so far as it has ever been discussed in the union executive, the unanimous conclusion has been that to have a political fund would be extremely divisive and not a path that we should go down.
To some people, the solution to this situation— I will not call it a problem—is to pass a simple law saying that trade unions cannot make political donations. If we are not prepared to accept this compromise, then that is what we are drifting towards. If we look at the Labour Party accounts, we see that it gets far more money from non-trade union sources than from trade union sources. When I went through the accounts, I saw that there was one very rich lady who appeared to give more to the Labour Party than all the trade unions put together. I am not sure that she was of British nationality, either. But that is irrelevant—the fact is that political funding has got completely out of control in both parties. We need reform, but one interesting thing is that the arguments of the Labour Party appear to be very similar to the arguments of the diehard Conservatives as to why we should not abolish the hereditary peerage; namely, that we should wait for comprehensive reform. We are probably not going to get a comprehensive reform of political donations in this way. I would suggest that the compromise from the noble Lord, Lord Burns, is a very good one. It has worked and has kept the peace for a long time.
There has to be clear consent—to my mind, clear consent is a quite reasonable thing. Why should you not ask for clear consent before you deduct money from people’s contributions? It seems like a no-brainer to me. I would suggest that we leave things in place, adopt the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and hope that this matter will go to sleep for at least another 10 years, during which time the parties will have as much time as they like to come up with reforms.
I should remind noble Lords that at the beginning of the Parliament Act 1911 on the reform of the House of Lords were the historic words “pending a full reform”. We are still told by Conservative Party Members that what is proposed by the Labour Party for the House of Lords is not a full reform. I have said, and will say it here, that we will never get one—we will never get that agreed.
I would like to see reform on the amount of money that people can put into political parties. I do not think that the people who put vast amounts of money into the Conservative Party do so because they have no expectation of any sort of reward. I think that they do it because they think that the Conservative Party will deliver what they want—whether that has happened is for them to now judge. The fact is that people do not support political parties other than with the aim of changing power and of getting changes in society.
My union general secretary, a certain Sharon Graham, has my full support, because for the first time in what I still think of as the T&G—my original union was AUEW-TASS—we have a general secretary who I think is fully behind the people who are paying her salary, and this is something quite different, but I think this demand is going to grow. If there was an open ballot in BALPA with a simple question, “Should we construct and set up a political fund?”, it probably would not get 10% in favour, because the whole way in which political funds have developed is not seen by the ordinary branch member as something they want to indulge in. Most of them see it as a sort of slush fund for the senior officers. I am sorry, but we have to face that and we need to get away from it.
So I hope that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Burns, will be accepted and that we will carry on with the admittedly unsatisfactory present system until we get this full reform that we have been asking for, although it will be a long time after I have left this place.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
The speeches that have been made in this debate about an important issue are clear, and I strongly support those made on this side of the House. Because of the exigencies of where the issue arises in our consideration of the Bill, I have tabled manuscript Amendment 147A. Noble Lords may well be scratching their heads, but it is a manuscript amendment, which has been circulated separately, on a different subject, but it comes up at this point of the Bill. It has been brought to my attention by my union, Unite, and I need to declare that, but it is an issue of concern to all unions.
The unions strongly support the provisions in the Bill which introduce paid facility time for equality representatives. This is an important development and it is something for which unions have campaigned for some years. However, there is concern that there are some technical problems with the provisions in the Bill, which is why I need to raise them now. We are looking at Clause 62, which creates the right for paid time off for this new initiative of equality representatives in certain circumstances. It appears to me that there is a deficiency in the Bill, in that it says they are entitled to this time off for the purpose of consultation, but it is quite clear that these representatives will also be involved in negotiating. My manuscript amendment seeks simply to add “negotiating” in front of the existing provision in the Bill that says that these equality reps are involved in the process of consultation. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will be able to give a favourable response to what is essentially a technical issue, but one which I need to raise now.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I feel in something of a time warp, because I opposed Clause 62 in Committee and tried to get it dropped, but I want to go back to the discussion we were having on Amendment 147. I support this amendment, because I genuinely think there are very good reasons why the trade union movement should not be frightened of this amendment, and I do not understand the changes that have happened. All the amendment does is to try to retain, at least notionally, control in the hands of trade union members: they should decide where they want their dues to go and whether they want them to go into a political fund. What could possibly be frightening about that?
It means that, at least in theory, the trade unions will have to be kept on their toes and justify why members should opt in, and therefore not assume or assert that their union’s political activity—which, to be fair, is often far removed from rank and file workers’ interests—is on behalf of their members. It simply puts unions in a position in which they have to convince their members to opt in.
Baroness Cash (Con)
My Lords, I support Amendment 147, which is in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Burns. Conscious of time passing this afternoon and the fact that we have a lot to get through, I will make two points.
We debated this at some length in Committee, but it is clear that the European Court of Human Rights has repeatedly affirmed that the freedom of association under Article 11—which is now, of course, incorporated into our own law—includes the right not to be forced into a political association or compelled to subsidise political causes, as well as the right to do so. To ensure that we have the right cases on the record, I note that in Young, James and Webster v the United Kingdom, in Sørensen and Rasmussen v Denmark, and in Sigurjónsson v Iceland, the court found that even indirect compulsion —which is an opt-out mechanism, as one of those cases found—where individuals are financially or contractually locked into supporting ideological activity, even temporarily and regardless of how short that period may be, is incompatible with Article 11.
Worse than that, these principles have been shown, through a lot of research, to damage the well-being of employees. Union affiliation with a political party increases the perception of coercion, according to a field study conducted by Taylor and Bain in 2019. The intrusion of party-political activism into the workplace, whether through political fund default enrolment or visible partisan campaigns—or, incidentally, even just union communications—has been shown to undermine employee well-being, trust and cohesion. It impacts on mental performance, and we should note the problem that this country already has with sickness benefits. To do this and to regress to a position of an opt-out will have the most negative and wide-reaching of effects, so I support the amendment.
Lord Hendy (Lab)
My Lords, the House will not want a legal argument between me and the noble Baroness.
Lord Hendy (Lab)
Yes, not again—we rehearsed that in Committee. However, those cases do not support the proposition that the noble Baroness advanced. The case of Young, James and Webster v the United Kingdom concerned three railway workers, who were compelled to join a trade union against their wishes—a closed shop—and the European Court of Human Rights held that they should not be compelled to do so at the risk of losing their jobs. It had nothing to do with making political payments or being associated with a political party.
Baroness Cash (Con)
The noble Lord is right that that is what the case was about. However, one of the factors in the judgment was the absence of a refund mechanism. I recall a rather fun debate between the noble Lord and me in Committee, which I hope we will not exhaust everyone by repeating today; however, it is really important that this is clarified. Article 11 will be engaged if the measure in the Bill is done; it is regressive and wrong in law and it will be subject to legal challenge. The European court found that it engages Article 11 where there is no refund mechanism. If the Labour Party or a political fund retains the subscription for even one second, it will have engaged unlawfully with Article 11.
Lord Hendy (Lab)
My Lords, the difference is that, if you are a member of a trade union, you can leave the trade union. There is no compulsion to remain a member of a trade union. If you do not like paying the political—
Baroness Cash (Con)
My Lords, I will intervene once more and then that will be it, because I do not want us to repeat the ping-pong we had between us in Committee—I am sure that we can take it outside, as they say. It is of course completely normal for noble Lords in this House to disagree at times.
I want to clarify that I am not saying that this compels someone to remain a member of a union—that is not what is happening here. The way that the Bill is drafted allows the payment to be taken by the union and provides for no refund mechanism. There is a minimum period of one month before the notification of the opt-out is received, and then a permissible further cycle of salary is allowed before the subscription is stopped. There is no mechanism for a refund. So, in any opt-out, the union keeps some of that person’s money —that is what is unlawful.
Lord Hendy (Lab)
I will try to finish the point in just a couple of sentences. The point is that somebody who does not like paying the political subscription can simply leave the union. If they object to it, that is what they can do. That freedom is protected by Article 11 of the European convention and is ratified in a whole number of cases. I will not develop the argument further. I would love to take it outside with the noble Baroness. We can have a drink and go into all the cases.
I just wanted to make one further point. The suggestion was made by the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, that perhaps trade unions should be barred from making political payments at all. It is an interesting argument, which nobody else has advanced. It reminds me of the point my noble friend Lord Barber made about the fact that the requirement to have a political fund, introduced in 1909, is imposed on no other organisation in this country. Companies do not have to have separate political funds, ballot their members or shareholders or answer to anybody in making a political donation. It is only trade unions that are required to hold political funds with all the paraphernalia of opting in or opting out. I am not going into that argument.
I was contemplating—I never did it, but perhaps I should have done—moving an amendment that trade unions should be relieved of having political funds at all. It was a requirement which answered the Law Lords’ decision in Osborne vs the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants in 1909, eight years after the foundation of the Labour Party, to bar trade unions from funding the political party that they had just launched. If we got rid of trade union political funds, we would not be having this argument at all.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
My Lord, I will speak to the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and to my own Amendments 152A and 152B. In so doing, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Burns, on this amendment. I remember the debate we had at that time. There is no question about it: every side of the debate compromised. I remember Ministers from the other place telling us that we had to compromise and we had to make concessions that we did not feel were right. The deal was done, and the deal still holds.
The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, that we should do things in the round and in one is exactly right, rather than making this piecemeal change that the Bill proposes, if there are to be dramatic changes. I accept that times have moved on and that funding for the Labour Party is largely from individuals rather than from unions. None the less, if we are to make changes, then let us look at them in the round rather than observing the piecemeal change proposed in the Bill.
I have to correct the noble Lords, Lord Whitty and Lord Hendy. Companies cannot make donations to any political party without prior shareholder approval in the period of a year—not 10 years, but one year. That approval lasts only one year and has to be refreshed at the annual general meeting. Noble Lords are encouraged to look at the accounts of any company—certainly a public company—to see that that is the case.
Lord Whitty (Lab)
That is true, but it does not require a ballot of individual shareholders. There is a vote once a year, or whenever, so that a donation can be made at the annual general meeting. It is not a ballot.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
With great respect, every shareholder gets a mailed piece of paper with a box to tick—every single shareholder every single year. If that is not a ballot, what is?
Lord Barber of Ainsdale (Lab)
Do shareholders get an opt-out facility from political donations that the company is making on behalf of the owners of the company?
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
They can certainly vote against it, and that happens quite regularly. The situation is exactly the reverse of the one put forward by the Benches opposite.
My focus is on Clause 77, which the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, highlighted. It is a complicated clause. It refers us to the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, which was itself amended by subsequent Acts, and to the famous aforementioned Section 32ZB, which relates to details of political expenditure in the political fund. The political funds, as I think has been said, were set up to protect the unions because the law did not allow them to make donations directly, so the political fund allows donations to political parties. But this clause requires details of any political expenditure to be disclosed in the annual return to the certification officer, and that is what the Bill wants to get rid of. It was brought in as Section 12 of the Trade Union Act 2016.
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to my Amendment 149, regarding broad workforce support. I was born and brought up in a working-class community that was specifically built to supply workers to build aircraft for a very large organisation employing thousands of people. As a teenager, I was lucky enough to get a job there, but I worked for a contractor which was not unionised. I remember going to the works canteen on the first day, and I was asked two questions: was I a member of a union and was I a Tory? The answer was no to the first one; as to the second one, I did not quite know because I was not old enough to vote, but perhaps I did turn out to be a Tory. I was asked to leave and told that if I was not a member of a union, I could not be in the canteen, so I left.
Because it was a tight-knit, working-class community, I was asked later by family, friends and relatives who worked at this factory why I did not go to the canteen. When I explained to them that I was not made welcome on the first day, they asked, “Who was it who said you couldn’t come in?” When I explained to them who it was, they said, “Oh, don’t take any notice of him, he’s a union convener”—I cannot remember the name of the trade union. Then I started to learn one or two things about trade unions. My noble friend Lord Balfe reminded me that there was a pecking order within the workforce. I learned that different trade unions represent different skill sets. I recall, because it was an aircraft factory, that if you were an electrician and a member of TASS, you regarded yourself as a superior trade unionist.
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
Some things have not changed. Then you had the mechanical engineers, the aircraft fitters, and so on and so forth: several different unions representing different members. I learned as a very young man that some unions are more militant than others and that a very small group of people could bring a whole aircraft plant to a halt.
I recall crossing a picket line. I was not a member of a trade union, but I was a contractor. A small group of trade unionists brought the plant to a halt. I turned up to work and wanted to go through the gates, and I was barred. But I was always taught to stand up to bullies, so I insisted on going through the gates—indeed, I did walk through the gates. I can remember to this day—and it is 45 years ago—the abuse I received as I walked through those gates to work as a young teenager. I still recall it, because every time I go to a Conservative Party conference I get a very similar amount of abuse. So some things have not changed.
The noble Lord, Lord Barber, rightly pointed out that trade unions are a force for good, because they look after their members in so many ways. Nobody across this House would argue with that. But the point of my amendment is that a small group of militant colleagues on the trade union side can bring the whole factory or organisation to a halt. Throughout this debate we have talked about SMEs; in this case I am talking about a very large organisation. It is the intimidation of the minority that affects the majority. Eliminating the 50% turnout threshold for strike ballots would significantly lower the bar for industrial action, allowing strikes to proceed if only a small minority of the workforce participates. This creates unpredictability and challenges for business continuity and planning, as substantial disruptions could occur based on the votes of a very limited number of employees.
In sectors where products are highly perishable, including the distribution of medicines or those with just-in-time supply chains, the ease of initiating industrial action increases the risk of supply chain interruptions. Some medical products have a limited shelf life. Strikes at distribution centres could lead to critical shortages, with direct consequences for public health and patient care. For industries that rely on seasonal production cycles, such as manufacturing and distribution of vaccines, removing the threshold places the delicate timing of mandatory deliveries at risk.
Even short periods of industrial action could jeopardise the ability to meet strict production targets and delivery deadlines, impacting public services and national preparedness. Lowering the requirements for strike action could deter domestic and international investors, who typically are seeking business environments with stable industrial relations frameworks. The potential for frequent or unpredictable strikes may lead to perceptions of elevated operational risk, discouraging long-term commitment across multiple sectors. The absence of a robust threshold may undermine industrial relations by encouraging strike action that lacks clear, broad-based support among employees. This could erode morale, create internal divisions and reduce trust between management and staff, ultimately affecting organisation productivity and the wider economy. I grew up in the 1970s; we do not want to go back to the 1970s.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, I will speak very briefly to Amendment 149A—and Amendment 149, spoken to very ably by my noble friend Lord Evans of Rainow. He is absolutely right about the qualifying percentage. Not long ago, I was thumbing through my copy of the Labour Party rules, as you do; the template rules of the Labour Party. I noticed that regional executive council meetings of that party have a quorum of 33% in terms of any decisions made in the deliberations of that committee. If the Labour Party is going to impose a less than 50% and certainly less than 33% marker for decisions being made internally, it is odd that it does not take a similarly robust attitude towards important decisions that affect many workers in industrial landscapes and industrial relations.
Amendment 149A addresses a very perverse consequence—the decision, in terms of Clause 72, to remove proper organised supervision of industrial disputes in the industrial landscape that we have at the moment. It is pretty odd that there does not appear to be a rationale for this. It seems sensible and prudent for us to be in a position where trade union officials are responsible for ensuring that there is an orderly management of industrial disputes. No case has been made by Ministers, in Committee or at Second Reading, for why it is necessary, other than demands from the trade unions to remove that part of previous legislation.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
My Lords, I support the amendments in this group and I will say a word in particular about some of the amendments. On the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Burns, which would remove Clause 59, people in the country will ask, “How can it be that, in a democracy, a payment is automatically deducted from membership fees for a political fund?” That is a question about democracy in the workplace. How is it that it can go—if it does go—to one political party? I take the point about affiliated unions and the different purposes for which the political funds are used, but we are being asked as a Parliament to pass legislation that has a direct impact on the party opposite: the Government. I cannot think that there is a similar arrangement by trade unions for any other political party, but I am willing to be put wise. So, it is a sectional problem that we are dealing with.
All the amendments in this group seek to tackle workplace democracy under the Bill, which would use the law to promote the powers and funds of trade unions, despite their shrinking membership. Some 11% of them are in private sector businesses and command practically the whole productive economy of this country, and 30% are in the public sector—so 20% overall. Yet these unions are being pivoted into power with automatic funding from their members for political purposes. I think it is wrong that this should happen and be a matter of law for us to pass.
In the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Burns, which would remove Clause 59, we see the automatic payment deducted from the membership fees. That undermines any claim the Government make that the Bill is good for workers. It is the sort of sharp practice that is not only discredited in other walks of life but, in this context, unless it omits Clause 59, it brings disrepute on the unions, the Government and this Parliament. Otherwise, people in the country will rightly feel that the Labour Government of July 2024 has in the matter of so-called rights used the Bill, and other measures, to pivot one minority in this country to a position of dominance in our economy and work- force. That will not be regarded as a fair position in this country.
I also, for the same reasons, support the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Leigh of Hurley, to omit Clauses 77 and 78 because, in the interests of transparency, working people and trade union members need to see in the annual returns what the political funds are spent on. The noble Lord referred to some of the political purposes that they are used for. Of course there are others, and they may be very good purposes, but surely it is in everybody’s interest that we have transparency, just as I think the certification officer should have enforcement powers.
In the same vein, the amendments from the noble Lords, Lord Evans of Rainow, Lord Sharpe of Epsom and Lord Hunt of Wirral, suggest that the 50% threshold in a ballot for strike action should be retained. Without these safeguards, we make a laughing stock of the idea of democracy in the workplace, our economy and the whole country if we pivot a minority into this false position of power over a majority of the people concerned in the ballot, concerned in giving money or concerned in having their returns properly transparent.
I do not like the totalitarian thread of the Bill. Times have moved on since the days of Herbert Henry Asquith and the time when trade unions represented working people and the industrial economy was at the heart of Britain’s economy. Times have changed. Working practices have changed. Safeguards for people who pay money have changed. Today we see a service economy of roughly 80% and a productive economy of goods of roughly 20%. All the amendments in this group matter, and I particularly support those to omit Clauses 59, 77 and 78 and reverse the attempt by the Government to remove the 50% threshold for decisive action in a ballot.
Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)
My Lords, I rise with some trepidation to follow that 70 minutes of riveting debate. Members may argue that that is the point of this House, and that is what we do. Well, we could have just put the tape recording from Committee on and then gone to the Tea Room for a tea and played it for the same amount of time. Almost the same number of exponents were expressing the same views again and again.
I will try to be as brief as possible. The noble Lord, Lord Burns, is right. We support his amendment. The reason for that is that the opt-in system is the best because it maximises choice and transparency for individuals and retains political funds. They need to understand what their funds are being used for.
Amendment 148 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, would retain the 50% ballot threshold required for trade unions undertaking industrial action. The Bill would remove this threshold entirely, meaning that a trade union could vote for strike action without a majority of eligible voters. We tabled similar amendments in Committee, and we have concerns about the democracy and democratic integrity of strike action ballots, which this Bill could potentially harm. We also believe that the current threshold for being able to undertake strike action is suitable and that making it easier to strike risks putting further pressure on public services. If a Division is called on this amendment, we will also support it.
Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, will say “Hear, hear” no more because we cannot support Amendment 149A, which is a new amendment that proposes removing Clause 72. I will tell the House why we cannot support it. On Monday I supported the noble Lords, Lord Hunt and Lord Sharpe, when we were very critical of the Government for tabling amendments on Report. People nodded wisely and said that it is not a good thing to do, yet this amendment was tabled today or yesterday. It has had no time for discussion or debate. It has had no time for people to understand its nuances. We know that it takes a big chunk out of the Government’s manifesto pledge Bill, and that does not seem fair to me.
In our view, legislation should be done through constructive amendments. If you do that, you end up with a compromise, whether it is through ping-pong or by persuading the Minister to change their point of view. It is almost like taking the sledgehammer again, and that is not good politics. It is not good for the House, and it is not good for Members. Lots of Members come into these debates, not all the time, and try to get a flavour of what is going on. They might hear that Amendment 149A, which sounds fairly reasonable, has been put forward. It is not fairly reasonable; it takes an enormous chunk out of the Government’s Bill, and that cannot be right for democracy. I have criticised Ministers many times, but we should be mindful that it is in the manifesto and move legislation via amendments rather than trying to remove huge chunks of legislation. On that basis, we will not support Amendment 149A.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, on balance, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Goddard. I will speak to Amendments 148, 149A, 149ZA and 150 standing in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral. Before I do that, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Burns, for his common- sense amendment. We think political contributions must always be a matter of choice, not a default. That seems to us a fair and democratic principle, and the Government ought to listen. I was particularly pleased to see that the Attorney-General was in his place to listen to the excellent arguments advanced by my noble friend Lady Cash, which all pertain to international law. I hope he was paying attention. If the noble Lord, Lord Burns, decides to test the opinion of the House, we will support him.
I turn to Amendment 148. On 8 July, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, Wes Streeting, remarked rather pointedly that despite the fact that the majority of resident doctors did not vote for strike action, the BMA is now preparing for strike action and it is completely unnecessary. Who can blame him? Strikes are happening under the existing law, and now this Government propose to remove the 50% threshold, the very last democratic safeguard that ensures that strikes have substantial backing. What would that do? It would significantly lower the bar for strike action and allow a smaller minority to cripple vital public services. It is worth bearing in mind that it is public services we are talking about because that is where the bulk of union members are. One has to wonder whether the Government agree with their own Health Secretary. If they do, why are they proposing this? If they do not, will Mr Streeting be invited to correct his error on the record? Do the Government share the disappointment that he expressed on 8 July about the BMA’s strike action or was that simply a performance for the cameras, a convenient public relations stunt, while others quietly dismantle safeguards and seek to make extremists more powerful?
On Amendments 149A and 150A, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough for his words. Earlier this month, Norman Tebbit, Lord Tebbit, died after a long period of illness. One of his enduring legacies was his role in turning around an unemployment crisis that peaked at 11.5% in 1982. Thanks to the reforms introduced on his watch, the rate fell sharply thereafter. The success was later acknowledged even by the Blair and Brown Governments, who accepted the new consensus, a fair balance between workers’ rights and the flexibility that businesses need. It was the late Lord Tebbit who warned us that we do not intend to see again the scenes of intimidation, mass picketing and political strikes that disfigured our country in the 1970s. That warning remains as relevant today as it was then. Supervision of picketing is an essential safeguard. It ensures that industrial action remains peaceful, lawful and accountable. Removing these provisions, as the Government propose, risks returning us to the chaos and intimidation of the past, as described so ably by my noble friend Lord Evans of Rainow.
Amendment 149ZA is crucial to protect airlines from unfair financial risk caused by conflicting notice periods. This was originally tabled in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Hutton of Furness. He raised a timely and important issue. As he did not retable the amendment for Report, we did because, frankly, the Committee debate was very late, it was truncated, and the Minister’s response was inadequate.
I refer noble Lords to col. 1342 of Hansard on 10 June for the detailed arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Hutton, but in essence they are that, under current law, airlines must give at least 14 days’ notice of industrial action to avoid costly compensation claims under passenger rights legislation—namely, UK261—unless there are extraordinary circumstances, and a ruling of the European Court of Justice in 2019 made it clear that a strike by an airline’s own staff is not considered an extraordinary circumstance.
The amendment would therefore simply protect airlines from having to pay hundreds of millions in compensation for cancellations caused by strikes. Reducing the notice period to 10 days would expose airlines to up to four extra days of compensation liability and a serious and unavoidable financial burden that would inevitably be passed on to passengers, making family holidays even more expensive for working people. The amendment would ensure that the 14-day notice period remained for industrial action affecting airlines, and it would align industrial relations law with passenger rights and protect vital UK businesses from crippling— I will be charitable and say probably unintended—costs.
In Committee the noble Lord, Lord Katz, argued that this would represent a sectoral carve-out, but that is not a logical argument as the sector is governed by a rule that does not apply to any other. It is therefore entirely consistent with a level playing field. It is the contradiction in legislation that puts airlines at a disadvantage.
Finally, I agree fully with my noble friend Lord Leigh about seeking to maintain the requirement that trade unions should report their political expenditure in their annual returns. I shall support him too, should he wish to call a Division.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Information and Technology (Baroness Jones of Whitchurch) (Lab)
My Lords we have had an extensive debate that indeed feels a bit like another day in Committee, but I know we all want to move on so I will try to be as brief as I can.
Amendment 147 was tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and I thank him for the ongoing engagement that we have had on the topic of political funds throughout the progress of the Bill in this House. In drafting the Bill, we have of course been mindful of the lessons learned in the conclusions of the Burns committee on trade union political funds and political party funding. I am also grateful to my noble friends Lord Monks, Lord Barber and Lord Whitty for reminding us that the compromise at that time was not intended to be a long-term arrangement, particularly because of the imbalance then, which still exists, in political party funding, which has yet to be addressed.
In the meantime, the Government believe that the 2016 Act places unnecessary red tape on trade union activity that works against their core role of negotiating, dispute resolution and giving a voice to working people. We are seeking to redress that balance and remove the burdensome requirements on how unions manage their political funds. This is why the repeal of the 2016 Act was a manifesto commitment. By reverting back to the automatic opt-in for new members, we are simply returning to a long-standing precedent that was altered by the previous Government through the 2016 Act. Prior to that, automatic opt-in was in place for 70 years, even during the Thatcher and Major Administrations.
The noble Baroness, Lady Cash, raised the issue of Article 11. The Government are confident that our measures relating to political funds comply with Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Article 11 provides the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and freedom of association with others, including the right to form and join trade unions for the protection of their interests.
Unlike subscriptions in the private sector, when we speak about unions and their political funds we are ultimately talking about voluntary organisations whose members have willingly come together to represent their collective interests. Political funds are one mechanism that unions can utilise to further their shared goals. Political funds are not just about affiliation to political parties; they can allow unions to participate in and campaign on a range of issues in their members’ interests. Examples include lobbying MPs, broader public campaigns, research to develop policy ideas and paying travel expenses for workers to attend Parliament to give evidence on issues that they face at work.
Lord Balfe (Con)
BALPA, the union of which I am president, does all those things without a political fund.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
Political campaigning, which the noble Lord will know is clearly spelled out already in the legislation, requires some of these issues to be paid for out of the political fund, Indeed, my own union, UNISON, operates two separate political funds, as my noble friend Lord Prentis explained in Committee, one of which relates to the party-political affiliation and the other to the wider campaigning role. Of course, not all political party payments have gone to the Labour Party; they have gone to other parties and candidates as well.
The payments must be established through the democratic structure of the union. Those same structures make unions accountable to their members, who are free to participate in the democratic process to shape how those political funds are utilised. Joining a trade union is an informed decision and members will be made aware of their right to opt out of political fund contributions. Indeed, we have been careful to draft the Bill to ensure that new members will continue to be notified of their right to opt out on the membership form when they join the union. In line with the recommendation in the report of the committee of the noble Lord, Lord Burns, the membership form will also have to make it clear that opting out will not affect other aspects of their membership. Those changes should help to address concerns that trade union members were not always aware of their right to opt out of the political fund under the system that existed before 2016. If members wish to exercise that right to opt out, they are free to do so at any time.
We are not altering the arrangement for existing union members. If they decided to join a union with the knowledge that they would be opted out of political fund contributions, they will continue to be opted out once the Bill passes. As I hope I have explained, automatic opt-in will reduce the administrative burden on unions while still allowing members to make an active choice not to contribute to the political fund if they so wish.
I turn to Amendment 148 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, and Amendment 149 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Rainow. The existence of the 50% turnout threshold is not in line with the Government’s intention to create a positive and modern framework for trade union legislation—a framework that delivers productive and constructive engagement, reduces bureaucratic hurdles and respects unions’ democratic mandates.
The 50% threshold is a high bar and is not consistent with other democratic decision-making. Votes in Parliament and votes for MPs and local councillors do not normally include any turnout threshold but are not thereby considered any less legitimate. Indeed, most local elections are contested with a turnout below 50%—I am sure that a number of noble Lords who have previously been councillors have been elected on a less than 50% turnout—and nor, for the most part, do votes at general meetings of companies require any turnout threshold. Those who oppose industrial action are free to vote against it in a ballot, and they will have their voices heard in the normal way.
The Government have been clear about our intention to repeal the Trade Union Act 2016, including industrial action ballot thresholds, but the amendments would prevent the Government delivering on that manifesto commitment. I was pleased to hear the support of the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, for upholding our manifesto commitments, and I will remind him of that when we come to vote on these amendments.
The date for the repeal of the 50% threshold will be set out in regulations at a future date, with the intention that it is aligned with the establishment of e-balloting as an option for trade unions. Together with the delivery of modern and secure workplace balloting, the intention is that this will ensure that industrial action mandates will have broad and demonstrable support.
As I expected, the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, talked about the doctors’ strike. The Secretary of State has held constructive meetings with the BMA resident doctors committee to try to avert strike action by discussing how we can work together to improve the working lives of resident doctors. However, the BMA RDC has refused to engage in further discussions and has instead chosen to proceed with its planned strikes. Our view is that strikes have a serious cost to patients, so once again we urge the BMA to call them off and instead work together to improve members’ working conditions and to continue rebuilding the NHS.
On Amendment 149ZA tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, the Government have made it clear that we do not intend to make sectoral carve-outs for the limitations and conditions that apply to industrial action. That is demonstrated by our repeal of the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act and the repeal of the 40% support threshold for industrial action ballots, both of which remove the further conditions on industrial action that currently exist in some public services.
Ensuring that statutory notice periods for industrial action are consistent across every sector will ensure that the rules are straightforward and clear to all parties involved in industrial action in every circumstance. It is then for employers in each sector to be mindful of these rules and manage their industrial relations and businesses accordingly.
I also want to make it clear that repeal of the 14-day notice period forms part of our manifesto commitment to reverse the Trade Union Act 2016. Following the outcome of our public consultation on creating a modern framework for industrial relations, we decided that a 10-day notice period for strikes was the appropriate balance between giving employers time to prepare and upholding the right to strike. It is also a minimum, not a maximum, period and employers will be able to plan for industrial action long before receipt of a notice.
Our approach is not an outlier. The UK will still provide one of the longer industrial action notice periods in Europe. Many European countries have shorter or no notice requirements on industrial action, while also requiring airlines to comply with the EU version of Regulation 261/2004. We are aware that under Regulation 261/2004 an airline may be liable to pay passengers compensation if it cancels a flight less than two weeks before its scheduled departure. But even under the current 14-day industrial action notice period, in practice airlines may therefore still be liable to pay compensation if they need to cancel flights due to industrial action.
I turn to Amendments 149A and 150, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe. As the period of disruption between 2022 and 2024 has shown, administrative requirements and bureaucratic hurdles only make it more difficult for trade unions to engage in good-faith negotiations with employers. This is why we are substantially repealing the Trade Union Act 2016 and fixing the foundations for industrial relations that have not delivered for workers, employers or unions in the meantime.
Legislation governing picket lines is, of course, essential and, to be clear, we are repealing only those additional measures introduced by the Trade Union Act 2016 in relation to the role of a picket supervisor. Substantially repealing this in the Act is also a manifesto commitment, while other legislation relating to picketing will remain in place. Picketing must take place at a lawful location, it must be peaceful and those on picket lines must not intimidate or harass workers who choose to attend work. The existing Code of Practice on Picketing, once updated to remove the requirement for a picketing supervisor, will continue to support the legislation on picketing. Together these are sufficient to ensure the operation of peaceful picketing.
The Government’s impact assessment on the repeal of the Trade Union Act 2016, published in October 2024, set out the expected impacts of the removal of the requirement for a picketing supervisor and is available for all to read. The assessment shows limited evidence of serious problems on picket lines prior to the introduction of the 2016 Act, and there remains limited evidence of problems on picket lines in more recent years. The assessment concluded that it is therefore unlikely that the removal of the additional legal requirement to appoint a picketing supervisor will have a noticeable effect on the impact of picketing during disputes. There is nothing new to add to that assessment; we are simply returning the law on picketing to what it was prior to 2016 when it was working well and understood by all parties.
I turn to Amendments 152A and 152B, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Leigh of Hurley. I think on previous occasions the noble Lord has reminded us of his role as treasurer of the Conservative Party, although he did not on this occasion. Clauses 77 and 78 of the Bill, which these amendments would—
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
I am sure the noble Baroness is aware that positions that do not require financial remuneration do not need to be declared. I did, in fact, make that declaration at Second Reading and in Committee and no further declaration is required.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
I think that is the point I was making; I was just reminding the noble Lord. He could have reminded us on this occasion, given that a number of his points were very much party-political ones.
Clauses 77 and 78 of the Bill, which these amendments would omit, remove burdensome requirements and regulation on unions imposed by the Trade Union Act 2016. This red tape works against unions’ core role of negotiating and dispute resolution, which is why we made a manifesto commitment to repeal the Trade Union Act 2016. In relation to Clause 77, trade unions will continue to submit an annual return to the certification officer; however, the amount of information required in that return will be less.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
Can the Minister be quite clear with us in that case? She said that unions will be required to report to the certification officer gross amounts of income and expenses. Can she be crystal clear that there will be no requirement to disclose expenses made within the political fund to any organisation?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My understanding is that the political funds will be required to continue to spell out how they are spending the money, but not for sums under £2,000. The certification officer will continue to be able to enforce remaining annual return requirements—
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
I am sure the Minister would not like to have on record something that does not seem to be correct. I think she means that amounts under £2,000 need not be disclosed.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
That is what I said.
We are simply returning to the situation as it was pre-2016. I would add that the unions are already specifically regulated in the requirement to have a separate fund for spending on political purposes that is subject to many rules. There is no such requirement on many other membership organisations.
I turn to the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Davies of Brixton relating to Clause 62 on equality representatives. Trade unions have long fought for equality. We recognise that equality reps have a key role to play in raising awareness and promoting equal rights for all members, as well as developing collective policies and practices that will enable organisations to realise all the benefits of being an equal opportunities employer. New Section 168B(2)(a) therefore provides for the broad purpose for equality representatives to take paid time off for carrying out duties
“for the purpose of promoting the value of equality in the workplace”.
In addition, new Section 168B(2)(c) makes provision for
“providing information, advice or support to qualifying members of the trade union in relation to matters relating to equality in the workplace”,
and new Section 168(2)(d) makes provision for
“consulting with the employer on matters relating to equality in the workplace”.
Finally, equality representatives may also be eligible for time off under Section 168 of the 1992 Act, which includes time off for
“negotiations with the employer related to or connected with matters falling within section 178 … in … which the trade union is recognised by the employer”.
We believe that these measures are broad enough to include a range of activities, which encompass collective bargaining, negotiating with employers and representing members. I ask the noble Lord, Lord Burns, to withdraw Amendment 147.
Lord Burns (CB)
My Lords, I am grateful to all who have contributed to the debate, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, and the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, who added their names to the amendment. I am also very grateful for the meetings I have had with the Minister. However, I am disappointed that I have failed to move her thinking in any serious way on this issue.
I welcome the support of the use of active consent in making contributions to political funds. The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, made a very good point that unions should not be frightened of giving members a clear choice. From those who have disagreed we have heard very little in the way of new arguments for ditching the 2016 compromise, other than a desire to persuade members to contribute more by relying on their inertia.
I enjoyed the history lesson from the noble Lord, Lord Barber. I agree entirely that it is quite astonishing; as I discovered at the time of the committee, political funds were illegal prior to 1909. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, about the need for an agreement on party funding. The issue is: which is the right mechanism until then? Is it the 2016 compromise or the 1945 model? The noble Lord, Lord Monks, said he is worried that in 10 years’ time all members will be covered by the 2016 compromise. He will not be surprised that I do not think that this is necessarily a bad thing.
I remain bewildered by the desire to go ahead with the proposal in the Bill. I do not think the compromise should last for ever, but it is surely preferable to the 1945 version. I am very disappointed that there is no appetite for finding a way of dealing with this that gives some hope that it will stand the test of time. I have heard no recognition that views on the ethics of this type of choice have moved on since 1945 and that the arrival of a digital world increases the options for dealing with this in a different way. Instead, what we have is a desire to go back to the 1945 mechanism. Therefore, I would like to seek the opinion of the House.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
Member's explanatory statement
This probing amendment would reinstate the 50% threshold requirement for industrial action to be voted on by a trade union and seeks to probe whether the Government perceives a risk to the democratic integrity of trade union ballots for industrial action as a result of the provisions to remove the 50% requirement.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, time and again we hear about workplace democracy from the Government Benches, and then they introduce this. So yes, I would like to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
My Lords, there being an equality of votes, in accordance with Standing Order 55, which provides that no proposal to amend a Bill in the form in which it is before the House shall be agreed to unless there is a majority in favour of such amendment, I declare the amendment disagreed to.
Lord Hendy
“Right to take industrial action(1) The Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 is amended as follows.(2) In section 220 (peaceful picketing)—(a) in subsection (1), for paragraphs (a) and (b) substitute “a place of work”;(b) omit subsections (2) to (4).(3) Omit section 224 (secondary action).(4) In section 244 (meaning of “trade dispute” in Part V)—(a) in subsection (1), for “a dispute between workers and their employer which relates wholly or mainly to” substitute “a dispute between workers and one or more employers connected with”; (b) in subsection (5), for “a worker employed by that employer” substitute “a worker employed by an employer”.” Member's explanatory statement
These amendments would remove the provisions (in sections 224 and 244) that render unlawful all forms of ‘secondary’ industrial action including the rights of pickets to picket places of work other than their own.
Lord Hendy (Lab)
My Lords, this amendment is a reproduction of the amendment on secondary action that I moved in Committee. Of course, your Lordships are far too polite to give expression to the collective groan that would otherwise emanate from all sides of the House.
I move the amendment again for two reasons—first, because the issue raises important factors of which I shall remind your Lordships briefly in a moment and, secondly, because support for it from various unions and resistance to it by the Government in Committee, and, I surmise, today on Report, give the lie to the repeated allegation that this Government are a puppet manipulated by the trade unions.
The amendment contains six measures aimed at restoring statutory protection for solidarity action, which subsisted between 1906 and 1984. As before, I am grateful for the support of ASLEF, the Bakers Food and Allied Workers Union, the BMA, the Fire Brigades Union, the RMT, the University and College Union and Unite.
Your Lordships will be pleased to hear that I shall not rehearse the arguments that I made in Committee, save to remind the House of two. First, solidarity action is an inherent aspect of freedom of association, which is the jurisprudential and international underpinning of trade union freedom and, at a more mundane level, the very essence of trade unionism. Solidarity between workers is not confined to the happenstance of employer identity, especially in the light of the fragmentation of enterprises in recent years.
Secondly, the issue is one of the rule of law. Lord Bingham’s eighth principle requires compliance with international treaty obligations ratified by each state. Those obligations are elaborated by the supervisory bodies established by the relevant treaty to which the state adheres. Their decisions are as much part of international law as is the treaty that authorised them. The right to strike is guaranteed by ILO Convention 87 and Article 6.4 of the European Social Charter of 1961. The decisions of the supervisory bodies of each hold that a prohibition on secondary action by a ratifying state violates these respective provisions. Of course, the United Kingdom has ratified both ILO Convention 87 and, specifically, Article 6.4 of the European Social Charter of 1961. The UK is also represented on both the ILO supervisory committees, the Committee of Experts and the Committee on Freedom of Association. From time to time, it has appointed a representative to the European Committee of Social Rights.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, I oppose the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hendy. In doing so, I accept that he is very sincere in the arguments that he makes. I would not necessarily wish to dispute his interpretation of ILO regulations or policies, but we are nevertheless being asked to accept the central premise of secondary picketing. Although I agree with the noble Lord—any reasonable person would—that the P&O dispute was an egregious example of malfeasance and inappropriate behaviour by the management, it should not be the basis of industrial policy and legislation that governs employment. On that basis, and with all due respect, I do not think that the noble Lord’s argument is very compelling. It is always bad law to work on the basis of unique circumstances, situations and anecdotes, notwithstanding the fact that we disagree with how P&O Ferries handled that situation, which was pretty lamentable.
That said, in the situation that we now have in the economy, where we have pressure on employment, rising inflation, difficulties in recruitment and ossified GDP growth, and where we are not achieving growth levels that we need, the last thing we need is to make the employment market more disputatious and more litigious. That is what this amendment would do, frankly. If one reads it carefully, the term “connected with” in proposed new subsection 4(a) would probably do a lot of heavy lifting in the future and no doubt be the subject of quite a bit of legal action, one would assume, were it to be incorporated into the Bill. In addition, the change in proposed new subsection 4(b) from employed by “that employer” to by “an employer”—that is, all employers—gives carte blanche, frankly, for going back to the bad old days of the 1970s when we saw behaviour that caused huge disputes and very significant dislocation between the workforce and employers across a wide range of industries.
As others touched on in Committee, and notwithstanding what the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, said about the ILO, this is almost from a different era. We are no longer in the era, or we are less so than we were, of heavily mechanised, heavily unionised manufacturing, where that central argument for having collective action between different groups of workers at different locations—I could mention Saltley coke works and Orgreave, which is very topical—was a pertinent issue. We are no longer in that situation, because of technical change, communication change and the way that people work now. Many more people work from home and many more work on a self-employed basis. They are not accessing unions as members and it is not necessary for them to have that physical collective action.
There are, very briefly, other big philosophical and ideological reasons why it would be bad news were this amendment to be appended to the Bill. There would be a disproportionate impact of secondary picketing, which would undermine the confidence of employers, customers and suppliers in businesses that are not directly involved in the dispute. It would create economic damage that extends far beyond the scope of the actual workforce disagreement. It would unfairly target neutral parties. Secondary picketing affects businesses and workers in the supply chain who have no direct involvement in the original dispute. These neutral employers face disruption to their operations, despite having no control over, or responsibility for resolving, the underlying conflict. There would obviously be a multiplier effect in the economy of such disruption. There are also legal and fairness arguments and contractual rights. Secondary picketing can interfere with existing contractual relationships between neutral businesses and their customers, suppliers or employees, which undermines the security of commercial contracts and business relationships.
There is also the right to work. Workers at secondary sites who are not party to the original dispute have their own right to work without interference; secondary picketing would, of course, impinge on that right. Secondary picketing can effectively coerce those workers into supporting a cause that they may not agree with or have a stake in. In terms of property rights, secondary picketing often takes place on or near the property of businesses uninvolved in the dispute, potentially interfering with property owners’ rights to conduct their business freely.
The rule of law is important as well. There is a reason why there was consensus among the voting public at the 1979 election and onwards, with the continuing legislation brought forward by the Conservative Government, that secondary picketing was essentially retrograde, a bad thing and not good for jobs, prosperity and business.
There is a final point to be made about democratic legitimacy. Secondary picketing can give unions power to disrupt parts of the economy where they lack a democratic mandate from the affected workers, as those workers have not chosen to join the industrial action. The point is that if you wish to go on strike, having gone through the democratic processes of a union workplace ballot at your place of work, that must be respected and it must be proper and within the rule of law. However, imposing that particular dispute on other people through secondary picketing undermines democratic legitimacy.
I say finally that the Blair Government were not perfect, but they looked at this situation, as did the Brown Government, when Labour was in power from 1997 to 2010 and did not essentially resile from a settled position and a consensus on secondary picketing. For that reason, notwithstanding that I respect the great expertise of the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, I think that this is an unfortunate amendment and I oppose it.
Baroness O’Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)
My Lords, I shall speak briefly to Amendment 150 in the name of my noble friend Lord Hendy, because I think that it is worth taking just a moment to consider the impact of the reduction in union bargaining power that we have seen on ordinary working people in this country. That will not take long, because it is plain to see, in stagnating living standards and the drag on fair growth, but it is also worth considering how the position of the party opposite on industrial action has evolved over time.
In April 1980, the then Secretary of State for Employment, Jim Prior, introduced an Employment Bill which restricted secondary action, but he certainly did not advocate that it should be banned altogether. The then Conservative Government’s position was that secondary action should in fact remain lawful if it related to a first customer and/or supplier that was of direct importance to the original dispute. Jim Prior said that
“the only other position that we could take would be to say that there will be no immunity for anything other than primary action. I do not believe … that that is either a practical or a reasonable position to take”.
He also said that, by protecting the right to take secondary action in relation to a customer or supplier,
“We are seeking to reach a position which we believe is fair and which recognises the traditional rights of the trade union movement”.—[Official Report, Commons, 17/4/1980; col. 1490.]
Back then, a Conservative Minister could acknowledge that the relationship between an employer, on one hand, and workers and their unions, on the other, is an inherently unequal one. But, of course, Jim Prior did not last long in that role and, under successive Conservative Governments, the inequality of power between workers and employers was deliberately and repeatedly reinforced.
Secondary action, or solidarity action as it is commonly called, was effectively outlawed in 1990, but here is the problem that I invite noble Lords to reflect on when considering the arguments of my noble friend Lord Hendy. Business was handed a unilateral power to define what secondary action is and, unfortunately, that is an invitation to an abuse of power. This is not an academic point. It was only after a six-week strike in 1984 that Ford sewing machinists finally secured full equal pay, but the victory was short-lived. Ultimately, the company took the decision to outsource those jobs and so avoid any need for pay parity, secure in the knowledge that solidarity action from workers in the customer company would become unlawful. Today, some companies continue to use long supply chains and complex outsourcing arrangements to effectively balkanise workers’ bargaining power. For example, take a company that decides to boost profit margins by targeting one part of the work- force for wage cuts. To prevent fellow workers from participating in industrial action to resist those pay cuts, a company can simply divide itself in two. To paraphrase Jim Prior, is that fair?
Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)
My Lords, I will be very brief. Amendment 154 would remove another huge chunk from the legislation and, for the arguments that I rehearsed in the previous group, we will not support any move to force a vote on this occasion.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, I listened carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, and the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady of Upper Holloway, but I think that the argument fell rightly to my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough, because he explained why we could not possibly accept this amendment. Therefore, I rise briefly to speak to Amendments 150B, 151 and 152.
With this Bill, the Government have chosen to make it easier to strike, lowering thresholds, relaxing long-standing restraints on picketing and removing vital safeguards. It is inevitable then that businesses, especially small ones, will find themselves bearing even greater burdens as a result of what is anticipated will be a new wave of industrial action. Amendment 150B would give employers a narrow and reasonable defence: where a decision taken during or immediately after lawful industrial action was strictly necessary to keep the business afloat, it should not be automatically treated as unlawful detriment. Without this amendment, we risk a situation where businesses face paralysis, exposed to litigation on one side and operational collapse on the other.
I believe that Amendment 151 is essential. It makes it clear that intimidation, harassment, damage to property and other coercive actions dressed up as industrial activity will not be protected under the law. Workers have the right to strike, yes, but they do not have the right to bully, vandalise or threaten.
To turn to Amendment 152, the Government may now claim that the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act has proved ineffective, but we do not agree, not because we are ideologically wedded to it, but because it is simply far too early to make such a sweeping judgment. The Act has barely had time to be tested properly. Therefore, if the Government abandon the principle of minimum service, we look forward to hearing the Minister explain what the Government stand for instead.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Leong) (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, and my noble friend Lady O’Grady of Upper Holloway, for contributing to this debate, and to the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, for setting out the Lib Dems’ position. I will now speak to Amendment 150, tabled by my noble friend Lord Hendy, and Amendments 150AA, 150B, 151 and 152 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom.
On Amendment 150, we are clear that industrial action should take place only where there is a dispute between a group of workers and their direct employer and we will not change this position. Secondary or solidarity action has been prohibited for several decades and the Government will not change this. Permitting secondary action would enable parties with no direct stake in a dispute to take co-ordinated action, increasing the risk of disruption to employers and the public, and would allow industrial disputes to escalate beyond the original context and across different employers. The Government are clear that we are compliant with our international obligations under ILO Convention 87, Article 11 of the ECHR and Article 6 of the European Social Charter, all of which protect the right to strike but also permit restrictions on industrial action necessary in a democratic society.
As noted by the European Court of Human Rights in the RMT case in 2014, there is a democratic consensus in the UK in support of the prohibition of secondary action and a broad acceptance of the public interest reasons for it, spanning the gamut of political opinion.
Furthermore, the UK is not an outlier. Similar countries such as Australia, Canada, Austria, France and the USA also prohibit or do not protect secondary action. The UK’s model reflects our unique industrial relations framework and economic context, and protects the ability to strike, while also protecting the rights of others. The Government have no intention of changing this.
On Amendment 150AA, 150B and 151, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, Clause 73 of the Bill is required because the Supreme Court ruled in April 2024 that Section 146 of the 1992 Act is incompatible with Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights. That is because it fails to provide any protection against detriments—that is, sanctions short of dismissal—intended to deter trade union members from taking part in lawful strike action organised by their union or penalise them for doing so. I have no doubt that many Members of your Lordships’ House agree that the UK cannot continue to be in breach of our international obligations. The Bill will correct this by inserting new Section 236A into the 1992 Act, to provide that:
“A worker has the right not to be subjected … to detriment of a prescribed description by any act, or any deliberate failure to act, by the worker’s employer, if the act or failure takes place for the sole or main purpose of preventing or deterring the worker from taking protected industrial action, or penalising the worker for doing so”.
The prescribed detriments will be set out in secondary legislation following a consultation.
These amendments seek to prejudge a full and open consultation on this issue by setting out the circumstances in which the detriment protection—whatever the prescribed detriments may ultimately be—will not apply. Indeed, as part of the consultation, we look forward to hearing the perspective of employers on why they may consider detriments could be appropriate in certain circumstances.
I must also add that, importantly, the protection from prescribed detriment applies only where the sole or main purpose of subjecting the worker to detriment is to prevent, deter or penalise the worker from taking protected industrial action. For example, if a worker is subject to a detriment solely or mainly because they have damaged property, this protection will not apply. Moreover, the criminal law still applies to pickets and others taking part in industrial action, just as it applies to everyone else.
Finally, on Amendment 152, also in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, Clause 75 seeks to repeal the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023. The repeal of the strikes Act is a manifesto commitment that this Government have a mandate to deliver. Minimum service levels unduly restrict the right to withdraw labour and undermine good industrial relations, and our plan to make work pay pledged to repeal the Act. No work notice has ever been issued by an employer to seek to meet a minimum service level during strike action, and the legislation has never prevented a single day of strike action. Evidence suggests that this is due to employer concerns around worsening industrial relations and the complexity of implementing a minimum service level under the legislation. This demonstrates the futility of that Act and why we intend to repeal it upon Royal Assent.
We believe that negotiation and co-operation are better ways to ensure essential services continue during any industrial action, while respecting workers’ rights. Evidence given at the time the strikes Act was being introduced, including from employers, was that existing voluntary arrangements worked and ensured that vital services were able to continue during periods of industrial action. We are simply returning to this situation. We want to reset the relationship with both employers and trade unions to resolve disputes through meaningful negotiations. Repealing the rights of the strikes Act will help us to achieve that. I therefore respectfully ask my noble friend Lord Hendy to withdraw Amendment 150.
Lord Hendy (Lab)
My Lords, I am very grateful to all noble Lords who spoke in the debate on my amendment. I have a couple of words by way of reply.
I point out to the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, that the P&O Ferries scandal was not the basis of the argument that I advanced to the House but simply an egregious example of the absence of the right to take secondary action. Noble Lords will recall that that case involved some 800 seafarers who were sacked instantaneously and replaced immediately with agency crews recruited in third-world countries. In doing so, P&O Ferries knowingly and intentionally broke the law. It could do so because it knew exactly how much compensation it was liable for, and it paid it. The unions, on the other hand, were unable to call on fellow workers in the Port of Dover and other cross-channel ports to support them in an industrial dispute to reverse that decision. The seafarers themselves, of course, were on the stones; they were unemployed. A strike by the direct workforce would have been completely pointless. I mentioned it because that is the last example of the ILO commenting on the UK ban on secondary action. It said that the Government and social partners should sit down together and endeavour to negotiate some form of permissible secondary action. The ILO has been consistent on the position since 1989, repeatedly saying that the 1990 law to which my noble friend Lady O’Grady referred was incompatible with Convention 87.
The noble Lord, Lord Jackson, pointed out various circumstances, which I will not debate with him now, that would make the return of secondary action in this country unacceptable. The point is that special circumstances are not a legitimate justification for a state not to comply with its international obligations. That point was made clear by the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General in a speech that he made about a month ago, but it is a fundamental principle of international law.
Finally, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, who commented on the suggestion that the phrase “connected with” ought to be brought back, that phrase is the one that was deployed in the original drafting of the Trade Disputes Act 1906.
I thank my noble friend Lady O’Grady for her support and for reminding the House of the fragmentation in employing enterprises, often precisely to achieve and exploit the bar on secondary action, to weaken workers. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Goddard and Lord Hunt, for their comments.
To the Minister, my noble friend Lord Leong, I make three quick points. First, I am afraid I do not agree with his comparative law analysis. I have done some work on this over the years, and it is not the case that the countries that he mentioned bar secondary action—at least, not all of them do, although the United States does. Secondly, I accept, as I did in Committee, that we are not in breach of Article 11 of the European convention, but I simply cannot see how it can be argued that we are not in violation of ILO Convention 87 and the European Social Charter’s Article 6.4. The supervisory bodies have said so over and over again. Thirdly, of course I recognise the Government’s position, and my noble friend will not be surprised to hear that I do not intend to test the opinion of the House. I respectfully ask to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Leigh of Hurley
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
My Lords, we have debated this at length. I listened very carefully to what the Minister said, but I cannot see a reason why payments should be hidden from members of a union.
In wishing to test opinion of the House, I also declare that I have never received any financial remuneration from the Conservative Party: neither have I received any union payment or indeed a union pension. I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Employment Rights Bill
Wednesday 23rd July 2025
(8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Employment Rights Act 2025 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 113-IV(b) Manuscript Amendment for Report (Supplementary to the Fourth Marshalled List) - (23 Jul 2025)
21:51 - Division on Amendment 154 - Ayes: 85 / Noes: 127 - Amendment 154 disagreed.
Lord Carter of Haslemere
Lord Carter of Haslemere (CB)
Amendment 154 in my name seeks to remove Clause 113 from the Bill. Clause 113 was tabled at the 11th hour at Commons Report and gives the Secretary of State the power to bring legal proceedings in the employment tribunal, and to do so not because the Secretary of State is directly affected by what the employer is doing, but rather in place of a worker as if the proceedings had been brought by the worker. This is whether or not the worker consents and even if they strongly object. This is legally bizarre, unworkable and totally unnecessary. It could well destroy the relationship between employer and worker—indeed, any future employment relationship since, remarkably, the clause also applies to individuals who are seeking work.
I will focus on three things: the legal implications, the clause’s workability and its policy flaws. I will start with the legal ramifications. It is unprecedented, as far as I can see, for a Secretary of State to be able to institute employment tribunal proceedings or any legal proceedings in place of someone who does not want those proceedings to take place. The Secretary of State says that the provision is modelled on the Equality and Human Rights Commission but, apart from the very different public law context of judicial review, the commission has never instituted a private law action in place of another individual as Clause 113 now envisages for the Secretary of State.
The case of Wilson, to which the Secretary of State referred in her letter of 7 July to noble Lords, was not such a case, since the commission did not act in place of another person. It is inconceivable that the Equality and Human Rights Commission would initiate proceedings in place of a worker in the employment tribunal, let alone where that person did not consent. For the Secretary of State to be able to do so goes against the long-standing principle that, in order to instigate litigation, a claimant should have a sufficient interest—that is to say, be directly affected by whatever issue is being litigated. Exceptions to this general principle have occasionally been made for pressure groups acting in the public interest but, as the High Court reaffirmed in 2022, not where there is a more appropriate potential applicant who has chosen not to bring proceedings, which is the type of case we envisage.
Moving on to the workability of Clause 113, the debate in Committee showed that one reason why there is no precedent for what is proposed is precisely because any litigation lawyer will tell you it cannot work. If the worker does not consent then how will the Secretary of State acquire the evidence to bring a claim? In Committee, the Minister rejected an eminently sensible amendment tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe and Lord Hunt, which would have required the consent of the worker before proceedings could be brought. This would have made a major difference, but the Government rejected it, which shows that they envisage the power being used even without the consent of the worker. Without that consent, one can see the possibility of a worker, disgruntled with the claim, trying to invoke Rule 25 of the Employment Tribunal Rules to withdraw the claim and the Secretary of State resisting that attempt—hardly a great use of taxpayers’ money.
Even if the proceedings continue, should the worker, who did not consent to the claim, really be liable for the costs if the claim fails, which could amount to thousands of pounds? Extraordinary as it is, this is the effect of Clause 113(6). It provides that:
“The Secretary of State is not liable to any worker for anything done (or omitted to be done) in, or in connection with, the discharge … of the Secretary of State’s functions”
under the clause. This immunity from liability for the Secretary of State applies irrespective of how incompetently the claim may have been handled.
Furthermore, as the noble Lord, Lord Murray, so graphically articulated in Committee, since it is a power for the Secretary of State to bring proceedings, the unions could judicially review the Secretary of State for not exercising the power. This means there could be, in the noble Lord’s words, litigation to require the Secretary of State to litigate
“on behalf of somebody who does not want to litigate”.—[Official Report, 18/6/25; col. 2048.]
As he suggested, we are in Alice in Wonderland here, but it is where Clause 113 takes us—and all at taxpayers’ expense of course.
Finally, on the policy flaws, Clause 113 is completely unnecessary. The Committee stage of this Bill in the Lords brought out the extraordinarily wide scope of the powers the Secretary of State will acquire via the so-called fair work agency. This is, of course, just the Secretary of State under a different name. These include the powers to summon people to give information, to enter any premises to inspect and seize documents and examine computers, and even police powers to search, arrest and interview suspects in relation to labour market offences. Most people would assume that these sweeping enforcement powers will be more than enough to crack down on labour market abuse without a power to bring legal proceedings in the name of a worker who may not want those proceedings to be brought.
This is especially so given that Clause 114 provides that the Secretary of State can give legal assistance to a worker who wants to bring legal proceedings against their employer. This is surely the way this should be handled, rather than the Secretary of State unilaterally launching such proceedings in the belief that this is in the best interests of the worker. Perhaps it is in the best interests of the Secretary of State.
What happened to personal autonomy, especially the basic right to decide whether or not to bring legal proceedings in one’s own name? It could come as a bit of a shock for a worker, who might know nothing about the proceedings, to receive in the morning post a summons to court, especially when they realise they are treated as having brought the proceedings themselves and against their own employer to boot. Talk about choking on cornflakes.
It takes some mental agility to imagine how all this will also apply to a person who is not yet a worker but is seeking to be employed. It is hardly likely to endear them to their prospective employer, is it? If and when the worker does not get the job, they will have no remedy against the Secretary of State for ruining their chances.
This is a bad clause which fails on grounds of legal incoherence, practical unworkability and policy flaws. It needs to come out. I beg to move.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Carter of Haslemere. He has spoken with great eloquence and killer arguments. I agree with him, so none of us needs to speak for very long.
As he has said, this clause was added late in the day in the other place and there is one aspect which particularly appals me. The clause provides that the Secretary of State, or rather, in practice, their Civil Service agents in the new enforcement body, or any other enforcement officer as in Clause 113(7)(b), will be able to take a case to an employment tribunal where an employee is unwilling to pursue their own complaint—that is, without consent. Consent is such an important principle. Subsection (6) makes it clear that the Secretary of State or enforcement officer
“is not liable to any worker for anything done (or omitted to be done)”,
such as an error or reputational or personal damage. The clause also risks putting further pressure on the hard-pressed tribunal system.
The Government’s recent implementation plan seeks expert help in getting the detail of the provisions right. I have worked for small companies, I have worked for a company with 500,000 people, I have worked with USDAW, I have been a member of two Civil Service unions and I have been head of HR in a government department. I believe that this lack of consent will cause untold trouble. The clause must be dropped, and I hope colleagues across the House will vote for the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Carter.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, first, I declare an interest as a barrister who occasionally practices in employment law. Secondly, in Committee on 18 June, Hansard recalls that I described the Bill as
“a complete Horlicks … truly bizarre”
and
“absolutely beyond belief”.—[Official Report, 18/6/25; col. 2048.]
I am amazed at my moderation. Nothing I have heard since addresses my concerns. As ably outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Carter of Haslemere, whose amendment I entirely agree with, this clause allows the Secretary of State to bring a complaint to an employment tribunal without the consent of the complainant. Have these people ever been to an employment tribunal? This is absurd.
Is it proposed, in the event that the claimant has the temerity to disagree with the Secretary of State’s assessment that they have a valid claim, to witness summons the claimant, on pain of arrest, if they do not come and give evidence in support of their claim? If, when there, they have the temerity to give evidence against the claim brought by the Secretary of State on their unwilling behalf, will the Secretary of State apply to the judge to treat their witness as hostile, thus permitting the former to cross-examine the latter on the basis that they really were badly treated by their employer? This is palpable nonsense. This clause cannot stand part of the Bill.
I also draw the House’s attention to the fact that, as raised by the noble Lord, Lord Carter of Haslemere, the wording of the clause is an exercise in discretion and is therefore subject to judicial review. There can therefore be a judicial review of both the decision to bring proceedings on the part of the unwilling claimant and of the decision not to bring proceedings. This is going to be marvellous for those of us who are both at the employment Bar and the public law Bar. There will be endless litigation, all at public expense on every side. This is absurd. I invite the House to remove this clause from the Bill as swiftly as possible.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, I cannot match the peculiar tones of the noble Lord, Lord Murray, but I do agree with the thrust of his remarks. Noble Lords often oppose clauses in government Bills; sometimes noble Lords are alarmed by such clauses, but, very occasionally, it is appropriate to say that a clause in a government Bill is simply bonkers—a technical term, but appropriate in this context. That is the appropriate term in respect of a proposal that the Secretary of State should be given power to
“bring proceedings … in an employment tribunal”,
in place of the worker who has the employment right, where
“it appears to the Secretary of State that the worker is not going to bring proceedings”.
This is a quite astonishing provision, for all the reasons given by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, and the noble Lord, Lord Murray, in particular because the Bill does not require the Secretary of State even to consult the worker whose rights they are going to pursue, far less to obtain the worker’s consent.
Of course, the worker may have good reason not to want to bring proceedings. Not everyone wishes to spend more time with their lawyers. Not everyone wishes to have the finer details of their conduct picked over in public by lawyers for the employer and to be the subject of a public judgment. I declare my interest as a practising barrister, occasionally in employment law cases. I spend much of my time advising clients in all areas of the law that litigation is not necessarily the answer to their problem. The idea that the Secretary of State should decide whether to bring proceedings, and not the worker themselves, could appeal only to those who believe in a state that is ever expanding to take more and more responsibility for areas of life.
Lord Garnier (Con)
My Lords, there are several styles of advocacy and we have had a good experience of some of them this evening, but in every way those who have spoken before me have been devastating in their unpicking of the ludicrous nature of the clause that the noble Lord, Lord Carter of Haslemere, is seeking to have removed from the Bill. I cannot improve on the gentle forensic approach that he took to the ludicrous nature of this clause. The legal ramifications, its workability and its policy defects are plain on the face of the Bill and I am amazed that any sentient Minister—or any sentient member of any legislature—could come forward with a proposal in the form of Clause 113. It is manifestly absurd. As the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, thoroughly pointed out, the implications of this clause are so obvious for us all to see that it is even surprising that the Government have the nerve to come forward with it and maintain their support for it.
This clause brought me in mind of something—and now I am going to get into my anecdotage. I, too, remember the Bar, but I confess that I have never once, at least not knowingly, been in an employment tribunal. But what I do remember is that about 40 years ago I was asked by some visiting Chinese judges to this country to explain the English law of defamation, which I did. After I had given what I thought was a pretty uncontroversial explanation of the law of defamation in this country, one of the Chinese judges said to me, “Hang on a minute, do you mean to say that an individual has a reputation that can be injured and, if injured, he can receive compensation for that injury in the courts of England and Wales?” I said, “Yes, they can. It’s funny, isn’t it?” He said, “But surely no individual citizen, if there is such a thing, has a private reputation—it is subsumed in the interests of the state, subsumed in the Communist Party of China”. The possibility of bringing a libel action as an individual was just foreign to him and quite puzzling.
If your entire personality is a creature of the state, I suppose that you would support Clause 113, because it is the state that takes over your personal autonomy and makes all the decisions about whether to sue or not to sue, whether to bring proceedings or not to bring proceedings, and whether to give evidence, as my noble friend Lord Murray so graphically explained a moment ago. Why should we, on behalf of the people of this country, tolerate what is little more than an Orwellian intervention in the private lives of the citizen? I cannot believe that the Government have any decent excuse or explanation for this—to use the technical term that my good friend the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, introduced into the debate a moment ago—“bonkers” piece of legislation. The Bill has plenty wrong with it as it is. If we are not to laugh at the Government, not to ridicule the Government and not to lose such little respect as many of us still have for the Government, I suggest that they remove this ludicrous clause.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I hope that the devastating interventions that we have heard so far will make the Government rethink. They deserve the ridicule being poured on them. I just want to make two additional points.
Clause 113 completely undermines the Government’s idea that the Bill is all about enhancing workers’ rights by empowering them to have more control over their employment protections. When we scratch further, the real power is being accumulated by agencies and quangos; in this instance, it is the Secretary of State disguised as the fair work agency. It is an indication that workers are almost a stage army to the accumulation of power by the centre. I worry that the Government are using workers’ rights to colonise more aspects of people’s lives on the basis that the Government think that they can act on behalf of workers because they know better—that is outrageous. I want them to consider what this would mean for an individual woman at work. A female worker says no, but the Secretary of State comes up and says, “I don’t care; we don’t need your consent. You don’t want to go to a tribunal? We are not interested in what you as a woman think as a worker. We are going to act on your behalf because we know better than you”. It is an absolutely flagrant and outrageous attack on worker autonomy.
My other question relates to what the noble Lord, Lord Katz, said in Committee in response to a discussion about the overburdening of employment tribunals. He said that we will find that the fair work agency will pick up a lot of the work of the employment tribunals. The noble Lord implied that a lot of the work of the employment rights tribunals, which were clogged up, could be picked up by the agency and that fast-track routes would be used. I therefore cannot understand why, in this instance, the Government are piling more work on to the employment tribunals. They seem to be wallowing in this lawfare. If they do not want the Bill to be exposed as not in the interests of workers but more in the interests of quangos, this clause should be dropped before we come back.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, I have not spoken on the Bill before and I apologise for entering these debates at this late stage. Indeed, I start by saying that I have considerable sympathy with the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Carter of Haslemere, to leave out Clause 113. As he and others have said, it would enable the Secretary of State to take proceedings without the consent of the worker concerned, even against that worker’s will, which I agree is a very odd position.
I have considerable hesitation in doubting the analysis of all those who have spoken before me, eminent lawyers and colleagues among them, but I am bound to say that I take issue with the categorisation of this clause as “bonkers”. The reason I take that view is because, on reflection, I can see circumstances where the Secretary of State might legitimately wish to take proceedings before an employment tribunal where the worker concerned did not want to do so. That might be because the worker was concerned about the risk of losing, or did not have the time, resources or simply the inclination to become involved in contested proceedings.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
Perhaps the noble Lord could explain how it is envisaged that the Secretary of State will know that such a worker has a claim and should win.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
I do not understand why the Secretary of State should not have that information as a matter of public record, or why he should not have become aware of it. Plainly, if the Secretary of State and his department do not have the faintest idea about the case, they are unlikely to invoke Clause 113 and bring proceedings on that basis. However, given the knowledge, it is for the Secretary of State to make a decision. In very many cases, I suppose that the Secretary of State will make a decision against intervening. But another possibility is that a worker might not be proud of their own conduct and might not want it publicly ventilated. These were all reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, effectively covered in considering why litigation might not be an attractive option for the worker concerned. The Secretary of State has to make, or would have to make, a decision about whether the private right of the worker not to sue is outweighed by the public interest in having a point determined.
Lord Pannick (CB)
Is it really appropriate for a Secretary of State to insist that the circumstances relating to an individual are publicly exposed—subject to cross-examination, subject to a public judgment—when the individual whose private rights are the subject of those proceedings wishes, no doubt for good reason, that they not be so exposed? Is it really appropriate?
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
I venture to suggest that in some circumstances it might be, but I add an important point, which is that my party has been involved in discussions with the Government about the protection of such a worker.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
There is nothing secret about any such discussions. They relate to anonymity for such a worker and the restrictions on publicity that might protect such a worker from exactly the dangers and difficulties that the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, suggests and envisages. But the Secretary of State might, in a given case, take the view that an issue of law or principle was involved, with wider ramifications going beyond that particular case, and that the public interest required the issue to be determined. With respect to all the arguments that have been put by those who have spoken before me, I am not sure that any of those arguments met that possibility, certainly not in the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Murray, expressed it. Even the moderate tones of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, a colleague of mine, failed to deal comprehensively with that suggestion.
Lord Pannick (CB)
This is a very important matter. Surely the answer to his concern that the individual case may raise wider, broader issues is that it is absolutely inevitable in those circumstances that there will be other affected workers, one of whom no doubt will bring proceedings. We do not need the Secretary of State to bring proceedings in those circumstances. It is inconceivable.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
There might be others. Then again, there might not. I quite accept that a Secretary of State would have to weigh up very carefully the competing considerations in favour of the public interest in having a point determined against the private interest of the worker concerned in not being involved in any way in litigation. Of course, the worker concerned does not have to be involved; proceedings are brought—this is a point I will come on to in a moment—as if he were involved, but the point may need determination in any case.
I think I have covered the point about the public interest, which I suspect is the argument that we will hear from the Government. Nevertheless, and on a point that the noble Lord, Lord Carter, made, in a case where Section 113 is invoked, I suggest that it would be utterly wrong for such a worker to be exposed to risk by the Secretary of State proceeding with such a case. I have dealt with the point about anonymity and circumscribing publicity, and I suggest that this must be addressed before this clause becomes law.
Lord Garnier (Con)
I am sorry for interrupting the noble Lord’s developing argument. He talks about anonymity; that is presumably so that the individual can have his case subsumed by the Government without his name being known. Is the noble Lord then going on to suggest that he will have to give evidence behind a screen, or using the other witness protection measures that we use in, for example, cases of rape, so that the complainant is not seen? Has he thought through to the end the practical consequences of this anonymity argument?
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
Such protections as would be afforded would depend on the individual case and on such measures as the tribunal thought appropriate; they might indeed include anonymity or witness protection in an extreme case. I do not believe that that is likely, but I do believe that the right of the worker to some sort of privacy, in a case in which he positively did not want to be identified, would have to be protected.
Going on to my point about the risk in costs, I suggest that it would be simply unconscionable if the decision of the Secretary of the State to take proceedings could expose the worker to a risk in costs. There is no protection in the Bill for a worker on this point; indeed, in subsections (3) and (6) in particular, there is the clear suggestion that there would be a risk in costs for an unwilling worker claimant. Specifically, subsection (3) would provide that, if the Secretary of State brings such proceedings, they are
“to be proceeded with as if they had been brought by the worker”,
and that needs to be addressed. As the noble Lord, Lord Carter, pointed out, subsection (6) will provide that:
“The Secretary of State is not liable to any worker for anything done (or omitted to be done) in, or in connection with, the discharge or purported discharge of the Secretary of State’s functions by virtue of this section”.
That, in my submission, renders the worker vulnerable to an order in costs and there ought to be an indemnity against any such order. I accept that there is not one; the question is therefore whether that can be addressed by the Government. It is not a question that leads to a stand part decision that the clause should be left out of the Bill altogether.
We would of course hope that no employment tribunal would make a costs order against a worker in such circumstances, but this House should not proceed on the basis of hope alone; the possibility remains, particularly if the tribunal were to take a dim view of the worker’s conduct. That, we should remember, may be exactly the conduct that sensibly dissuaded the worker from launching proceedings in the first place.
I invite the Government to bring forward an amendment, hopefully by agreement at Third Reading, whereby protection from this risk in costs could be given to a worker, either by way of indemnity by the Secretary of State or by a prohibition on a costs order. I also urge the Government to look at the other protections that the worker might have. Alternatively, the Government might consider giving solid assurances to meet this point. I give way to the noble Lord.
Lord Pannick (CB)
Can I ask for the noble Lord’s assistance? He mentioned that, according to subsection (3),
“the proceedings are to be proceeded with as if they had been brought by the worker”.
Does he think that that means that if the worker decides to withdraw the proceedings, they are to be treated as withdrawn?
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
The noble Lord has plainly given the Government solid pause for thought on that point, because of course any proceedings before a tribunal of first instance can be withdrawn by the litigants. The litigants in this case would be the Secretary of State and the other party—presumably the employer. If subsection (3) is given the interpretation that the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, suggests might be given to it, the worker would be treated as the litigant. That is a difficult point for the courts to resolve. It is a point that at Third Reading the Government really must resolve, and that I entirely accept.
Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)
Follow that. I failed my Bar exam at 11 and I never retook it, so I am at a disadvantage to the House in trying to sum up the debate on this amendment. My noble friend Lord Marks made the case that this is not just an open-and-shut, bonkers piece of legislation; there is more to it.
Last week, I went for my health check, and I had my blood pressure and cholesterol checked. I recommend that the noble Lord, Lord Murray, keeps away from his doctor until probably next Wednesday, because his blood pressure will probably come down by then. That is meant in good spirit, because the noble Lord believed what he said and expanded on it.
For me, there is a different question here. This got a real going over in Committee too, where it all got a bit contentious with the lawyers. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, always rises carefully and slowly and makes a forensic examination. Unfortunately, my noble friend Lord Marks tries to challenge that, and the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has to have three or four more goes. However, we are not in the High Court, we are in the House of Lords, so we listen to the exchange.
The point that I am trying to make is that we have spoken to the Government. When somebody said, “We’ve spoken to the Government”, others went, “Ooh, no!” That is the point. There is the Bill and we should talk to the Government. We should raise our concerns with them and see what they have to say. But you do not do that because, “This is a good open goal. This is one we can really embarrass the Government with”. Well, you cannot—because the Secretary of State will have the power to look after somebody who needs looking after.
All those hundreds of years ago, when we had slaves, it was not the slaves who were petitioning to be freed; it was liberal-minded people who thought it was wrong that they should have no say and no place. That is what happens. Workers get jobs. They may be illegal or migrants, but whatever they are, they are human beings and they deserve support. Yes, the state is ultimately the last resort. When everything else fails—health, sickness, drug addiction or whatever it is—the state is the ultimate provider of care from the cradle. In my opinion, there is nothing wrong with the state saying—
Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)
My Lords, I too need to apologise to the House because I have not spoken previously on the Bill. I am therefore required, I am afraid, to add a few seconds of tedium in declaring my interest as chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission. I am required to do that, but I emphasise that I am speaking tonight in a personal capacity.
I rise to question what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, and others who referred to the Government’s desire to protect those people who are vulnerable, who might be migrants or new arrivals, and who might not know their rights under the law. Of course that is a laudable aim. However, as someone who is a first-generation migrant—I came to this country in my own capacity—and who has slowly learned of my rights and my ability to exercise them, I can say to the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, that there is very good reason why those people need autonomy and privacy. They may not wish to be the subject of litigation because they have very palpable concerns about safety and their economic and familial status, particularly in a world with social media and high levels of media attention, if they are exposed as having done anything at all these days.
The reason that migrants and vulnerable new arrivals in our country keep a low profile, when they choose to do so, is very understandable. The idea that the state should pluck them, decide that they have been badly treated and use them as an example is pretty shocking and deleterious to their interests. It will not help them; they will hide under cover even more than they already do.
Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)
I heard what the noble Baroness said, and I accept her premise. By the same rule of that premise, those people suffer or are treated badly until they become accepted in society and can then raise their heads above the parapet—if that is the logic of the argument the noble Baroness is trying to make to me. The noble Lord, Lord Marks, makes it quite clear that anonymity is absolutely four-square in this, so it does not happen that the media get hold of it or it appears on the networks and makes things different.
Where a case ends up with the Secretary of State and the evidence is there that somebody is in such a situation, why should the Government not intervene and say, “You have been treated so badly that we are going to stand up for you in a tribunal” or, “We are going to try to do something”? If you look at the bigger picture rather than the individual pictures, there is a way through this, without thinking that it is—this is the last time I will say it—a bonkers Bill. It is not bonkers. The theory behind it is sound. Perhaps it has not been explained clearly enough.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
How does the noble Lord envisage the Secretary of State knowing which cases to bring?
Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)
I said at the beginning that I am not a legal person. But there must be something that will happen: a whistleblower or somebody will inform somebody of someone’s condition that they find intolerable, it ends up with someone and somebody has to deal with it. If you go to see the person and they do not want to get involved, are frightened, are unsure or do not know their rights, who scoops that person up and just asks the question? Maybe it is not worth pursuing, but what is wrong with just asking the question?
I ask the Minister to confirm this flexibility that we need to understand the powers. Will they be used proportionately and transparently? We need to hear that. The Government need to tell us how this legislation will work practically. If they can explain, and perhaps not allay all the House’s fears but begin to give some clarity to the thinking behind it, because this is something that has been thought out quite seriously, the House should listen to that.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
I was just going to ask a question, as others did. As we are passing law, is it not the case that—
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)
As it is quite late and we still have a lot of business to do, it is worth respectfully pointing out not just to the noble Baroness but to other noble Lords that the Companion is pretty clear about the rules of debate on Report. At 8.145 it states:
“On report no member may speak more than once to an amendment, except the mover of the amendment in reply or a member who has obtained leave of the House”.
We have a lot of business to go through. People have had the opportunity to state their case. Perhaps we should proceed with Front-Bench wind-ups.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, that was a fascinating debate. I am not a lawyer either, but I was very taken by the arguments made by the noble Lord, Lord Carter of Haslemere, which I thought were quite superb, by my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier and by my noble friend Lord Murray of Blidworth. I thought my noble friend Lord Murray displayed exemplary moderation—I think that was his word—in his delivery. I cannot improve on the legal arguments made by the lawyers, the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, my noble and learned friend and my noble friend. For a moment I wondered whether the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, had—to use my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier’s phrase—subsumed his legal personality to be a creature of the state for a moment. He seemed to come back fighting, so I applaud him for that.
Frankly, Clause 113 is one of the most chilling and illiberal proposals in the entire Bill, and there is competition for that accolade.
Let us also consider somebody who has not been considered in this particular debate so far: employers. What sort of message does it send to them? Your employees’ silence cannot be taken as peace or resolution, but rather as a vacuum that the state may fill with litigation. The noble Lord, Lord Goddard, has a rather more touching faith in the state than I do. How does that promote trust or fair resolution in the workplace? I cannot see how it does. It would fuel paranoia, it invites conflict and it certainly undermines mediation. If a worker feels intimidated by their employer, as has been claimed before in these debates, do they really imagine that an employee will feel less intimidated by the prospect of a Secretary of State marching into their dispute, as the noble Lord, Lord Carter, stated, without any liability and then turning it into a tribunal case in their name? That is not empowerment; it is political theatre at the expense of personal agency. We should not accept or normalise that.
I have a question to those who have been pushing the argument about anonymity. I am not a defendant—or rather, I am not a lawyer; I may be a defendant—so I may have phrased this slightly incorrectly, but the defendant presumably will be known in these cases, and if the defendant is known, it is not especially difficult to find out who the plaintiff is. I think that is the correct terminology. So how on earth would granting an individual anonymity achieve the purpose that is desired? I do not get that—somebody would have to explain it to me.
This clause represents a fundamentally dystopian instinct that the state can somehow supplant the will of the individual and act on their behalf without their active participation or consent. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, that this is paternalism being taken to an authoritarian extreme.
In this debate we have heard “ridiculous”, “manifestly absurd”, “ludicrous” and “bonkers”—which I think won on a split decision. But there is one last point. The tone of this debate has been to invite both horror and ridicule in equal measure. Is that really what the Government want to achieve with this piece of legislation?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Information and Technology (Baroness Jones of Whitchurch) (Lab)
The words that the noble Lord just said come from the Opposition Benches and do not reflect what we are intending by the Bill, or indeed these particular clauses.
I will first speak to government Amendments 156 to 158 in my name, which are minor but important technical amendments to Schedule 10. Amendment 156 makes a small correction to paragraph 36(6), replacing the phrase “that subsection” with a reference instead to “subsection (3)” of Section 15 of the Gangmasters (Licensing) Act 2004. Amendment 157 ensures that Schedule 1 to the Immigration Act 2016 is repealed following the abolition of the Director of Labour Market Enforcement, and Amendment 158 removes specific reference to paragraphs 9 and 11 of Schedule 3 to the Immigration Act 2016. The purpose of these changes is to ensure that the provision functions as intended and provides legal clarity. They do not alter the policy or substance of the Bill in any way but ensure that the schedule functions as intended.
On Amendment 154 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, the Government were elected on a manifesto pledge to deliver the plan to make work pay in full. This sets out that the new employment rights enforcement agency would have the power to bring civil proceedings to uphold compliance with employment law. This clause delivers that pledge.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, referred to the precedent, and yes, the precedent that we are citing is the example of the Equality Act 2006, Sections 28 to 30 of which are the precedent for Clauses 113 to 115. Section 28 of the Equality Act enables the Equality and Human Rights Commission to assist an individual who is or may become party to legal proceedings. Section 30 of the Equality Act, which is the precedent for Clause 113, affords the EHRC the capacity to institute and intervene in legal proceedings, including for breach of EHRC rights, even though it is not a victim.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, said there was not an example of where the EHRC had taken over a case. However, in the case of MS (Pakistan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department, the EHRC in fact substituted itself once the original appellant withdrew from the proceedings. This was a substitution, with the consent of the Supreme Court, by the EHRC in the same way that the fair work agency could substitute itself in place of a worker without their consent.
The EHRC uses Section 30 strategically to clarify the law and act where there are egregious breaches. We envisage that the fair work agency, rather than the Secretary of State as such, will use this power in Clause 113 similarly. Noble Lords have misrepresented what is intended by this clause. It is intended to address some of the worst employment practices that current regulations do not adequately cover. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Marks, that there are of course cases where individuals or groups of workers are unable or reluctant to take a case, but that does not necessarily mean that the case should not be taken, because there are wider issues at stake. For example, the fair work agency could use the power to clarify entitlement to holiday pay where enforcement officers do not have enough information to confidently issue a notice of underpayment, or the fair work agency could exercise the power to clarify the employment status of a group of individuals. Currently, employers may misclassify workers as self-employed to get out of giving them the rights that they are entitled to. Without this power, the fair work agency has no ability to challenge such claims.
To give a specific example on the possible application of Clause 113, the Director of Labour Market Enforcement has flagged endemic bad practice in the hand car wash sector. A particular challenge in this sector is misclassification of workers, which stymies HMRC’s efforts to enforce the minimum wage. Currently, if a hand car wash claims that its workers are self-employed, HMRC has no means to test this in the courts. It must go through the full notice of underpayment process and wait for the employer to appeal against the notice of underpayment. This can lead to nugatory work if the appeal is upheld and otherwise delay workers getting their due rights. This is a gap in the existing system of state enforcement, which this power will go some way to remedy.
Just as the current system works, the fair work agency will take a whole-employer approach to enforcement. This has the advantages of a resolution for more workers than individual cases against the employer. But in such circumstances, where the fair work agency may be taking action for hundreds or thousands of workers, it is simply not practical to get consent from every individual concerned. As a strategic approach, this power will be used when acting in workers’ best interests to clarify the law. As with the EHRC’s powers under the Equality Act, the fair work agency will not need the consent of each individual concerned to take on cases. The fair work agency will therefore be able to decide when to seek clear, neutral and authoritative guidance from a tribunal on the application of employment legislation.
As we know, in the worst cases of serious exploitation, workers may be reluctant to give their consent due to fear of retribution from the employer. The noble Lord, Lord Goddard, was quite right to say that there are circumstances in which we have the responsibility to look after the individuals who are suffering at the hands of rogue employers and feel powerless in those circumstances. We know that many migrant workers with legal rights to work in the UK, particularly low- paid workers, are reluctant or unable to enforce their employment rights. These workers have understandable concerns, including fear of retaliation, lack of awareness or language barriers. For legal migrants, employment is their prerogative and, for those workers, there are wider implications in challenging an employer that could bring about repercussions for their employment or potentially impact on their visa. We believe that requiring consent from workers would make it easier for employers to attribute blame to individual employees, and they would suffer as a result.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
I am going to carry on. When exercising this power—
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, we have had advice already about what the Companion says on this. The noble Lord has spoken once.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
I think that the Companion overrides anything that I have to say.
When exercising this power, the fair work agency will of course act in accordance with the rights under the European Convention on Human Rights, including Article 8, and comply with data protection legislation. In doing so, it must act in accordance with the law and for a legitimate purpose.
The noble Lord, Lord Marks, raised the issue of anonymity. In appropriate cases, the fair work agency will consider applying under Rule 49 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024. Rule 49 allows the tribunal to restrict public disclosure of aspects of the proceedings. That means that workers’ names can be kept from the public domain—
Lord Garnier (Con)
My Lords, I can see that the Minister is in a conflict between the advice that she is getting from her Whip and the need to answer questions from the House. Would she not agree that rather than the Government bringing proceedings through their agency in the name of the worker, the simple thing would be to pass a law allowing the Government to bring proceedings in their own name, bearing the risks and burdens of bringing litigation in their own name and bearing the costs if it fails?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
The point that we were making is that this is about test cases, which, as we know, is a frequent way of clarifying legislation, rather than primary legislation.
The noble Lord, Lord Marks, raised the issue of anonymity. In appropriate cases, the fair work agency will consider applying under Rule 49 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024. Rule 49 allows the tribunal to restrict public disclosure of aspects of the proceedings. That means that workers’ names can be kept from the public domain to protect their anonymity and to protect them from any reporting in the media, where it is necessary to do so in the interest of justice or to protect their convention rights. When deciding whether to give an order, the tribunal must give weight to the principles of open justice and the convention’s right to freedom of expression. The tribunal can do this on its own initiative, or the fair work agency can apply for such an order. The fair work agency must also comply with convention rights and data protection legislation, ensuring appropriate protections for individuals and fairness of proceedings.
I understand noble Lords’ interest in how this power will operate and confirm to the House that the Government will publish guidance on how the fair work agency will exercise this power in practice. We will develop detailed guidance, following deep and extensive engagement with social partners and the fair work agency’s advisory board. It will then be for the fair work agency, acting within this guidance, to determine which cases it brings to the tribunal. That will ensure that this power supports those who play by the rules. This approach enables the fair work agency to protect workers’ rights and to tackle injustice and abuse against legitimate workers.
This clause presents an opportunity to make a genuine difference in tackling the scourge of labour exploitation in the UK. Unchecked labour exploitation is unfair on the individuals who are being exploited. It is unfair on the majority of employers, who want to do right by their staff, and it is unfair on workers who are denied jobs by employers exploiting loopholes. The new power will complement the existing powers of the fair work agency, such as the powers to issue notices of underpayment, while enabling the fair work agency to act where these powers cannot be accessed. The fair work agency will exist to end labour exploitation and create a fair and level playing field for employers and for workers. A fair work agency with any less power to act for these most vulnerable would be an unacceptable failure for workers’ rights.
To the noble Lord, Lord Carter, I remain open to discussing how best to deliver this power and to ensure that it is appropriately safeguarded. However, I reiterate that this power is neither novel nor unprecedented and that it delivers a manifesto commitment. I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw Amendment 154.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, I am sorry to get up again, but would the Minister like to say something about adverse costs orders against workers?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, when we debated this in Committee, we made it clear that there would not be any cost to workers. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, suggested that the worker would be liable to costs where they had not consented to the Secretary of State taking a case on their behalf. Let me be clear that the worker will not be liable for the costs in these circumstances.
Lord Carter of Haslemere (CB)
My Lords, I am grateful for all the powerful interventions we have heard this evening from very eminent speakers indeed, including the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, the noble Lords, Lord Murray and Lord Pannick, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Fox, Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lady Falkner. Some really powerful points have been made around the importance of personal autonomy, the unworkability of the clause in relation to witness summonses and adverse witness results, and a duty to consult, which was a powerful point made by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick.
The noble Lord, Lord Marks, referred to the fact that the worker might not want to bring proceedings and therefore would be happy for the Secretary of State to do so in his or her place. That misses the point, which is that the worker might object to legal proceedings being brought in their name and might not give their consent. That is, for me, fundamental in this whole clause.
I believe that this is legally unprecedented—we can have further discussions about that. I think it is unworkable. I think it is completely unnecessary, given that the Secretary of State can support a worker to defend proceedings themselves. I read the manifesto and all I saw was “make work pay”. Those three words cover a multitude of sins. There was no mention of a power to bring proceedings on behalf of a worker—I read it very carefully. I feel that there has been enough power and passion in this debate to warrant seeking the opinion of the House, which I now do.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment corrects an incorrect cross-reference.
“(ga) Schedule 1;”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides for the repeal of Schedule 1 to the Immigration Act 2016 as a consequence of the abolition of the Director of Labour Market Enforcement.
Member’s explanatory statement
The effect of this amendment is to repeal paragraph 10 of Schedule 3 to the Immigration Act 2016, which is not needed as a result of the repeal of paragraphs 11 and 12 of that Schedule by the Bill.
Lord Hunt of Wirral
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment will ensure that the early conciliation period is proportionate to the extended limitation period for tribunal claims. This is necessary to promote the early resolution of claims and to clearly convey that, from a policy standpoint, there is active support for avoiding litigation.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, we now move to consider the employment tribunal system. I shall speak first to Amendments 158A and 158B. The Government are extending the time limit for individuals to bring claims to an employment tribunal, but if that is the case, and if, as the Government have repeatedly said, they value early conciliation and the vital role that ACAS plays in resolving disputes before they reach litigation, then surely the same principle must apply to the conciliation period itself. Extending the early conciliation period from six weeks to three months would provide claimants and employers alike with more breathing space to resolve matters amicably, reducing the burden on the tribunal system and promoting quicker, less adversarial outcomes.
I will also speak to Amendments 180 and 186. I will not repeat the arguments that I and many noble Lords across this House have already made about the state of the employment tribunal system, but let us be clear: the situation is now dire. We have spoken to a range of people involved in the system and hear the same message: employment tribunals are in disarray, with claimants waiting for up to two years for their cases to be heard. We believe that justice delayed is justice denied.
The Government say they are investing in tribunals, pledging to hire more judges and providing additional funding, so I hope the Minister will be able to answer these questions. First, how many new judges have been appointed? Secondly, what is the scale of the funding and how will it be allocated? Thirdly, will the Government also commit to hiring more administrative staff to ease the backlog? If so, how many? Until we have clear, credible answers to these questions, we believe it is simply irresponsible to bring forward clauses in this Bill that will place even greater strain on a system that is already buckling under pressure. I just hope that the Minister will have answers to these and other questions.
I will also refer to Amendments 186 to 188. We believe that there is this difficulty with the existing system and we have already seen the Government push back implementation of parts of this legislation to 2027. I do not know whether this is because they have at last had a moment of clarity and realised just how damaging some of these measures could be in practice. We now have an amendment asking to delay further until 2029. Frankly, this is not just reasonable; we believe it is necessary. A four-year delay might be the bare minimum to avoid the disasters which would otherwise be presented by this legislation.
Let us not pretend this delay is some kind of political foot-dragging on the part of the Government. To seek to delay implementation until 2027 of what was said to be a vital Bill is an admission that this legislation is deeply flawed and that rushing it through risks wreaking havoc on businesses, workers and the tribunal system alike. What is more, with the Government and the unions now seeming less like allies and more like wary rivals, this delay might be something the Government are willing to accept. I beg to move.
Lord Katz (Lab)
I am pleased to have a contrast in terms of debate length. It is good to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral. I will speak to this quite large group of amendments and, for the sake of brevity, try to cover as much ground as I can in time.
On Amendments 180 and 186. We recognise the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, over the employment tribunal system. I reassure noble Lords that we have heard the concerns of your Lordships’ House, the other place, and broader stakeholders representing employers and employees, and we are already acting. This includes recruiting more judges and legal caseworkers, and providing significant additional funding to ACAS for 2025-26. ACAS’s annual report shows that, of the approximately 125,000 early conciliation notifications received by it, approximately only 33% proceeded to employment tribunal claims.
I can try to answer some of the direct questions from the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, on the increased resources for the system. On new judges, 50 new fee-paid part-time employment judges were appointed in 2024-25 and a further three recruitment exercises to increase capacity are being undertaken in 2025 and 2026. I will reflect on Hansard and, if there are other questions on this I have not covered, I will of course write to the noble Lord.
As was pointed out earlier in the debate, we are also considering other areas such as the role the expanded fair work agency could play, where this would reduce the need for costly and lengthy tribunal claims. We are happy to receive further constructive suggestions from noble Lords on their ideas for reform, but we are of the view that it would be disproportionate to make the vital improvements to workers’ rights contained in this Bill dependent on the kind of review the Opposition propose.
Amendments 158A and 158B were also tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral. The suggestion about increasing the time for early conciliation is indeed constructive. As we have said previously on a number of occasions, we are engaging with businesses and unions to consider the ways to address growing demand and improve the efficiency of the employment tribunal system. Part of this work involves looking at how we can improve the already good work that ACAS is doing to help parties reach mutually agreed outcomes without the need for stressful and expensive litigation.
The six-week early conciliation period takes place prior to a claim being brought to the employment tribunal and provides an opportunity for employers and employees to try to reach an agreement without having to go to a tribunal. Increasing the time for early conciliation could provide some benefits to parties, but we need more time to consider how this would interact with other reforms and identify potential unintended consequences. Changes to the period of early conciliation can be made using secondary legislation and therefore it is not necessary to use primary legislation for this purpose. Perhaps the compromise I might suggest is that we will be happy to reflect on the suggestion that has been made as part of our wider work, and I thank the noble Lords and other colleagues for their amendments.
I turn next to Amendment 185, which was tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom. The Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023 unduly restricts the right to strike and undermines good industrial relations. It has proven to be ineffective and has contributed, one might argue, to industrial unrest. It is worth pointing out again, as we have already heard this evening, that no employer has ever issued a work notice under the Act and not a single day of strike action has been prevented since it was introduced. Indeed, reflecting on Questions earlier today, I repeat that we lost a record number of days to strike action in 2022 and 2023—the highest number since 1989, if I recall correctly. That Act definitely did not prevent more industrial action taking place.
Rather, we believe negotiation and co-operation are better ways to ensure that essential services continue during strikes, while respecting workers’ rights. For these reasons, we are committed to removing this legislation as soon as possible. Our commitment to repeal the legislation has been trailed for over a year. We made the commitment to make work pay, it was reiterated in our manifesto, and we announced it again in August last year, so it will not come as a surprise to any employer. As I said, in any event, employers are not using the legislation anyway.
Amendments 187, 189, 190 and 191 were tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Leigh of Hurley—he is not in his place—and the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom. We have always said that we would engage and consult comprehensively on implementation to ensure that strengthened rights, protections and entitlements work for all. We want employers, workers, trade unions and others to have the time and space to work through the details of each measure with us.
On Amendments 187 and 189, I remind noble Lords that our road map, which the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, referred to, sets out our plans for consulting on key provisions in Part 1 and Part 4 this autumn and into early 2026. We will then publish our response to each consultation, in line with published guidance. This will include a summary of responses received and a breakdown of the type of respondent. This reflects what we have already done in published consultation responses.
Through all these consultations, we will continue to engage with SMEs to ensure that their vital perspectives are fed into policy development, and we will provide sufficient support to prepare for these reforms. We value the constructive feedback and insights that such businesses and organisations give, and we will continue to prioritise engagement moving forward.
On Amendment 190, I remind noble Lords that, since 2016, there have been 33 reports and strategies on the effectiveness of labour market enforcement. I also remind noble Lords that the single enforcement body, regardless of the name, was a policy pursued by both the Opposition and the Liberal Democrats. Indeed, I believe that the proposal, under different titles, was in all three manifestos at the general election. So, whereas previous Governments have dithered and delayed in taking action, we are taking action to tackle the fragmented and ineffective enforcement system by bringing it all under one roof in the fair work agency.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for his response. I believe that he accepts that there is grave concern across the board about the state of our employment tribunal system today. That concern is among workers, employers and, especially, employment lawyers.
I welcome the fact that the Minister accepts that there is a need to extend the early conciliation period. He said that it could be done by secondary legislation; well, let us reflect on that. It would certainly help to reduce the pressure on the system, which is already under immense strain, but we lack clarity on some basic questions. How will employment tribunals be funded? There are so many question marks about how many further judges are needed and how many administrators will be appointed. What is the plan to bring the backlog under control? It is very serious at the present time. If rights cannot be enforced in court, they effectively do not exist. I urge the Government to take these concerns seriously and bring forward proper solutions. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Earl of Clancarty
“Independent Freelance Commissioner(1) There is to be an office known as the Office of the Freelance Commissioner.(2) The Office in subsection (1) must be established by the Secretary of State by regulations three months after the day on which this Act is passed.(3) The Office of the Freelance Commissioner will be led by an individual appointed by the Secretary of State titled the “Independent Freelance Commissioner”.(4) The role in subsection (3) is referred to as the “Freelance Commissioner”.(5) The Freelance Commissioner may appoint staff to the Office of the Freelance Commissioner they consider necessary for assisting in the exercise of their functions in subsection (6).(6) The Freelance Commissioner is responsible for—(a) representing the interests of freelance workers in the application of employment rights under this Act,(b) ensuring fair treatment of freelance workers across different sectors,(c) regularly engaging with sectors with high proportions of freelance workers about the application of provisions of this Act,(d) gathering and analysing data about the freelance workforce,(e) identifying issues and finding solutions to challenges faced by freelance workers as a result of provisions in this Act, and(f) ensuring that the duty to consider the freelancer workforce under section (Duty to consider freelancer workforce) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 is discharged properly.(7) The Freelance Commissioner must publish an annual report on the discharge of their functions set out in subsection (6) and lay this report before Parliament.(8) For this purpose of this section, a freelancer is defined according to section (definition of “freelancer”) of the Employment Rights Act 1996.(9) Regulations under this section are subject to the negative resolution procedure.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment establishes the office of the Freelance Commissioner and makes provisions for relevant duties and responsibilities.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 160, although I support all the amendments in this group. I declare an interest as a self-employed visual artist. Amendment 160 seeks to establish a freelance commissioner. It is closely tied to consequential Amendments 161 and 162, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, which seek to define what a freelancer is and to give the freelance commissioner greater teeth. I am very grateful for the support on this from the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and I welcome the support of my noble friend Lord Freyberg and the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, as well as that of my noble friend Lord Colville, who I know would have signed this amendment if there had been room to do so.
The first thing to say is that the creative industries welcome the appointment of a champion for this sector, as announced in the industrial strategy after Committee, and are pleased that that champion will be a member of the Creative Industries Council. These are things that the creative industries have been asking for for a long time, so there is appreciation that the Government have listened in this respect. Yesterday, I also had sight of the draft terms of reference—which is, of course, interesting timing. Those terms of reference, which are the result of conversations between relevant organisations and the DCMS within the framework of the Good Work Review, are impressive, if not yet entirely comprehensive, tasks and concerns. It is important to stress that this also illustrates the immense challenges a freelance champion will have. Nevertheless, I applaud the Government for opening the lines of communication between the DCMS and other organisations; long may that continue.
However, there remain questions concerning the champion. What powers will the champion really have, if any significant powers at all? Is this to be a salaried position? How much, in practice, will the champion be able to cut across different departments? Will this role be more about guidance for the sector rather than the really necessary action required for freelancers in terms of the many rights that standard employees have—and to a large extent take for granted—but that freelancers lack? I would be very grateful if the Minister could fill in some of those gaps if she is able to do so.
There are broadly two reasons why we should have a statutorily appointed and independent freelance commissioner. The first is that we urgently need someone to look at the whole landscape of freelance and self-employed work, which constitutes a not-negligible 15% of the workforce—and this is a sector that is growing. As my noble friend Lord Londesborough pointed out in Committee, this includes not just the creative industries but construction workers, agricultural workers and others. My amendment covers that landscape, one that the Bill—which is supposed to be an Employment Rights Bill, not an employee rights Bill—does not cover. Instead, as freelancers are always asked to do, we are told to wait in line. This of course happened during Covid, when so many freelancers fell through the gaps in support.
Even looking just at the creative industries, there is a question as to whether the whole of the creative industries themselves would necessarily be served by the new champion, in whatever guise that comes. The DCMS’s current understanding of these industries may be narrower than the reality, and this is certainly true of those craft industries—hugely important for our economy—that may not necessarily fall within the champion’s remit because of the manner in which parts of the creative industries are currently defined. This is something for the Government to look closely at, and I know that my noble friend Lord Freyberg intends to flesh out some of the detail of this very real concern about invisibility in both this and the debate that follows.
The second crucial reason for having a statutory appointment is not just that that role would have the requisite powers to argue for and effect real change, with the necessary authority to do so, but that it is a long-term position that cannot be rescinded easily because we are in this for the long haul. There is no doubt that freelancers’ concerns—this is certainly true of the creative industries—have grown more critical in terms of rights; income; the problems with late payment; Brexit, which has affected and continues to affect so many of our creative industries, not just music; AI, of course; and, crucially, the downturn in the funding of the sector. All these things have become immense pressures, which demand the appointment of an independent commissioner with the requisite powers to effectively address all these concerns and influence government policy.
I talked at some length in Committee about these increasing pressures as they affect the creative industries, and I will not repeat those arguments, except to add some conclusions from a survey to be published tomorrow by the organisation Freelancers Make Theatre Work—I am grateful for its permission to do so. It says:
“A striking headline in this year’s data is that 44% of respondents earned less than the 2024 UK National Living Wage in the 23-24 tax year … a significant worsening of the already critical situation from the previous year … where the equivalent figure was 34%”.
It goes on to say:
“These levels of pay would be illegal in salaried positions”.
I was worried by Chris Bryant’s recent evidence to the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, in which he said that he wants to see a reduction in the number of freelancers over the next 10 years. My understanding was that he is thinking about workers such as his mother, a make-up artist for the BBC, who lost their salaried jobs and were pushed into becoming freelancers. However, this is but one part of the landscape, and this exclusive emphasis ignores all the other freelancers, many of whom are creators—artists, writers, composers and many others—for whom there never has been any option other than being a freelancer for the work they do. Again, we need to understand the whole landscape—the reality of that landscape and the ecology of that landscape.
It becomes difficult to imagine how effective a champion with close proximity to the DCMS will be if the DCMS is actively trying to reduce the total number of freelancers—something it ought to be agnostic about. We need an independent commissioner—in other words, someone in a position of authority—who will support and, importantly, promote the practice of freelance work. We need it in law; we need it in the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, it is extremely disappointing that we are debating something of this order of importance at this time of day and at the fag-end of this Bill. However, unusually, I shall try to ingratiate myself with the House by being as brief as possible.
First, I want to thank the noble Lord, Lord Katz, for his letter of 30 June and for the publication of the draft terms of reference for the freelance champion, referred to by the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, who set out the stall extremely cogently for these amendments. I do not need to go over the ground that he has explained extremely well. The lack of a single clear voice representing the interests of freelancers to government is what this is all about—a clear definition of what a freelancer is and clear duties for the freelancer commissioner.
The freelance champion has some similar characteristics to the freelance commissioner, but there are significant differences from the independent freelance commissioner. It is not going to be a statutory office, unlike the freelance commissioner. The structure proposed in our amendments would be more permanent and more independent of government. The terms of reference explicitly state that the champion will focus on freelancers working in the creative industries only, so it will not be cross-sectoral. As we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, it is clear that freelancers are extremely prevalent not only in the creative industries but in many other industries as well, including construction, professional, scientific and technical activities, business support, health and social work, IT, digital services and education and training.
While welcome, the freelance champion for the creative industries under the sectoral plan does not go nearly far enough across the board in making sure that there is a real advocate and one with teeth who is able to influence policy towards freelancers across all those different sectors. The question really is why the Government have failed to grasp the urgency and widespread nature of the challenges faced by freelancers across all sectors. It is not unclear that freelance work covers much broader areas than just the creative industries. These amendments would offer recognition to a workforce that contributes enormously to our economy and cultural life and is too often unprotected and unheard in legislative terms.
I urge the Government, even at this time of day and at this time in the Bill, when they cannot really change their approach, really to think about this. We have heard so much about how, on AI or dependent contractors, the Government are considering these things. They really need to shape up in terms of the modern economy. Freelancing is on the increase and they need protection—and the freelance commissioner would be by far the best way forward.
Lord Freyberg (CB)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Clancarty and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, who have each set out the case for a more coherent and strategic approach to freelance policy with great clarity. I shall not repeat their arguments but will attempt to build on them.
I support Amendments 160 to 162, to which I have added my name, and I will speak to my own Amendments 163 to 165. I declare my interest as an artist member of DACS, the Design and Artists Copyright Society.
Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)
I declare an interest as a freelance television producer. Although I was not able to add my name to Amendment 160, my support for it is undiminished. Fortunately, I was able to add my name to Amendment 161, which I know would also give much needed clarity to freelancers.
Much of the creative industries’ employment, particularly in television, is in crisis. Hundreds of thousands of people working in the industry are unemployed, and many of them are freelance. Action needs to be taken now to protect some of the most skilled and experienced talent in this country. They need support in legislation, and urgently. The actions suggested in Amendments 160 and 161 would go some way to help their predicament.
Like my noble friend Lord Clancarty, I support the Government’s creative industries sector plan, which will set up a creative freelance champion. I welcome the Government saying that the champion’s role will be developed in discussion with industry. However, I have spoken to freelance advocates in various sectors of the economy and they all say that the champion’s powers need to be laid down in the Bill if they are to be effective.
I echo my noble friend Lord Clancarty in his concern about the powers of the champion. As it stands in the industrial strategy document, the champion will be giving out advice, which might make the Government feel good but will not definitively improve the lot of freelancers.
My fear is that the new champion will be nothing more than a data collector, whereas the problems of freelancers need to be addressed with decisive legislative powers. Their success will come down to the powers they wield. Noble Lords have only to look at the Office of the Small Business Commissioner. The outgoing commissioner, Liz Barclay, has done extraordinarily well as a vigorous campaigner for small business, but she has limited powers to mediate. She cannot make decisions, nor take enforcement action. I believe that proposed new subsection (6), to be inserted by Amendment 160, especially paragraph (b), would be some remedy when setting up the freelance commissioner.
The Good Work Review sets out a whole series of commitments to the self-employed, including badly needed strengthening of their rights to a written contract, action to tackle late payments, and extended health and safety protections, all of which are obstacles faced by freelancers and many of which cannot be tackled by the freelancer themselves without damaging their reputation and limiting their careers. Amendment 160 would give specific powers to the freelance commissioner to deal with this problem.
If the Government are not going to accept this proposal for a commissioner, I press the Minister on what kind of action can be taken to implement effective solutions in these areas. I am particularly exercised over the area of contracts. How will the new champion examine the myriad contracts in existence and the variety of issues they tackle? For instance, many freelancers are asked in their contracts to opt out of the Working Time Regulations so that they can work up to 15 hours a day and, on some days, 18 hours a day. This trend is increasing in the current climate of diminishing budgets and ever-tightening schedules.
This plays into one of the most pressing issues for freelancers: health and safety. Many big film and television productions set up discrete, single-vehicle companies solely for the period of the production. They often do not have an HR person or anybody who is concerned specifically with health and safety. These vehicles are dissolved once the production has ended so that there is nobody with long-term responsibility for what happens to a production team. As a result, so many companies create schedules in which 15-hour working days are becoming the norm, rather than the exception, as used to be the case. A freelance commissioner should be able to examine and stop these abuses.
The commissioner also needs to examine the financial issues faced by freelancers. The nature of their work has the advantage of flexibility and variety, but many disadvantages when it comes to pension provision. Most are covered when in work, but often there are lacunae between contracts which leave freelancers with poor pension provision. A commissioner needs to be able to sort out a hybrid pension product, like a lifetime ISA. This would give an option of adjustable contributions or those that could be paused, or consolidating retirement savings into a single annual event.
Just as importantly, the commissioner would need to champion professional career development. At the moment, there is so little training or continuous career development for freelancers. Successful training programmes would create qualified and technical staff for the industry. The solution should include tax relief, with a structural cap on expenses relating to career development.
Part of the problem in protecting freelancers is defining who they are. So many production workers operate on non-permanent contracts. They are technically classified as self-employed, but their working conditions do not support the definition. They cannot negotiate the hours nor send substitutes in their place, nor operate with genuine autonomy. The creative industries sector plan lists a range of self-employed categories which could be covered by the freelance champion—these were mentioned by my noble friend Lord Freyberg.
This brings us to Amendment 161. The noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Freyberg, set out many reasons why this amendment is crucial to ensure that freelancers are treated properly. Definition is crucial in so many areas of work in the creative industries, which once again brings me to highlight the lack of health and safety enforcement for freelancers. The Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 says there needs to be adequate training of staff to ensure that health and safety procedures are understood and adhered to. Unfortunately, so many independent production companies regard only their small full-time core teams as staff, and not the majority of the production team, who are freelance and treated differently. One result is that the production company pays only for the core team to go on health and safety courses, and the freelance staff are forced to pay hundreds of pounds to fund themselves to go on the same courses, which are essential for the safe delivery of the production. Even when the production company does pay for freelance staff to go on these courses, there are problems. I have spoken to health and safety course providers who say the productions have asked them to drop the module on long working hours.
If Amendment 161 is accepted, the confusion over what constitutes “staff” would be clarified. Freelancers have problems with the IR35 status when HMRC claims that the freelancer is employed and so cannot benefit from the tax advantages of being self-employed. It can take time for a freelancer to prove their status.
I know that the Minister and the Government are on the side of freelancers, but we need to make sure that the freelance champion can do so much more than just deliver warm words. A freelance commissioner would have clearly defined, effective decision-making and enforcement powers. Only then will many hard-pressed freelancers be properly supported.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I support the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, and others who have tabled amendments, and I congratulate them on persevering to Report on this important issue. Like the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, I think it is regrettable that it has come so late, towards the end of term, but this is an important issue.
I welcome what the Government have done in appointing a freelance champion and look forward to the impact that that will have. However, as noble Lords on the Cross Benches have said, the proof will be in the pudding about this person’s clout and purchase, and their authority to speak across Whitehall.
The noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, spoke about the anonymity of many freelancers in the creative industries and the arts, and the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, talked about the way that they lose out in terms of their employment rights, including in some very serious ways that affect their safety. I will add a few words about my perspective, having been a Minister at DCMS, to note how they also lose out in the conversations that are had in Whitehall. When ministerial round tables are assembled, it is very easy for officials to gather the employers or the heads of trade unions who can speak on behalf of large numbers of workers. However, it is very difficult to find somebody who can speak on behalf of all freelancers; they are a more nebulous and disparate group of people, and they lose out in the conversations that are sometimes had.
There needs to be the understanding, which noble Lords have expressed, that, in parts of the performing arts and the creative industries, people work as freelancers not because it is a career choice but because it is a structural necessity of having a career in these rewarding sectors. It is also the case, when we ask people to help advise the Government, to sit on advisory panels or to take part in government commissions, that, if they do not have the safety net of a regular employer, they are not able to give as much time as those who are in more structured forms of employment can. They are therefore also losing out in terms of feeding into the policy-making conversations there.
It is important that the voices of freelancers, particularly in the creative industries and the arts, are heard. The questions about the clout and purchase that the new champion will have—particularly about whether this person will be paid and have some authority—are important. I congratulate the noble Lords on continuing with this important set of amendments.
Lord Londesborough (CB)
My Lords, I promise to be very brief. I support all the amendments in this group.
The arguments are building for the establishment of an independent freelance commissioner, mainly because the number of freelancers is growing and will continue to do so in the face of increasingly adverse conditions for both employers and employees. The current 2 million freelancers could easily grow to 3 million within the next 10 years, as employers continue to shed staff from payroll because they are weighed down by increased NICs, national minimum wages in excess of inflation, and some of the onerous new rules and regulations coming along in this very Bill.
I have argued that we could broaden out the need for an independent commissioner for the self-employed—who total about 4.5 million in this country, and the number is growing—but I will leave that issue to the next group, as it is addressed by my noble friend Lord Freyberg’s Amendment 167.
In conclusion, freelancers offer a great diversity of skill sets and flexibility in an economy that is suffering from stagnation and rigidity. They deserve greater recognition, and I implore the Government to take the proposal for a commissioner seriously. I absolutely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, that we do not want a toothless, woolly token champion; we need an advocate with teeth—let us hope that that is what we will see.
Lord Hendy (Lab)
My Lords, no one hearing the speeches of the noble Lords who have spoken could be other than sympathetic to the objects of the amendments in this group.
However, although it may seem churlish, I have a point on the definition of freelancers in Amendment 161. It is not a technical point; it is about the fact that another categorisation of workers would be added to the already complex pattern of the status of workers. I know that the Government intend to conduct a comprehensive review of the status of workers later, and the issue of freelancers will no doubt be addressed in that.
One issue affecting freelancers, as defined in the amendment, is the use of substitution clauses in workers’ contracts. Two points arise here; my noble friend Lord Berkeley will say a few words about one, and I will deal with the other. The issue is that the insertion of substitution clauses by employers can be used to deny self-employed workers, such as freelancers, all employment rights. The particular value to some employers of this device was established in the Deliveroo case in the Supreme Court in 2023, in which I had the honour, or perhaps the misfortune, of representing the union representing the workers.
The issue is that self-employed workers are by definition not employees, and so they do not have the rights of employees. But they could be what lawyers call limb (b) workers, with limited employment rights. In order to fall into that definition, such workers must undertake
“to do or perform personally any work or services”.
The delivery companies have realised that this condition could be defeated by the inclusion of a right to substitute on the part of the worker. Clearly, a legal provision that such a clause should not be a factor in the determination of personal service is needed, but doubtless that will be a matter for consideration in the Government’s review.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I will just add a few words to my noble friend’s contribution. This little item that we are discussing came out of a debate we had in Committee when we established that there was a link between the small boats with what we might call illegal immigrants coming across the channel and the delivery vehicles, mostly bicycles with trailers and mostly in London, but in other places as well. There was strong evidence that the riders do not have permission to work in this country and have probably not passed any of the tests necessary for what they are doing. We all know what the problem is with these bicycles and trailers going around London: they seem to forget that there are things such as traffic lights and rules about keeping to the left.
Ministers were sympathetic, and we had a very useful meeting with the Ministers, for which I thank them. The real problem is that once one of these drivers has a job at one of the companies my noble friend mentioned, they can contact their brothers, sisters and cousins on the continent and say, “Why don’t you come across too? You can share the job”, which sounds fine. They spend the money and come across the channel, hopefully still safe and alive.
Once two of them are trying to do the same job as if one person, it gets very difficult. There is no easy solution to this, apart from—we had a very useful meeting with the Minister on this—adding the word “substitution” to many of the issues that noble Lords in the creative sector spoke about so well earlier. They are often substituting for their brothers and cousins but are still working without the necessary insurance, certification or anything else. I hope that when my noble friend the Minister comes to respond, she will look favourably on the idea of having a wider interpretation of the type of work we are talking about. Apart from people not paying their tax and everything else, hopefully there are not going be too many road accidents, but at the moment it is a little dubious.
I am grateful to other noble Lords who have listened to something that is 100 miles away from creative, but it is just as important. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, I do not believe that for a moment.
This has been such an important debate. I thank the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, and my fellow lawyer—not solicitor—the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for what has certainly been a long-standing advocacy on behalf of freelance workers. As my noble friend Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay said, with all his experience as a Minister, there is no doubt that freelancers play a vital role in our economy and their interests deserve proper attention.
We on these Benches have also made the case that this issue is likely to become more urgent after the passage of the Bill. We cannot avoid the suspicion that the Bill is going to drive more workers into at least considering turning freelance. Time will tell, but as the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, pointed out, the number could rise towards 3 million freelance workers.
We are all very grateful indeed to the Minister for organising an important meeting on this subject, because it was most useful. We welcome the Government’s intention to create a freelance champion, announced last month as part of the creative industries sector plan. That may be half a loaf, but it is a welcome enough commitment. We recognise the intent behind the amendment to establish a freelance commissioner, but at the moment, in the light of the assurances given by the Minister, we feel that the Government should have the benefit of the doubt for now, not least because we are not totally persuaded that the creation of another public body is the only solution.
What freelancers certainly need is clarity, simplicity and proportionate support. If the new champion can deliver that, all well and good. But we remain of the opinion, as came across in some of the contributions we had in Committee and just now, that socialists despise the very concept of freelancing. “How dare workers choose to avoid our elaborate structures?”, some of them say. So we will be watching with a very keen eye to see how this proceeds, particularly in the light of the speeches we just heard from the noble Lords, Lord Hendy and Lord Berkeley.
As we salute the expertise of the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, on the creative arts, I take this opportunity to assure him that if he is unsatisfied that the Government’s measures adequately address the issues that have been raised, we will certainly be on his side. So I encourage him to remain vigilant and to keep the Government’s feet to the fire. In the meantime, we look forward with great interest to what the Minister will say in response to the many questions that have been raised in this debate, in particular about the urgency of this problem.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. We have indeed had a very good debate, which once again has identified the significant contribution that the creative and cultural sector makes to our industries and our lives. The Government share your Lordships’ passion for supporting the creative and cultural sectors, and we previously spelled out in detail the significant work we are already doing in this area.
The creative industries and cultural sectors are a distinct part of the wider UK workforce. They have a significantly higher proportion of self-employed individuals, reflecting the sector’s entrepreneurial and freelance nature, which is one of the points that has been well made this evening. In the latest published data, as of 2023, there were 2.4 million filled jobs in the creative industries and 666,000 filled jobs in the cultural sector. Of these jobs, 49.6% in the cultural sector were self-employed, and 27.9% in the creative industries, compared with 14% of UK jobs overall. This reiterates the point that noble Lords have made about the significance of freelancers in the cultural and creative sectors. This flexibility not only drives innovation but supports the more project-driven nature of the creative industries. However, we also know that freelancers’ creative careers, while offering a more flexible and autonomous way of working, can also be precarious and come with lower job security.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that response, for the meeting that we all attended a few weeks ago, which was very useful, and, perhaps, for future meetings, because we want to know much more about what this champion will do. The Minister says that the champion will be independent. That is very interesting.
Three key themes have come out of this discussion. A number of noble Lords talked about whether the champion will be able to move between departments. This is really important. A number of noble Lords raised the question of visibility, including my noble friend Lord Freyberg and the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, who talked about his insights into the visibility of freelancers. There is visibility and invisibility in a number of ways, which the Government must look at very carefully. There was also an interesting sub-debate from the noble Lords, Lord Hendy and Lord Berkeley. I was trying to work out how it fitted into the debate. It fits because this whole area is so interconnected. I take that on board.
Crucially, as we drafted in the amendments, the commissioner will have those powers and the authority to do what we worry that the champion will not be able to do and will be able to effect those changes. We wish the champion well. We hope that the champion will be able to do these things. This is an area that we will come back to, not least to see how effective the champion will be. For now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Freyberg
“Report: freelancers, self-employed persons and sole traders(1) Within nine months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must publish a report setting out—(a) fixed definitions of the following categories of workers—(i) freelancers,(ii) self-employed persons, and(iii) sole traders,(b) an assessment of how the categories of worker in subsection (1)(a) may be impacted differently by the provisions of this Act, and(c) recommendations to ensure fair and equitable treatment of workers across the categories in subsection (1)(a).(2) The Secretary of State must lay the report under subsection (1) before Parliament.”Member’s explanatory statement
This probing amendment seeks to clarify how the Government defines freelancers, self-employed persons and sole traders, and to understand how this Bill may affect those categories of worker.
Lord Freyberg (CB)
My Lords, Amendment 167 is in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, whose support I am extremely grateful for. I will also speak to Amendments 177 and 178. Many of my points are likely to coincide with those to be made by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan of Chelsea, on his Amendment 184A. However, his amendment takes a much broader view of the employment landscape than I do. I look forward to hearing his speech, and that of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, who will revisit the definition of the independent contractor.
Amendment 167 is a probing amendment that draws attention to the lack of consistent and widely accepted definitions of “freelancers”, “self-employed persons” and “sole traders”. These terms are often used interchangeably but carry distinct legal and practical implications.
A helpful approach would be for the Government to adopt a three-tier taxonomy, defining “freelancer” as a person who provides services on a project or contract basis, often to multiple clients, without being an employee. Amendment 161 from the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, serves as an effective model for this, notwithstanding the comments by the noble Lord, Lord Hendy. The annexe in the draft terms of reference for the freelance champion, which I have seen, like the noble Earl, has also attempted to define a freelancer, which is a useful first step but by no means definitive.
A self-employed person is someone who runs their own business and is responsible for its success or failure, typically registering with HMRC for tax purposes. According to July’s House of Commons UK Labour Market Statistics report, self-employed people make up approximately 13.5% of the labour market, which currently has 4.43 million self-employed individuals.
A sole trader is a specific legal and tax classification in which an individual runs a business in their own name without forming a limited company. Although all sole traders are self-employed, not all self-employed persons are sole traders, and some may operate through partnerships or limited companies. Freelancers may span both categories, depending on their business structure.
The amendment also asks for
“an assessment of how the categories … may be impacted differently by the provisions of this Act”.
This provides an opportunity to examine disparities in access to employment protections, financial services, taxation and eligibility for public support. For instance, while a sole trader may more easily access certain types of finance or insurance, freelancers working intermittently across sectors often face barriers in securing mortgages, pensions, sick pay and other forms of welfare.
A government report could use illustrative case studies to clarify the lived experience of these categories—for example, contrasting the experience of a freelance illustrator, a self-employed plumber and a sole trader café owner. To ensure fair and equitable treatment across these groups, the Government may wish to explore options for harmonising entitlements and protections where possible. This might include developing portable benefits for freelancers, expanding access to contributory social protections or encouraging the adoption of freelance codes of good practice. The Creative Industries Council’s freelance toolkit is one model that could be promoted across sectors.
Amendments 177 and 179 raise closely related concerns regarding the visibility and classification of workers in the visual arts and craft sectors. These sectors often involve individuals working across multiple roles, such as creators, educators, curators and consultants, and frequently combine freelance and part-time employment in complex ways. Employment and legal status in these fields is therefore especially difficult to define clearly, which can leave individuals underprotected or misrepresented in government data and support schemes.
The Government could respond by convening a time-limited working group with representatives from relevant sector bodies, such as the Artists Information Company, the Crafts Council, Heritage Crafts, CVAN, DACS, the Cultural Policy Unit and Creative UK, to develop practical guidance on employment classification in the arts and crafts sectors. This could be an initial task for the creative freelance champion to prioritise early in their role.
Both amendments also highlight the significant limitations in how current standard industrial classification, SIC, and standard occupational classification, SOC, codes capture creative labour. For example, SIC code 9003 for “artistic creation” groups together visual artists, authors, composers and digital designers, obscuring the distinct needs and contributions of each group. SOC codes similarly fail to disaggregate fine artists, applied artists and craftspeople.
I understand that government departments may use a threshold of approximately 4,000 practitioners as a cut-off point for counting people working in various sectors—if the Minister could clarify this, it would be most helpful—as this approach would exclude virtually all heritage craft makers from official statistics. The Red List of Endangered Crafts includes 285 crafts, but not all of them are covered by the current SIC and SOC codes.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I am going to be extremely brief because it is now 11.20 pm. We need to finish these proceedings at least before midnight, but that may be an ambition too far. I declare an interest, as I should have done in the last group, as chair of the Authors’ Licensing and Collecting Society.
It would have been extremely useful to have inserted the speeches of the noble Lords, Lord Hendy and Lord Berkeley, because that is precisely what my amendment is all about. It is about ensuring that our employment law ensures the rights of a growing segment of our workforce. Our current system is based on statutory definitions and case law, and it settled on three categories: self-employed; worker—also known as limb (b), as the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, mentioned —or dependent contractor; and employee. However, determining whether an individual falls within this framework is often inconsistent and reliant on lengthy and expensive court cases, such as the landmark Uber v Aslam case. The Minister has extremely helpfully undertaken a consultation on employment status, and that is exactly what this amendment was designed to provoke, so I feel that to a large extent we have succeeded in pushing the Government further towards defining that kind of employment status.
I have had some useful conversations with Evri, which engaged in a legal case when it was under the name Hermes. As a result of its engagement with the GMB, it has come forward with what I think is an extremely interesting and satisfactory form of dependent contractor status that grants certain rights as if they were employees, and that is precisely what I hope this consultation will come up with in terms of family leave, entitlements, the right to request fixed hours and so on. The GMB, while awaiting formal policy setting through its democratic process, has expressed a positive stance towards retaining and reforming the limb (b) worker status. So I hope that the consultation that the Government engage in will not try to force everything into two categories but will make sure that that third category is recognised and given enhanced rights.
I think there was some misunderstanding in Committee in what the Minister said. She talked about complications and so on, and I hope that does not mean that what we are all trying to get to is two categories, employment or self-employment. I hope that the result of the consultation will be to come forward with some kind of dependent contractor status for precisely the kinds of people that the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, was talking about—however fast they may go on their scooters.
Lord Moynihan of Chelsea (Con)
My Lords, I rise to introduce at this late hour Amendment 184A in my name. I refer to my registered interests as an employer and investor. I thank the many noble Lords on the Labour Benches who have kindly stayed to hear the noble Lords, Lord Freyberg and Lord Clement-Jones, and myself; it is very decent of them. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, kindly committed just now to publishing the Government’s consultation on employment status, which relates strongly to the amendments that the three of us have introduced to this clause, and it is very welcome to hear that commitment. For me, that takes us half way to what my amendment proposes.
The Minister’s focus just now was on freelancers, while that of the noble Lords, Lord Freyberg and Lord Clement-Jones, was on both freelancers and the self-employed. My amendment focuses on protecting the self-employed and the so-called middle worker status, in particular for so-called platforms, which I will elaborate on briefly in a minute. I do hope to get your Lordships out before midnight; I will do my best.
The Government’s make work pay document, part of their manifesto, has, as we all know, made various commitments—or threats, as we call them on this side of the House—relating to workers’ employment status. Some are included in the Bill and some are promised for an unspecified future Bill or other kind of regulation. In particular, the employment status of worker, a middle stage between self-employed and fully employed, as just described by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and as decided in the ruling in the Uber case, is to be reviewed, and there is the threat that that category will be tightened or even abolished. To date, the Government have said little else about its future although, in the Bill we are discussing now, Clause 1 on guaranteed hours and Clause 2 on shift contracts both significantly constrain what an employer can agree with an individual holding worker status.
It is depressing to note how the Government’s financial and regulatory policies are already hitting employment—the very topic of this Bill—not just in traditional areas such as pubs and entertainment, but in those advanced sectors where the economy’s hope for the future lie: AI or gene modification, for example, and now, in this Bill, the platform businesses that drive the gig economy.
Take driver platforms. In surveys, 76% of drivers say being self-employed is the key attraction; 60% of them value flexible hours above all else, rising to 72% among working parents. Nearly nine in 10 use multiple platforms to earn a living, which would be near impossible if rigid employment frameworks were imposed. A strong entrepreneurial spirit runs through the sector: 34% already see themselves as entrepreneurs and 49% aspire to be.
Platform companies such as Bolt, which has 100,000 drivers on its books, are currently at sea as to what the rules will be. Will they, because of all this, be forced to offer full employment packages to those who would rather be flexible worker employees? Will this then increase the platform company’s costs and lead to layoffs, as more hours have to be offered to these workers, leaving fewer hours available to the self-employed?
My amendment seeks to get a commitment to a formal review of all this—and we just got that from the Minister—in order to ensure that the Government stand by their stated intent to consult fully, and I think that word is key, before changes are made. Platforms need to know what future employment categories will be allowed and how they will be defined because, one way or another, all of this will lead to their having to make very significant changes to their platforms. It is important that the Government have a full review and consultation before they decide on their detailed approach.
Platform companies can and must form a leading part of our future economy. As the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and others explained, as was the case with freelancers, so it is with platform workers. All employers and employees agree that, in these areas, flexibility is key and the Government have elsewhere committed to reducing, not increasing, inflexible regulation. This amendment seeks to hold the Government to that commitment.
Platform employers are investing hundreds of millions in their activities per country, per platform employer, in other countries around the world, yet are not doing so here in the UK. One platform company recently contacted me to say that they had withheld £170 million of investment from this country precisely because of this Bill and the threats it imposes on it.
We are falling further and further behind other modern economies, and it is precisely because of ever-increasing taxes and regulation, and the threat of more to come, from this and future mooted Bills. Removing the middle-stage worker status would both increase unemployment and deter further inward investment.
My amendment seeks to hold the Government to account on their promises to consult on the expected outcome of this part of the Bill, which the Minister has just done, and to figure out the likely impacts carefully in the hope that the most detrimental potential regulations might not be imposed. As we go into the summer break, we already see employment, particularly youth employment, plummeting. The NIC increases, the now very high minimum wage and the fear created by this Bill are causing employers to hold off further employment. All of this is leading to less and less hiring. I ask the Government to have pity on the employer, to have pity on the self-employed and indeed to have pity on our economy overall by agreeing to this, I hope, helpful amendment.
Lord Londesborough (CB)
My Lords, I will briefly speak to Amendment 167 tabled by my noble friend Lord Freyberg, to which I have added my name. It is a thoughtful, pertinent and probing amendment which—dare I suggest at this late hour—the Government should embrace with enthusiasm.
I say this because we have often heard during what I think has been 13 days of debate on this Bill that the Government want equal workers’ rights to apply across the board, whatever the size of the business or sector and whether it is private or public. Whenever I and others have argued for exemptions, especially for small and micro businesses, there is a proverbial bucket of cold water thrown our way, accompanied by the message “We don’t want a two-tier workforce”. That view appears to be shared by the Liberal Democrats. I respect that, but I do not agree with it as it fails to recognise the multitude of tiers in the workforce that already exist.
This brings me to Amendment 167, which points out that we have several very important groups of workers that do not belong to this single tier, specifically freelancers, the self-employed and sole traders. There are key differences between freelancers and the self-employed, many of whom are sole traders or running their own businesses or partnerships with just one or two contractors. However, they are all treated by HMRC as self-employed and taxed the same way.
As my noble friend pointed out, the overall number we are talking about is 4.3 million and growing; that is approaching 14% of the workforce. Given the current dynamics of the jobs market, with falling vacancies in particular, an increasing number look set to join their ranks—whether or not they want to. That is why it is incumbent on the Government to fix the definitions, understand the numbers and assess how they are being impacted by the provisions in this Bill. The Secretary of State should think through how to recognise and treat freelancers, the self-employed and sole traders.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, this has been a very important debate about employment status. I thank my noble friend Lord Moynihan of Chelsea for his important and thoughtful contribution to the debate. I also thank the noble Lords, Lord Freyberg, Lord Londesborough and Lord Clement-Jones, for their extremely important contributions.
As my noble friend Lord Moynihan rightly pointed out, the Government in their make work pay document have committed to consulting on a simpler employment framework—one that distinguishes clearly between workers and the genuinely self-employed. However, the reality is that platform workers and the innovative businesses that rely on them remain in the dark. There is no detail, no timeline and no clarity as to when or indeed whether these major reforms to employment status will materialise.
In the meantime, uncertainty reigns, and that uncertainty is not without cost. It risks holding back investment, stifling expansion and deterring new entrants into the UK market. We now hear so often from the Government about making the UK the best place in the world to do business, but a failure to provide clarity on the future of employment status, particularly in the growing platform economy, sends the opposite signal. The Government would therefore do well to heed my noble friend’s intervention. If they are serious about supporting flexibility, entrepreneurship and modern ways of working, then they have got to provide both the sector and the self-employed with confidence and clarity on what exactly lies ahead.
Lord Katz (Lab)
My Lords, I wish I had also brought my white hanky to the debate, but sadly I do not have that cop-out. This been a short but focused and interesting debate. I will begin with Amendments 177 and 179, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg. The Government are well aware of the importance of accurate occupational categorisation, especially for those in culturally important occupations, and the noble Lord and I have separately discussed this issue and the complexities around it.
More specifically, we understand that some stakeholders feel the four-digit standard occupational classification—SOC—system is not detailed enough for their needs. To address this, in 2023 the ONS published an extended six-digit system that includes more accurate categories for groups like those mentioned by the noble Lord in his amendments. In addition to this, the ONS is now beginning work on the next update to the SOC system, which will be published in 2030.
I am afraid that I do not have some of the details on disaggregation, the levels of qualifications and so on that the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, asked about, but I will undertake to write to him with more details. However, I would be very happy to facilitate contact between the noble Lord and the ONS team that is responsible for this work. He has demonstrated great interest and no little expertise in this subject area, and I am sure that they would appreciate his views and detailed analysis on the system, how it could be improved and how it could better reflect the complex ecosystem of craftspeople and other creative workers.
I turn to Amendment 167, again tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, and supported by the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, as well as Amendments 183 and 184A, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Moynihan, respectively. I hope that the noble Lords are reassured from the debate on the previous group that the Government take the commitment to tackling pressing issues with the existing employment status framework very seriously—and from the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, I think that is the case.
As the noble Lords, Lord Moynihan and Lord Clement-Jones, said, consultation in the fullest sense is imperative on this issue. It will allow us to receive and consider the widest range of views and engage fully with relevant stakeholders, including those mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, in his amendment. Consulting on employment status was a commitment in the plan to make work pay, and as my noble friend Lady Jones outlined to your Lordships’ House in the debate on the previous group, today we are confirming that we will publish a consultation on this by the end of the year. As the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, said, we will risk undermining the value of this work if we introduce new definitions without prior consultation.
The noble Lord also mentioned requiring an impact assessment of any legislative proposals brought forward as a result of this consultation. I can reassure your Lordships’ House that, in keeping with our better regulation requirements, we will produce impact assessments alongside any such legislation.
I hope this assures noble Lords that the Government are committed to consulting on employment status and are doing so with the care, focus and full engagement that this important issue requires. On this basis, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, to withdraw Amendment 167.
Lord Freyberg (CB)
My Lords, I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this thoughtful and wide-ranging debate. In particular, I welcome the announcement of the employment status consultation, which will be very helpful in looking at this matter in the round. I also am very grateful to the Minister for his offer to put me in touch with the ONS; I would be delighted to accept that and take it up at a later point. Given the lateness of the hour, I will not comment further. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Wolf of Dulwich
“Consideration of apprenticeships in consultations(1) In any consultation related to provisions in this Act, the Secretary of State must ensure that due consideration is explicitly given to the impact of such provisions on apprenticeships, specifically in relation to recruitment of young people by small and medium sized businesses.(2) For the purposes of this section, “small or medium-sized business” has the meaning given in section 7 of the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that the Secretary of State gives due consideration to the impact on apprenticeships in any consultation carried out in relation to provisions in this Act, such as the consultations proposed in the implementation roadmap: “Implementing the Employment Rights Bill: our roadmap to deliver change”, published in July 2025.
Baroness Wolf of Dulwich (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 181 and 182 in my name and those of the noble Lords, Lord Aberdare and Lord Knight, and the noble Baroness, Lady Garden. I thank my fellow sponsors, and the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, for so ably standing in for me in Committee.
Apprenticeship is central to this Government’s policies and to this country’s future. Yesterday, I had the privilege of being part of the Economic Affairs Committee’s annual session with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. One of the things she said—and I am quite sure truly meant—was that she wants more young people to get apprenticeships. Unfortunately, the Bill is likely to reduce, not increase, the opportunities for young people to become apprentices. I am absolutely sure that this was not intended by the Government, but we need to take note of it and start thinking fast about how to offset the impact.
Apprenticeship for young people is in a very poor state. As recently as 2008, 41% of apprenticeship starts were among young people aged under 19. This has now fallen to just 23%. Young people typically start off with what are called intermediate apprenticeships, but these are in decline too, both absolutely and proportionately—crowded out by higher apprenticeships, which are equivalent to university qualifications. The latest figures show a continuing drop, down from 162,000 intermediate starts in 2023 to 143,000 in 2024—that is a 12% fall in just one year.
Moreover, around half of our current starts now involve people who are over 25, and large numbers of these older apprentices were already working for their employer before they became an apprentice. This is especially true among the large employers, which account for a growing proportion of apprenticeships, whereas it is small employers which are more likely to take on young apprentices, and they who are decreasingly likely to do so. Moreover, the more deprived an area, the more likely it is that there will be no big employers— sure enough, the decline in apprenticeship numbers has been most marked in disadvantaged regions.
All this is happening against a background of many young people being in neither education, employment or training—NEET. I had seen a figure of one in 10, but the Chancellor yesterday referred to one in eight; whichever it is, it is far too many. So we need more openings for young apprentices. But there is a serious danger that the Bill will make large employers even more inclined to give apprenticeships to existing employees, with whose employment they take no risks, rather than hiring new young apprentices. Where employers do take on young people, they will play it very safe.
But what about the rest of young people? What about the young people who make up the growing number of NEETs? Small and medium businesses are the main employers of young apprentices. It is their apprenticeship recruitment which, as I have just pointed out and as was pointed out in Committee, has been plummeting in absolute and relative terms. Small businesses find our current apprenticeship regime burdensome and bureaucratic, and often too expensive: they do not have HR departments or lawyers on tap. At the moment, many feel under intense pressure, and business confidence figures reflect this. So, in this environment and in this context, giving young apprentices full employee rights from day one, with no provision of a probationary period, is a further turn of the screw. Taking on an untested young person is always risky, and the Bill would make it much more so.
I recognise that there is no simple way to make an exception for apprentices or to find a way that recognises that they are in key respects as much students as they are workers. Unfortunately, in this country, unlike many others, apprentices have no special legal status. In law they are simply normal employees who happen to have an apprenticeship training agreement. My noble friend Lord Aberdare highlighted this in his speech in Committee and, as so often, identified the key issue. This is still his last but one day, and at midnight it will become his last day in the House. He will be greatly missed.
At present it would be very difficult for the Government to make an exception for apprentices or treat them differently, and we need to change the situation as a matter of urgency and look to other countries’ apprenticeship laws for guidance. I also think that unless we get a clearer picture of how the Bill’s measures are impacting employers, especially small employers, we will not have a clear picture of exactly what needs to change and how. We need evidence and details, and that will enable us to see the best remedy. That is why we have tabled Amendments 181 and 182. I hope very much that the Minister will be able to respond positively and commit to monitoring the impact of the Bill’s measures, especially day-one rights, on employers’ willingness to employ apprentices, and especially on the situation with SMEs and young people. I beg to move.
Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)
My Lords, it is very late and I will be very brief, but I want to associate these Benches with all that the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, has raised. Apprenticeships should be for those starting out in working life. A level 7 apprenticeship is surely a contradiction in terms, but the perversity of the apprenticeship levy has meant that many employers choose to use their contributions on existing employees rather than face the possible problems and uncertainties of employing an untried and untested young person.
We need many more opportunities for employment for those young people who have been turned off by the academic programmes of schools. Many will have the very skills that the country needs but were not encouraged at school because the Conservatives stressed knowledge, not employability, and practical and artistic skills disappeared from many state schools.
The measures in the Bill for day-one rights for all employees will not encourage large or, particularly, small employers to take the chance on a youngster new to paid work. We have been encouraged by some of the words from Ministers, and we hope that they will look again at managing to exempt apprentices from these privileges and finding ways for employers actively to look for opportunities to enable the young not in education, employment or training to fulfil potential and make a contribution to the economy, instead of gearing up to a lifetime on benefits.
Lord Aberdare (CB)
My Lords, I put my name to the two amendments in the name of my noble friend Lady Wolf because I entirely share her concern that the Bill as drafted could have a damaging effect on apprenticeships, especially for young people and especially in small firms.
I am very grateful to my noble friend for her kind words, but I do not think that in this particular debate I would be greatly missed, because she and the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, have said everything that I could possibly have said—so I am not going to add a great deal to that. It is just as well that I did not choose 24 July as my departure date because, if I had, I would turn into a pumpkin at midnight and apparently we would have to adjourn the House for me to continue my speech—it has been done in the past.
I very much welcome the fact that the Government are undertaking some important consultations in this area, including on employment status. It is very important that they should look at the issues impacting apprenticeships for young people and in small firms, and they should, I hope, come up with some evidence for what sort of action might be needed to address those issues and prevent the kind of impacts that my noble friend described. That may well involve recognising, as so many other countries do, the fact that apprenticeships are a different form of employment from other forms and involve commitments on behalf of both the apprentice and the employer that will make undertaking particularly the day-one employment rights much harder to live with for the small firms involved.
With that, I encourage the Government to look very seriously at this and to consider the possibility of a separate legal employment status for apprenticeships. I will look forward to some sort of positive response from the Minister before I turn into a pumpkin—or wave a white flag, like the noble Lord, Lord Goddard.
Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)
My Lords, very briefly, I was a bound apprentice for four years, from when I was 17 or 18 on a council estate outside Greater Manchester. Apprenticeships are a little jewel in the employment Bill that have somehow been missed. We need to advocate the opportunities for apprentices and the pride that apprenticeships give to young people, especially NEETs, and there should be no one better to do that than a Labour Government who are trying to generate income, prosperity and jobs. There is a little place there and, with more consultation—I have spoken to Ministers, who are mindful to be supportive of that—if we can get this right for apprentices and take away the obstacles to creating apprenticeships, more people will take them on.
Apprentices tend to stay with a company. If you are an apprentice and you have been trained for three or four years, you will tend to stay with that company and repay the loyalty they have given you in giving you a skill that will carry you through your life. So we support the sentiment and hope that the Government will say some kind words tonight, at least to stop the noble Lord disappearing at midnight and looking for Cinderella’s glass slipper.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, there is really very little to say, but obviously I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf of Dulwich, for bringing forward this very thoughtful and necessary amendment. She is right that apprenticeships represent one of the most important pathways into skilled employment and a vital investment in our nation’s future workforce. I agreed with everything that the noble Baronesses, Lady Wolf and Lady Garden, and the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, said, and I wish the noble Lord well. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, gets the reassurance that she needs and, if she does not, she should probably test the opinion of the House.
Lord Leong (Lab)
Good try.
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken. On behalf of these Benches, I wish the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, all the best for his forthcoming retirement, which is not today; it will be on 31 August. We wish him well and he will definitely be sorely missed in this House.
I will address the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf of Dulwich. Amendment 181 proposes to insert a provision in the Bill to require that the Government give due consideration to the impacts on apprenticeships during consultation. Amendment 182 proposes a review process specifically on the impact on apprenticeships. Although these amendments rightly raise the importance of apprenticeships, they effectively duplicate what we are, and will already be, doing.
We know that our country’s greatest asset is its people, and apprenticeships are one of the most powerful ways, as stated by the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, that we can invest in that potential. They open doors, build confidence and provide a ladder of opportunity for those who might otherwise be left behind. Whether it is a young person taking their first step into the world of work or someone retraining for a new career, apprenticeships offer a route to success that is both practical and aspirational.
We are transforming the apprenticeship levy into a new growth and skills levy, giving learners and employers more flexibility. This will fund shorter apprenticeships and open up more tailored, responsive training options compared with the current system, where apprenticeships must run for at least 12 months. When we launch the consultations as described in the road map, every effort will be made to ensure that the consultations reach a wide audience. The Government are keen to hear from employers of all sizes and their representative organisations, as well as workers and their representative bodies, in order to understand the distinct perspective of these different stakeholders. They will play a crucial role in policy development. In developing options in our consultations, the Government will consider their potential impacts. The options analysts will, as is standard, consider the impacts on the labour market for different groups of workers and micro, small and medium businesses.
In addition, the road map shows that full implementation of the Bill will take years, so seeking to publish a review too early would prevent meaningful assessment of its effects, especially on young people.
The Government value apprenticeship, as I said earlier, and apprentices. We want to continue to engage with businesses that offer apprenticeship and encourage their contributions to forthcoming consultations, including on employment status, under the Bill. We will be happy to continue to engage with and meet the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, to that end, and to listen to all young people and apprentices themselves.
These amendments are unnecessary and duplicative. Supporting young people and small businesses will already be at the forefront of our minds as we work to implement our reforms. I therefore respectfully ask the noble Baroness to withdraw Amendment 181.
Baroness Wolf of Dulwich (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his words and definitely accept the invitation to continue to talk to the Government about this issue and about how we might improve the current legal framework so that it encourages apprenticeships in a much more positive way. I totally accept that the Government are doing a large number of consultations already, and I am delighted to know that in that context the Minister thinks that our amendments are unnecessary, since that would imply that they are definitely going to look at apprenticeships. On that basis, with thanks, and looking at the time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“Review of the impact of high temperatures on workplace health and safetyWithin 12 months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must publish a review of the impact of increasing temperatures on workplace health and safety.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure the Government is considering the impact of increasing temperatures due to climate change on the safety and health of workers.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, aware of the hour, I begin with a promise that I will not test the opinion of the House, although I am afraid that I cannot speak, of course, for the numbered amendments after this one.
Just to explain very briefly—it is fairly self-evident—my amendment calls for a new clause to review the impact of high temperatures on workplace health and safety. Of course, this is in consideration of the rising issue that this presents for the rights of workers in the climate emergency. I did not table a comparable amendment in Committee. I tried to table a broader amendment which was ruled out of scope and I never managed to get back to it, but I feel it is really important to bring this amendment here today, in light of events between Committee and Report.
Noble Lords may be aware of a novel by Kim Stanley Robinson called The Ministry for the Future, which features a mass mortality event as a result of extraordinary high temperatures and humidity. If we ever get to that stage in Britain, we will be beyond deep trouble. None the less, what we have just experienced at the end of June is what one expert described as a “quietly devastating” heatwave across Europe, which killed 2,300 people in 12 major cities and, it is estimated, will have caused several hundred deaths in London alone. The climate emergency means that, through that period, the temperatures were four degrees higher than they would have been otherwise, and one of the important things that has happened is that we have seen a large increase in so-called tropical nights, when the temperature does not drop below 20 degrees centigrade, people struggle to rest and that then has a cumulative effect on workers’ health.
We have not just seen the heatwave. We have also seen the TUC launch a large-scale, serious campaign to ask the Government to look at this and, in fact, to go further and set a maximum working temperature. It is worth stressing that, unlike other countries such as Spain—which might not surprise noble Lords—and Germany, we do not have a maximum working temperature. There is an obligation on employers to provide a safe workplace, but without that maximum temperature, and with circumstances arising that neither workers nor employers have encountered before, we really need to set some guard-rails for the safety of workers.
The TUC did a recent study on this and produced some horrifying examples, starting with what is happening in schoolrooms. It surveyed almost 6,000 teachers; some 94% reported they worked in excessively high temperatures during the summer, with 42% doing so regularly. A union rep reported on 27 telephone exchanges, in which the highest temperature was 36 degrees centigrade. A chicken factory reported high temperatures leading to incidents of tiredness and dizziness in a place where there was a lot of hard physical activity—that sounds like hell. In tissue culture and virology rooms, the temperature was 32 degrees and the room was full of ethanol fumes, which is another issue all to itself.
I am acutely aware of the hour, but I hope I will hear from the Minister that this is something that the Government will look at very seriously and consider the TUC’s call for a maximum temperature. That would obviously vary according to the circumstances. When we think about working outside, we have the issue of sun exposure, which also has longer-term risks for health and skin cancer, et cetera. I hope that I will hear something positive from the Minister and that the Government will take this seriously, listen to what the TUC is saying, acknowledge that the climate emergency is making this a fast-rising problem and take action. I beg to move.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for tabling Amendment 184B.
We recognise that workplace temperatures are changing, especially as the climate changes. We are committed to ensuring that workplaces are safe in the modern world, and we committed in Next Steps to Make Work Pay to look at how to modernise health and safety guidance for extreme temperatures.
The Health and Safety Executive is Britain’s national regulator for workplace health and safety. It is dedicated to protecting people and places, and helping people lead safer and healthier lives. To deliver on our commitment, the HSE is reviewing the approved code of practice for the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 to ensure it is fit for purpose for a modern workforce. This includes monitoring emerging evidence around the impact of extreme temperatures on workplaces. The HSE will bring forward detailed proposals on workplace temperature in due course and there will be an opportunity to comment, which I encourage the noble Baroness and others to respond to.
I assure the noble Baroness that the workplace regulations currently require that, during working hours, the temperature in all workplaces inside buildings should be reasonable. All employers must make a suitable assessment of the risk to employees and take action where necessary. This includes assessing the risk from heat stress. The Environment Agency has also issued guidance on how employers can plan for climate change impacts to their sites of work and integrate climate change adaption into their management systems. Nevertheless, I hope this broad scope of work, which is currently under way, provides the noble Baroness with the reassurance that this is a matter that we already recognise as important, and that we are actively taking steps to address the impact of increasing temperatures on health and safety at work.
Before we conclude this group, my noble friends Lord Leong and Lord Katz and I would like to thank your Lordships’ House for the extensive and energetic debates that we have had throughout Report, as well as its continued engagement and scrutiny. Indeed, we have held over 50 engagements with noble Lords since the Bill came here from the other place, excluding the debates here in the Chamber.
This Bill will benefit 15 million people—half of the UK workforce. We were elected with a manifesto commitment to make work pay, and the Bill is a vital step in delivering that commitment. With that, I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, to withdraw Amendment 184B.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response. The problem is that words such as “reasonable” and “assessed risk” refer to what may happen in well-regulated, well-controlled workplaces; in contrast, it is the most vulnerable workers who are the most vulnerable to that not happening. However, many of the cases I cited were very mainstream workplaces, such as schools.
As promised, I will withdraw my amendment. Before doing so, I finish with an apology to the staff. We should give thanks to them for supporting us right through the Bill and throughout all the time it has taken. I also note that we should think about the impact of heat on their health and well-being in our workplace. We might want to think, as employers ourselves, about what reasonable adjustments we might need to make for them, as the temperatures in this workplace change. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Katz (Lab)
My Lords, with thanks to the clerks, the doorkeepers and all the staff of the House for staying so late, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn.
Employment Rights Bill
Wednesday 3rd September 2025
(6 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Employment Rights Act 2025 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 129 Running list of amendments - 28 August 2025 - (28 Aug 2025)
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I have it in command from His Majesty the King to acquaint the House that His Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Employment Rights Bill, has consented to place his interest, so far as it is affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Information and Technology (Baroness Jones of Whitchurch) (Lab)
My Lords, before the formal Third Reading of the Employment Rights Bill, I will make a brief statement on its devolution status.
During the Bill’s development and parliamentary passage, the Minister for Employment Rights, Competition and Markets has regularly corresponded and engaged with his devolved Government counterparts. This has been supported by weekly engagement between officials. As a result, I can confirm that legislative consent Motions have been successfully agreed in both the Senedd Cymru and the Northern Ireland Assembly. The Scottish Parliament has also agreed an LCM that covers the majority of the Bill’s provisions.
However, we consider that certain amendments relating to the social care negotiating body, tabled in my name on Report and accepted by your Lordships’ House, also engage the consent process. Owing to the date that these amendments were tabled and the Scottish Parliament’s Summer Recess, it has not been possible for a further supplementary LCM to be secured by the time of this statement. Now that the Scottish Parliament has returned from recess, and noting that the Bill has the support of the Scottish Government, we are hopeful that the process around this supplementary LCM will progress swiftly.
More broadly, I am grateful to Ministers and officials in the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government and the Northern Ireland Executive for their positive and collaborative approach towards this legislation. We remain committed to sustained engagement with the devolved Governments for the remainder of the Bill’s passage as we look ahead to its implementation, the benefits of which will be felt across the United Kingdom.
Clause 162: Commencement
Amendment
Lord Burns
Lord Burns (CB)
My Lords, this is a tidying-up amendment and I hope it will not delay the House too long. It is consequential on the House’s decision on Report to leave out Clause 59 on members’ contributions to trade union political funds. The amendment leaves out a now redundant reference to it in the commencement clause. It introduces and involves no new issues. I beg to move.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Burns, for tabling this amendment, which I acknowledge is a simple tidying-up one, following changes made to the Bill on Report. It is non-controversial tidying-up amendment and therefore we are content to accept it.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, it has been a privilege to be responsible for the passage of this landmark piece of legislation since its arrival from the other place in March. The Bill is a cornerstone of our manifesto commitment to make work pay. It seeks to address outdated provisions and gaps in the current employment law framework and helps us turn the tide on the damaging trend of in-work poverty. It would benefit millions of people across the country, and this is particularly the case for those in insecure and low-paid employment. As just one example, over 2 million people on zero-hours or lower-hours contracts could benefit from the right to guaranteed hours and to payment for shifts cancelled, moved or cut at short notice. Alongside our newly published industrial and trade strategies, it will also help increase productivity and create the right conditions for long-term, sustainable and secure economic growth.
Throughout the Bill’s Second Reading, 11 days in Committee and four days on Report, noble Lords from across your Lordships’ House carefully scrutinised its provisions. While we may not have agreed on every issue, I believe we do agree on the importance of the Bill, as well as on the need to improve workers’ rights and level the playing field for good employers. Therefore, I am grateful for the pleasure of engaging with noble Lords inside and outside the Chamber, and I would like to thank all noble Lords whom I and my ministerial colleagues have spoken to for their time and wisdom.
To mention every Member of your Lordships’ House whom I have engaged with would risk taking almost as long as Committee did. While I will refrain from doing that, I would like to particularly thank a number of noble Lords. My first words of thanks must go to my noble friends Lord Leong and Lord Katz for their dedicated support from the Front Bench. Over the course of the Bill’s passage, we have collectively had over 50 engagements with stakeholders, including noble Lords and external bodies. My noble friends have been generous with their time and wisdom, and I owe them a great debt.
Similarly, I must give thanks to my noble friends Lord Collins of Highbury, Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill, Lady Smith of Malvern and Lady Merron, all of whom represented from the Dispatch Box in Committee. This represents a whole of government approach to bringing about long-overdue improvements to workers’ rights.
It has been a pleasure debating the Bill’s many clauses with noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe of Epsom and Lord Hunt of Wirral, who have continuously made the case on behalf of the Official Opposition, and the noble Lords, Lord Fox, Lord Goddard of Stockport, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, who have made meaningful contributions on behalf of the Liberal Democrats. This includes contributions in relation to non-disclosure agreements, where I was delighted to see the amendments I brought forward on Report being accepted to introduce a world-leading framework on NDA protections. I would like to say how gratifying it is to see the noble Lord, Lord Fox, back in his place. I am sure I speak for all noble Lords when I say how thankful we are for his continued recovery to good health.
I also pay particular tribute to the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Goddard. While of course the wisdom of the noble Lord, Lord Fox, could never be replaced, the noble Lord was a worthy and often entertaining substitute. I am also grateful to my noble friends Lord Hendy, Lord Brennan of Canton, Lady O’Grady and Lady Lister for their valued contributions in relation to seafarers, bereavement leave, trade unions and parental leave, respectively.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I am conscious that this is Third Reading and I fully support the Bill, but I wanted to take this last opportunity to ask for greater clarification in relation to Clause 30 and its applicability to higher education providers across England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. This is an issue I raised in Committee.
I thank my noble friend the Minister for her helpful response in Committee and in the subsequent letter that she wrote. I know that she shares with the sector an interest in ensuring that the Bill does not impose undue burdens on the HE sector, given the key role played by universities in the delivery of the department’s industrial strategy. Universities wholeheartedly support the enactment of the Bill and will be working to ensure fair employment practices are maintained and strengthened. However, as autonomous institutions, universities, unlike other organisations in the public sphere, will be requested to absorb the additional costs that this legislation imposes. In advance of the Bill becoming law, and ahead of the consultation process, I seek further clarity and assurances on behalf of the higher education sector on three specific issues.
First, in her letter, my noble friend indicated that the code would specify to which bodies and to what value of procurement activities Clause 30 would apply. It is possible that the procurement activities of universities are exempted due to their nature and value. Can she elaborate further on this and allay any outstanding concerns in the lead-up to the consultation process? Secondly, it is still not clear whether pensions will also be subject to the “no less favourable” terms, which could result in considerable additional burdens for institutions where there are legacy arrangements in place. Thirdly, there is uncertainty over whether the provisions in Clause 30 would be retrospectively applied. Decisions on both these areas could make a material difference to the extent of financial impact experienced by the higher education sector.
I recognise that these are likely to be significant subjects in the consultation, but if my noble friend is able to provide any reassurances in advance of this process, it would be very much welcomed. The sector is so critical in delivering the skills needed for the UK’s successful future and the hopes and aspirations of communities across the UK.
Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)
My Lords, I rise, I hope for the last time, as temporary spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats, as my noble friend Lord Fox’s spectre has arrived behind me—and he is a sight to behold.
I begin by thanking various Ministers—the noble Lord, Lord Leong, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones and Lady Smith, to name but three of many—for the time and patience given to me and our team. They always made time and effort to help me understand not only the process but the logic and reasoning behind the objectives of the Bill, and I genuinely thank them for it. I also thank our political adviser Adam Bull, who had the almost impossible task of turning a helpful Back-Bencher supporting my noble friend Lord Fox and his team into an overnight Front-Bench spokesperson leading our group following my noble friend’s accident. I have no idea how he pulled it off, but somehow he convinced me it was possible and we gave it our best shot, along with my noble friends Lord Palmer, Lord Clement-Jones and Lady Kramer, attempting to be reasonable and proportionate throughout the passage of the Bill.
We on these Benches broadly support the Bill and have said on many occasions that it was long overdue, and we acknowledge the Government’s mandate for this legislation. However, we believe that it could and should be refined to work better for workers and for industry, and urge the Government not to disregard the changes that have been proposed, passed and sent back to the other House without extensive consideration and consultation.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I also express my gratitude to noble Lords on all sides of the House for their excellent contributions throughout our deliberations on this Bill. Their expertise, knowledge and careful scrutiny have been invaluable. I also thank the Ministers for the briefings and meetings, and indeed for the extensive correspondence by letter, that they provided during the course of these proceedings. I also thank the Bill team and the Ministers’ private offices. Further, I place on record my thanks to the Public Bill Office for its diligent work on amendments and to all the staff in your Lordships’ House who, as the Minister said, enabled our debates to continue sometimes late into the night with such professionalism. I also extend my thanks to our researchers on these Benches, Abid and Henry, who have been fantastic throughout.
We take a slightly different view as to the Bill. We think it is a terrible Bill. It is terrible for workers, businesses—particularly small businesses—and the economy as a whole. There is no support from anywhere in the business community for this legislation. The Office for Budget Responsibility has made it clear that the worst is yet to come. Unemployment has risen every single month under this Government. The latest figures show that the rate is now set to reach 5%, which is the highest since the pandemic. That is not a blip—it is a trend. It is the direct result of misguided economic choices, and if this Bill proceeds, the situation will only deteriorate further.
The Chancellor has deepened the difficulties. Long-term borrowing costs have surged to their highest levels since 1998, undermining stability and confidence. The spending plans are incoherent; when set alongside the provisions of this Bill, the picture is nothing short of a looming economic disaster.
The Bill imposes nothing new except new costs and burdens on business. A recent survey conducted by Peninsula, the UK’s largest HR and employment law consultancy, revealed that 68% of respondents believe that this legislation will have a negative impact on business. More than half expressed concern about the increased likelihood of tribunal claims—an inevitability under these provisions, with so-called day one rights and the ill-thought-out restrictions on workplace culture. Even the Government’s own impact assessment confirms those risks.
The noble Lord, Lord Katz, confirmed by letter that the Government are funding provision for some 33,900 tribunal sitting days, yet the backlog already exceeds 50,000 cases. It does not take a genius to calculate that it would take a year and a half simply to clear the existing caseload before even beginning to address the new claims that will inevitably arise as a result of this legislation. Indeed, the Government’s own impact assessment accepts that the introduction of the so-called day one dismissal rights will increase claims by around 15%. So, while I commend the Government’s actions in recruiting new judges, the Bill still piles more pressure on to a system that is already creaking, creating delay and uncertainty for employers and employees alike. My noble friend Lord Young of Acton tells me that the Free Speech Union has a belief discrimination case before the employment tribunal that has been given a hearing date of July 2027.
One cannot help but observe that the Bill appears designed less to support workers or employers and more to resuscitate the relevance of trade unions. We have already seen the damaging consequences of the Government’s approach in the handling of the junior doctors’ dispute. By also reducing the threshold for workplace recognition to potentially as little as 2%, they are preparing the ground for a surge in unionisation, leaving small businesses, many of which have no experience of dealing with unions, completely unprepared.
We should be mindful of the darker history that accompanies union power. In the 1970s and 1980s, communities were torn apart by the toxic culture of so-called scabbing. Workers who chose, for reasons of conscience or necessity, to cross a picket line were branded as traitors and subjected to intimidation and ostracism. That tyranny of the minority silenced individual choice and left lasting scars on families, workplaces and entire towns. It is precisely that environment which this Bill risks rekindling, where the decision of a small fraction can dictate the livelihoods of the many and where those who simply wish to work are punished for it. One can only admire the courage of the union barons opposite for their own act of scabbing today in crossing the PCS picket line to be here.
At the same time, the Government’s own impact assessment is clear that the central economic challenge is productivity, yet what Ministers fail to acknowledge is that poor productivity is overwhelmingly found in the public sector, where entrenched union practices have eroded efficiency and soured industrial relations. Instead of addressing that, the Government now seek to import those very problems into the private sector through this legislation. That will undermine competitiveness, discourage investment and damage growth.
The Bill also takes a regressive step with regard to political funds. The Government propose that contributions to a union’s political fund should once again be made on an opt-out basis rather than an opt-in. This undermines the principle of genuine consent. It also raises serious questions of accountability and transparency. I note that the certification officer requires unions to disclose payments above a de minimis threshold of £2,000, and that many unions are already making only two or three such payments a year. Those transactions, one assumes, are recorded in their internal accounts, so it should be no more than a simple matter of cut and paste to include them in the statutory return. Why, then, was this described by the Minister in her exchange with my noble friend Lord Leigh of Hurley as a “notable administrative requirement”? Is this to be the His Majesty’s Government’s standard position on disclosure requirements for other organisations in future?
Reference has been made to practices prior to 2016, when opacity prevailed. Yet rather than strengthening transparency, the Government seem intent on encouraging concealment. That is an approach that stands in stark contrast to the regime applied to companies, which must provide full disclosure of political donations. Ministers argue that members can access the information through the usual democratic means of a voluntary organisation, but there is in truth no such process. There is no requirement for unions to provide this information to their members at all. If the Government are serious about transparency, they should be insisting on openness, not enabling the reverse.
I feel that I should also inform the House that, for reasons best known to itself, an organisation called the General Federation of Trades Unions has invited me to various events at the Trades Union Congress conference. The programme contains, among other things, a session on what is described as “Employment Rights Bill #2”. Some might say that such a Bill would administer the coup de grâce after the firing squad of this Bill. It also features a session entitled, “¡Viva La Solidaridad! Stand with Latin America Against Trump”. I confess that I laughed when I read that. That is not serious politics; that is infantile and pathetic. If the TUC truly wished to offer international lessons, it might instead examine the havoc that socialist leaders and their trade union counterparts have wreaked on Latin American economies, particularly where solidarity has too often meant shared poverty, collapsing currencies and vanishing investment. We on these Benches are rightly focused on the future of British businesses and their employees, and the TUC should do the same.
I would also like to highlight Clause 30, concerning the right to be accompanied, which was tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill.
Lord Fox (LD)
The noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, has reminded me of what I have been missing while I was in a hospital bed in agony. Can I remind him that the Companion says:
“Any remarks should be brief and should not … reopen debates at previous stages of the bill”?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Fox, is back in his place. It is always a pleasure to be on the receiving end of his wit and repartee. He will be very pleased to know that I am winding up. Also, I am complimenting one of his colleagues—he ought to have waited.
Clause 30, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, was agreed on Report with cross-party support. Like other noble Lords across the House, we urge the Government to keep this provision in the Bill. It offers greater choice and protection for workers. To remove it would be a backward step that would disproportionately harm vulnerable groups, including disabled workers, young people and members of some ethnic minorities. That would be anti employment rights. I trust that Ministers will not seek to undo it.
For all its faults, I am glad that we have been able to make some improvements to this Bill as it leaves your Lordships’ House: retaining the 50% threshold for strike ballots to protect workplace democracy; introducing a right to request guaranteed hours; and ensuring clarity by setting out a clear probationary period and reference period for workplace dismissals, giving employers the certainty that they need. We hope that the Government will consider these amendments carefully in the other place and even take this opportunity to rethink the entirety of the Bill.
Lord Balfe (Con)
My Lords, I will probably not find a lot of favour on this side with what I am about to say. I remind the House that I am the honorary president of BALPA, the pilots’ union, a union that does not go on strike and does not regard militant industrial action as an achievement. A dispute that leads to a loss of work for our employees is a failure, not a success. I also remind the House that 30% of trade union members vote for the Conservative Party. People might say, “Well, there’s something wrong with them”, but I do not think that there is. The truth of the matter is that there is very little politics in trade unionism. Through several years, I have sat on the executive of BALPA, and we just do not discuss politics. Occasionally, things come up where we have to comply with some regulation or other and there may be a discussion, but the discussion is probably about the cost of complying. One of the things that I have noticed is the huge growth in legal fees that the union is dishing out. We are the nearest that the legal profession has got to a recruiting agency. We always seem to be paying KCs a lot of money to get us round the law. I am not aware that our union has ever broken the law.
I hope that we will move forward and regard this Bill as the starting point of a consensual approach to industrial relations. We are all basically on the same side. I mentioned that 30% of trade unionists vote Conservative. In the pilots’ union, it is over 50%. They are not impressed with this “Punch and Judy” approach to trade union legislation in recent years.
I appeal to all the House, the Government and the Opposition to work to get a consensual basis for trade unionism. I look across and I see my friend Brendan, the noble Lord, Lord Barber, who did enormously good work at ACAS, and that is the sort of organisation that we need. It attempts to smooth out the problems that we have in industry. At the end of the day—yes, I am going to wind up—our employees want a wage and our employers want a successful business. We recognise that. This should help to build that up, and I certainly hope that it will. I wish the Bill well.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, we have certainly improved the Bill during its passage, but it remains a very bad Bill. It is bad for business, which means it is bad for the economy, and it is just terrible for people who want jobs.
It is also a dreadful time to be making such significant changes. The economy is stressed. The Bank of England has failed to tame inflation, and we now have the highest rate in the G7. Speculation abounds about how big the black hole is in the Chancellor’s Budget preparations. Bond markets can see that our economy is in trouble and they have hiked gilt yields to levels not seen since 1998. Sterling is on the slide. It feels like the 1970s all over again.
Businesses are still reeling from the impact of the national insurance increases on top of the significant increases in minimum wage rates. This is already taking its toll. The Resolution Foundation said last month that it reckons the unemployment rate will have increased to 5% this month.
Almost all the employment data are negative. Payroll numbers are down, job vacancies are down, the PMI employment index is down and economic inactivity is up. Against that background, creating new employment rights and going back to 1960s trade union legislation is not far short of suicidal for the economy.
The Government say the Bill will cost £5 billion, adding to employment costs. Most of that will fall on the SME sector. That is bad enough, but the bigger problem is that the Bill will work against economic growth. Instead of job creation, we will have more job destruction.
In the other place, the Government have an opportunity to accept the modest changes that your Lordships’ House has made to the Bill. Those changes are moderate and will not remove all the Bill’s harmful effects, but I hope that the Government will at least take this opportunity to modify the impact of the Bill.
Lord Londesborough (CB)
My Lords, I think we have spent 13 days in this Chamber scrutinising this critical Bill. I salute the Ministers and Front Benches for their stamina and perseverance. The Bill has tested the patience of noble Lords on all sides of this House, so I will not test their patience further by going over the same arguments we heard during Committee and Report—very often the same arguments. I will simply raise one overriding question expressed by the FSB, the CBI, the ICAEW, the British Chambers of Commerce and, indeed, pretty much the whole private sector. They are asking, in light of the Bill, how committed the Government really are to delivering on their overriding number one mission—real, sustainable economic growth —and how the Bill will impact on the two crucial ingredients behind growth: job creation and, as we have heard, productivity.
On job creation, vacancies have now fallen to an effective 10-year low when you exclude the exceptional pandemic years. The Bill looks set to accelerate that downward trend. On the need for greater productivity across our 30-million workforce, employers are currently paying, on average, 5% annual wage increases for close to zero productivity gains. The Prime Minister and Chancellor have hailed this as an achievement, putting more pounds in workers’ pockets, but I am afraid that it is as illusory as it is inflationary, and will only contribute to ever-widening black holes.
The Bill will, as the Government admit, push up even further the costs of employment and damage the risk/reward equations behind recruitment, probation and employers’ ability to conduct those crucial performance reviews for staff. That is bad news for productivity, and I fear it will not go unnoticed by investors.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, first, I will respond to my noble friend Lady Warwick about Universities UK’s concerns. Given the stage of the parliamentary passage that the Bill has reached and the fact that the House has agreed that Clause 36 should stand part of the Bill, the clause will not be considered further during ping-pong. But as my noble friend knows, I have written to her on this issue, and the letter is available for all Members to read. We fully recognise the need not to impose disproportionate burdens on smaller procuring organisations such as universities and, to this end, we intend to consult in the autumn on the detail and scope of the two-tier code. The consultation will consider the extent to which certain public authorities, including higher education providers, are required to follow its provisions. While I cannot comment on whether we can carve out particular sectors before this consultation, I can assure my noble friend that we will carefully consider the issues, particularly applying to higher education providers.
Secondly, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, for his kind comments. I think it is fair to say that we have enjoyed working with him.
I am sorry that we have ended on a note of discord in this debate. I thought that we had, up until this point, had very courteous discussions around all this. The fact that there are relatively few issues remaining between us is a sign of the enormous work that this House has done over the last few months on this issue. I hope that, because there are so few areas of continuing disagreement, we can reach a conclusion on this Bill very quickly.
I do not want to rehearse the debates that we have had again. Listening to this debate this afternoon, it is a miracle that only 10 or so issues are still outstanding because it feels as if we are back at square one. But I feel that we made some progress during the course of the discussions.
When we came into office we inherited an economy that was on its knees and employment rights that were way out of date. We have been working and continue to work to address these issues. We are doing it in all sorts of ways. The small business strategy that we launched over the summer, the industrial strategy and the trade strategy are all designed to make the UK a place to do business with on an international basis and where jobs will be protected in the future.
On the state of the economy—because I have been provoked on this—in the three months to June, GDP grew by 0.3%, meaning the cumulative growth this year has already exceeded the OBR’s forecast for the whole of 2025. Since the start of the Parliament, 380,000 jobs have been added. Britain has become the most attractive place to invest in the world, joint top with India following its deal with the US. The FTSE 100 index smashed through the 9,000-point mark this July, with sustained growth throughout last month. Middle market businesses are growing at their fastest rate since the last election, according to research from NatWest. Confidence among UK businesses has grown, with 54% of companies feeling positive about the current environment, according to the Lloyds Business Barometer. I could go on.
We are positive about the opportunities ahead for our economy and, in that context, we are positive about the jobs that will be provided. They will be good jobs where people feel that they have a stake in their employment and a positive future. I am sorry we ended up on that discordant note, and of course I am sure we will come back and continue to try to iron out the remaining points of difference. In the meantime, I beg to move.
Employment Rights Bill
Monday 15th September 2025
(6 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Employment Rights Act 2025 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Commons Consideration of Lords Amendments as at 15 September 2025 - (15 Sep 2025)
20:27 - The House divided: - Ayes: 326 / Noes: 160 - Question accordingly agreed to.
20:41 - The House divided: - Ayes: 330 / Noes: 158 - Question accordingly agreed to.
20:53 - The House divided: - Ayes: 316 / Noes: 172 - Question accordingly agreed to.
21:05 - The House divided: - Ayes: 329 / Noes: 163 - Question accordingly agreed to.
21:23 - The House divided: - Ayes: 314 / Noes: 178 - Question accordingly agreed to.
21:34 - The House divided: - Ayes: 327 / Noes: 164 - Question accordingly agreed to.
21:46 - The House divided: - Ayes: 328 / Noes: 160 - Question accordingly agreed to.
21:57 - The House divided: - Ayes: 332 / Noes: 160 - Question accordingly agreed to.
22:10 - The House divided: - Ayes: 318 / Noes: 170 - Question accordingly agreed to.
22:21 - The House divided: - Ayes: 330 / Noes: 161 - Question accordingly agreed to.
22:33 - The House divided: - Ayes: 330 / Noes: 161 - Question accordingly agreed to.
22:45 - The House divided: - Ayes: 316 / Noes: 161 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I must draw the House’s attention to the fact that Lords amendments 66, 88, 90, 91 and 101 engage Commons financial privilege. If any of those Lords amendments is agreed to, I will cause the customary entry waiving Commons financial privilege to be entered in the Journal.
After Clause 22
Contractual duties of confidentiality relating to harassment and discrimination
4.43 pm
The Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Peter Kyle)
I beg to move amendment (a) to Lords amendment 22.
Madam Deputy Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss:
Lords amendment 22 and Government amendment (b).
Lords amendment 1, and Government motion to disagree. Lords amendment 7, and Government motion to disagree. Lords amendment 8, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 21, Government motion to disagree, and Government amendments (a) and (b) in lieu.
Lords amendment 23, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 106, Government motion to disagree, and Government amendment (a) to the words so restored to the Bill.
Lords amendments 107 to 120, and Government motions to disagree.
Lords amendments 46 to 49, and Government motions to disagree.
Lords amendments 60 to 62, and Government motions to disagree.
Lords amendment 72, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 121, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendments 2 to 6, 9 to 20, 24 to 45, 50 to 59, 63 to 71, 73 to 105 and 122 to 169.
Peter Kyle
It is a pleasure to make my first appearance at the Dispatch Box as Secretary of State for Business and Trade to deliver the biggest improvements in workers’ rights for a generation, as part of the Labour Government’s Employment Rights Bill, which formed a key plank of my party’s manifesto commitments.
I take this opportunity to pay tribute to my predecessor, the right hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds), for his work on the Bill and, more widely, in supporting our country to get to growth. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) for her tireless fight for the rights of working people. Without her, this Bill would simply not exist. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders), who worked so hard to get the legislation to this point, and to my dear friend Baroness Jones of Whitchurch, whose indefatigable work in the other place has ensured that this Bill was steered through the legislative process with a very steady hand. To many who have worked on this Bill, it has been a life’s work, and the culmination of an enormous amount of effort on their part, for which I am extremely grateful.
This is a landmark Bill. It is pro-worker and pro-business, and it supports the Government’s objectives of boosting growth and improving living standards across the country.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
Will the Secretary of State give way?
Peter Kyle
Of course I can. Many businesses have now come out in support of the Bill. The hon. Gentleman asked for a small business or a large business; let me give him one of each. I have talked to small and medium-sized enterprises. R & W Scott Ltd, a leading UK manufacturer based in south Lancashire specialising in high-quality ingredients for jams, came out in steadfast support. If the hon. Gentleman wants to know of large businesses who back this Bill, I could mention the Co-op, Centrica and Richer Sounds—all businesses that, as he will know, serve his community and his constituents. He should get behind those businesses in their support of the Bill.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome the Secretary of State to his new role. He will be aware—as will the Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade, the hon. Member for Rhondda and Ogmore (Chris Bryant), who is next to him—that IKEA in my constituency welcomed this legislation, but when the Conservatives heard that, they heckled, and said, “Oh, they’re Swedish.” Will my right hon. Friend recognise the huge amount of employment that IKEA provides in this country, and welcome its foreign investment? Does he agree that IKEA welcomes this legislation because it realises that supporting its staff leads to better productivity and more loyalty to the company?
Peter Kyle
I congratulate my hon. Friend on being a champion for investment in our country, unlike the Conservative party, which did down the country while it was in government, and is doing it down while in opposition, too.
The task this Government have set themself is formidable: to update employment law and make it fit for the age in which we live; and to reward good employers, and ensure that the employment protections given by the best are extended to millions more workers.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I have a letter from the Hampshire chamber of commerce, which, the Secretary of State will be pleased to hear, says that businesses are not opposed to all the changes that will be made to employment legislation, but it does focus on several areas of concern, such as the involvement of a tribunal in deciding whether an employee has been legitimately dismissed during their probation period, removing statutory sick pay waiting days, and changes to trade union recognition and industrial action thresholds. Will the Secretary of State do more to engage with chambers of commerce about these concerns?
Peter Kyle
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his thoughtful contribution, and for reflecting the voice of chambers, who do an incredible job right around our country—and around the world. I say to the chambers, and to him, that the Bill reflects the best standards that are already in use right around the country by the very best employers—indeed, by most employers. Those employers have nothing to fear and a lot to gain from this legislation.
On consultation, this is a Government who listen constantly, and we will continue to listen. On those measures for which an implementation phase is really important, there are, unusually, formal consultations in which businesses can engage. This is a listening Government and an acting Government, and we will deliver on our manifesto commitments.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
We welcome many aspects of the legislation, but I put this question on behalf of my small businesses. They say that sickness absence costs them £3,500 a year—it costs some £5 billion across all the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland—and they are worried that the legislation could dramatically raise their fees and costs for the next year. How will this Bill support small businesses that literally cannot afford to pay sick pay as well as hire someone in the place of the sick? That is a constructive question, and my small businesses need the answer.
Peter Kyle
In all the Front-Bench jobs I have had, I have enjoyed my exchanges with the hon. Gentleman, who is always constructive and well intentioned. I did not expect that we would enjoy that renewed relationship so soon in my new position. I say to him, and to the incredible businesses in his community, which I have had the pleasure of visiting, that a healthy workforce is a productive workforce. We intend to ensure the health and wellbeing of employees, and to ensure support for them in the workplace, structured in a way to get the very best out of them. That will be of benefit to employees, and certainly to employers as well.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend will, without doubt, remember those dark days of covid, when people had to turn up in the workplace, despite being poorly. That contributed to the spread of the pandemic. Does that not illustrate the need to ensure that when people are ill, they can rely on a sickness absence framework that supports them, and allows them to return to work when they have recovered?
Peter Kyle
My hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point. Both in times of crisis, such as during covid, and in good times, there are good employers and those who sometimes fall beneath standards. Covid shone a light on the challenges that can be faced in the workforce. In those times, we needed to see the best from everyone. The majority of businesses supported their employees through that time of challenge. We want to ensure that the floor is high enough, and that the standards for every workforce are those that were set by the best, not by those who fell short of what we expect in Britain in the 2020s.
Today, I ask the House to renew its commitment to this legislation. I will ask hon. Members to endorse Government amendments that seek to clarify and strengthen a number of measures, and to reject the amendments of Conservative and Liberal Democrat peers who joined forces to undermine the progress that we are attempting to make. I make an exception of those in the other place who had the sincere aim of scrutinising, and who ensured that the Bill was steered through the legislative process there with a steady hand.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
In opposition, those now in government probably rightly criticised the Conservative Government for introducing Henry VIII powers, yet the Bill is absolutely riddled with them. Does the Secretary of State agree with the Attorney General that such powers strike at the heart of the rule of law?
Peter Kyle
I agree that such powers need to be used wisely. The House will notice that many clauses provide for guidance in primary legislation during the implementation phase, and consultation with the businesses affected. Members will have their voice heard, as will businesses and workers affected by the Bill. During the passage of the Bill through both Houses, there have been improvements to the legislation, and I am grateful to Members of both Houses for their tireless work.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
The vast majority of the Employment Rights Bill is very much to be welcomed. Amendment 61, which relates to heritage railways and heritage tramways, would allow people under the age of 16 to volunteer on those heritage railway lines. It has been so narrowly worded as to be specifically for those sectors, and it would give young people fantastic opportunities to learn about technology, to work across generations, and to contribute to their communities. Will the Government please consider it again?
Peter Kyle
I know that this is something that affects the community that right hon. Lady represents, and that she is a tireless champion for her community here in Parliament, via the all-party parliamentary group on heritage rail. I will come to that amendment specifically, so I think it is best that I leave the answer until then. If she wants to come back to me once she has heard the explanation as to why we will not support amendment 61, I will happily take another intervention.
I will start by speaking to the amendments that the Government made in another place. The majority of them reinforce and strengthen existing measures in the Bill by making technical adjustments. They close loopholes to safeguard policy functionality, resolve uncertainty and ensure that measures are comprehensive and effectively deliver the policy as intended, as set out by the plan to make work pay. Some of the substantial amendments follow excellent campaigning by Members of this House and the other place, and demonstrate that the Government are listening and taking action, where appropriate.
The Government’s amendments on zero-hours contracts strengthen and clarify provisions that were already in the Bill when it left this place. Our commitment to banning exploitative zero-hours contracts is the culmination of years of campaigning by Labour MPs, trade unions and the wider Labour movement. For too long, these contracts have been used to replace full-time jobs. The Government amendments tabled in the other place reflect our commitment to getting the detail right, and were informed by extensive engagement with a wide range of businesses, trade unions and other expert stakeholders.
Susan Murray (Mid Dunbartonshire) (LD)
My husband suffered a catastrophic brain haemorrhage, which meant that he could not return to his work, but after he began to recover, he started to work again in another job, helped by a zero-hours contract. It meant that if he was not well enough to work, he could agree with his employer that his hours could be adjusted to suit. The practical and fair solution is to give staff a right to request a zero-hours contract, rather than replacing a requirement for businesses to offer a zero-hours contract.
Peter Kyle
I hope that the hon. Lady will pass on my sympathy and encouragement, and that of the whole House, to her husband, who has shown tenacity and resilience. I will come to the relevant part of the Bill shortly but, in summary, we feel that putting the onus on employees to request, rather than on employers to deliver, such contracts would alienate several categories of workers, particularly younger workers and those with vulnerabilities. I will come to that in a minute, and it would be a delight to take any further interventions that she might have then.
Technical changes include clarification of how zero-hours contract provisions apply to agency workers; reinforcement of the guaranteed hours provisions in relation to workers with annualised contracts and interaction with unfair dismissal; refinement of the right to payment for short-notice provisions, in relation to when payments and notices of exemptions are due; and expansion of those provisions to staff employed by both Houses. Together, these amendments strengthen the legislation by ensuring it is fair, proportionate and clear.
Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)
On short-notice periods for zero-hour contracts, there was an opportunity in the House of Lords to support the Liberal Democrat amendment that would require employers to give employees at least 48 hours’ notice. Labour peers voted against that amendment and the Government have not come forward with an alternative, suggesting that it will take until 2027 before there will be consideration of those measures. Will the Minister explain why we will have to wait nearly three years before we can get a response to that?
Peter Kyle
The powers that the hon. Gentleman refers to are strident powers. We have firmly committed to consulting on those powers and to reporting back, based on the outcome of the consultation, and that shows that we are listening. We will learn from the consultation and, if necessary, we will act.
Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
When the Minister consults on those powers, will he include the agricultural sector? With seasonal work, there is a big concern that employers will not necessarily have time to provide a notice period as the weather changes. On behalf of all our farmers, I ask him to consider that.
Peter Kyle
As a Member of Parliament representing a constituency in the beautiful county of Sussex, I am aware of the needs of seasonal workers, including those in the agricultural sector. We believe that the Bill allows flexibility for that sector, but if the hon. Lady would like to write to me with further updates, I am always willing to listen.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
On that point, will the Minister give way?
Peter Kyle
Let me make a little progress, then I will come back to the right hon. Gentleman; I am sure he will understand.
We move on to bereavement leave. The Bill will ensure that every employee has an immediate right to bereavement leave from the first day of employment. As both Houses have agreed, bereavement is not an illness or a holiday, and it needs its own special category. The Government amendments in the other place expand bereavement leave entitlement in the Bill to include pregnancy loss occurring before 24 weeks. I pay tribute to all those who have campaigned on that change, such as the Women and Equalities Committee—specifically my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen)—and countless women who have told their own very personal and painful stories of loss as part of the campaign for this important change. I have been very open about my own experiences with grief and loss, and I feel strongly that people need time away from work to grieve. No one going through the heartache of pregnancy loss should be worrying about work; they must be able to take time to recover.
I give way to the right hon. Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne).
Sir Desmond Swayne
Let me take the Secretary of State back to zero-hours contracts. The seasonality of the hospitality industry and, indeed, boat building down in my constituency, where large numbers of students are taken on, means that scheduling for guaranteed hours is very difficult, particularly when those students benefit from the provision, because they want to partake in races and other seasonal activities of a leisure nature.
Peter Kyle
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for raising his concerns in this area. I represent a constituency in Brighton and Hove that has a vibrant hospitality and night-time economy and two universities, so I have paid particularly close attention to these issues. I reassure him that the Bill refers to exploitative zero-hours contracts. It is clear that some people will want employment on different terms, and we have flexibility in the Bill for those circumstances. Where there is exploitation or the potential for it—which surely we all agree exists in the economy at the present time—we should act against those sorts of things.
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
In the positive spirit in which the Secretary of State speaks, will he commit on the Floor of the House that the reference period used to calculate hours for sectors that have serious seasonality—we have heard about boat building, hospitality, tourism and farming—will not be a ridiculously short period, such as 12 weeks? Will it be long enough to reflect the seasonal nature of that type of work?
Peter Kyle
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the passion with which he speaks. That is a very important point, and that is why we are consulting on the time threshold; we want to get it right. As my predecessors and I have said repeatedly, this Bill is good for workers and good for business, and that is the spirit in which we will continue.
Let me move on to fire and rehire, on which hon. Members will know there has been a long-running campaign led by trade unions. The provisions in the Bill will ensure that employers are no longer able to use cruel fire and rehire practices. No longer will unscrupulous employers be able to fire employees to replace them on low pay. The Bill also ensures protection for employees replaced by non-employee workers, such as agency staff, to do the same role. As we said in our manifesto, these reforms are a pro-business, pro-worker set of measures. They strike a balance, curbing misuse while allowing fair businesses time for adaptation.
Maureen Burke (Glasgow North East) (Lab)
This Bill will make work fairer for thousands in my constituency. However, my constituents are worried that Conservative Members seek to water down this legislation. Can the Secretary of State confirm that the Government will resist their attempts and are committed to introducing the Bill in full?
Peter Kyle
I understand that there will be workers around the country who are worried about the watering down of such legislation. I reassure my hon. Friend that as long as they vote Labour, that will never happen.
In the other place, the Government made amendments to strengthen protections for social care workers and school support staff, ensuring that workers whose employers go above and beyond the minimum standards set out by the negotiating bodies will have those better terms protected.
Mrs Sureena Brackenridge (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
On that point, will the Secretary of State give way?
Mrs Brackenridge
As a former schoolteacher and leader, I know the value of support staff and how critical they are, but does the Secretary of State agree that Lords amendment 121 is unnecessary? The Bill already ensures that no negotiating body can prevent employers from offering better terms and conditions where they wish to do so. The school support staff negotiating body was regrettably abolished in 2010, but this Government will reinstate it. The amendment would add needless bureaucracy and would risk impeding the flexibility that schools and staff rightly expect.
Peter Kyle
My hon. Friend has demonstrated many things in that intervention, including what a great teacher she was. As a former chair of governors and a governor of a couple of schools, I can assure her that I too understand the value of teaching assistants and all those who support the education of young people. I agree that the Bill gets the balance right—that is why we are proceeding as we are.
I turn to the Lords amendments dealing with the international maritime provisions. The Government amendment clarifies that a regulation to implement future agreements may not be brought into force before the agreement is ratified, but by implication, such regulations may be made before it is ratified. This will allow the UK to meet its international obligations by ensuring such regulations can be made ahead of the deadline for bringing them into force.
The Fair Work Agency provisions will establish a single body to enforce a wide range of employment rights. The Government amendments are technical refinements to improve enforcement and co-ordination. They clarify definitions of “worker” and “employer”, enable summary sheriffs in Scotland to act on underpayment notices, and refine provisions on data sharing between enforcement bodies. The amendments will ensure that the Fair Work Agency can operate smoothly and effectively.
In another place, the Government also made an amendment to change the time limit in the Occupational and Personal Pension Schemes (Consultation by Employers and Miscellaneous Amendment) Regulations 2006 from three months to six months, ensuring consistency with wider employment tribunal time limit reforms.
Amendments were made in another place to the trade union provisions. The Government have refined the provisions on trade union recognition by adding sanctions for non-compliance, requiring timely sharing of worker data, and tightening timelines to protect bargaining units. Together, these amendments enhance fairness, transparency and enforceability in trade union recognition.
I now turn to non-disclosure agreements. The Government are committed to ending the misuse of NDAs, which silence victims of sexual harassment, discrimination and bullying. I thank Members of this House and those in another place for their work on this issue, as well as Zelda Perkins, the founder of Can’t Buy My Silence, for her tireless campaigning, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Heeley (Louise Haigh), who has championed this cause for many years. Today must be a good day for her, as she sees another step forward taken in delivering those rights.
Louise Haigh (Sheffield Heeley) (Lab)
I am sure all Members of the House would like to note that Zelda Perkins joins us in the Under-Gallery today, and to thank her for her tireless work in campaigning on this issue. The road map for implementation of this legislation was published before the Government tabled their amendments, so will the Secretary of State confirm when he will commence consultation, and when the Government are aiming for this primary legislation to commence so that the ban on NDAs can come into force?
Peter Kyle
It is great to know that Zelda is in the Chamber with us today, and that my right hon. Friend is also in the Chamber to give voice to so many campaigners and the work she has done. The Prime Minister has confirmed that the road map remains as is.
In another place, we made two amendments to strengthen the provisions in the Bill that protect victims, while preserving NDAs to protect legitimate business interests. The new clause will allow workers to speak freely about their experiences and allow those who have witnessed misconduct or have knowledge of it to call it out by voiding a non-disclosure agreement that has been used to try to silence victims. The Government will consult on related secondary legislation before commencing the measure.
The Government propose two new amendments. The first will extend the scope of the clause to include staff of both Houses. We are proposing that change following discussions with parliamentary authorities. The second amendment is designed to give disabled workers more protection. It will extend the scope of relevant discrimination to include a failure to make reasonable adjustments for disabled persons under section 21 of the Equality Act 2010. That will ensure that all forms of harassment and discrimination in the Equality Act are covered.
I will now set out the Government’s position on the 28 non-Government amendments made to the Bill in the other place, which cover 12 policy areas. Lords amendment 1 addresses provisions on zero-hours contracts and seeks to change the onus from the employer to the employee on the right to guaranteed hours. The amendment shifts it from a duty on employers to offer guaranteed hours to qualifying workers to a model where employees must actively request them. The Government believe that the duty to offer guaranteed hours should lie with the employer. A right-to-request model could create undesirable barriers, making it especially difficult for vulnerable workers on exploitative zero-hours contracts to access their right to guaranteed hours, especially as many such workers are younger and may be in their first job. As of June 2025, approximately 480,000 people in employment aged 16 to 24 are on zero-hours contracts. That is out of a total of 1.18 million workers on zero-hours contracts overall. Our position strikes a fair balance between protection and choice. For that reason, the Government do not support the amendment.
Susan Murray
I think we have a difference in how we look at Lords amendment 1. It does not water down the Bill; it adds more flexibility so that people get the opportunity to have the kind of employment that works for them. That is particularly important in an environment where we are trying to get people off disability benefits and back into work.
Peter Kyle
I am grateful for the hon. Member’s thoughtful intervention. I still believe that in order to exercise rights, people have to know that they exist. The majority of people—young people in particular—entering the workforce in such numbers via zero-hours contracts simply would not know that those rights exist for them. By changing the onus so it is on employers, it clarifies the rights they have and ensures that every workplace must offer equal access to employment hours. This Bill includes flexibilities, and I think those will encompass the situations over which she has legitimate concern.
Lords amendments 7 and 8 seek to provide that a short-notice cancellation payment is due only where the shift is cancelled less than 48 hours before it is due to start. The Government intend to set out short notice period regulations following a consultation.
Ian Roome (North Devon) (LD)
I know that 48 hours seems a long time to some Ministers, but does he agree that having a shift cancelled at short notice would be bad news for many workers across the country? This Bill should be amended to specify an acceptable notice period.
Peter Kyle
I think the Bill gets the balance right. For most people in most workplaces, 48 hours is a long time, although I have witnessed some speeches in this place that have been a lot shorter than that, but seemed a lot longer—perhaps the one currently unfolding is an example.
The consultation will determine a fair short notice period that works for businesses and workers. Putting the implementation detail in regulations will retain the flexibility to respond to changing circumstances. The Government have already stated in the Bill that “short notice” will not be more than seven days, and we are committed to continuing to work closely with businesses and trade unions and considering carefully the right approach to this matter. That is why the Government will be rejecting the amendment.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way; he is being very generous. Can he explain why, before he took up his present post and took responsibility for the Bill, no assessment was made of the hiring practices that would occur if the unfair dismissal period was reduced from two years? Why was no modelling done? It is in the Labour party manifesto, but where is the evidence of what it will do to jobs and economy? That is what my constituents are concerned about.
Peter Kyle
Of course many of the hon. Gentleman’s constituents will be concerned about their workforce protections, and those who are setting up, running and managing businesses will want us to get the balance right as well, but we have many years of experience that have informed the decisions we have taken, and our engagement with trade unions and other bodies has ensured that we have got that balance right.
Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)
I am glad that the Secretary of State has mentioned trade unions, because that allows me a moment to return to his earlier point about banning fire and rehire. In July, the general secretary of Unite said that what Birmingham was proposing for its bin workers was fire and rehire. If this Labour Government do not like the idea of fire and rehire, when will they tell their colleagues in Birmingham about that?
Peter Kyle
I think that the hon. Gentleman is making an argument for the Bill. We want to ensure that every employer in the country has the same legislative framework in which to operate.
Peter Kyle
I will, but I must alert all Members to the fact that I want to have time to listen to their own speeches, so I shall be rattling through from now on.
Sir Desmond Swayne
What can the Secretary of State say to those in the boatbuilding industry who have made representations to me about protection from day one? When someone takes on a craftsman, it can take quite a long time to establish whether he is any good and up to the job.
Peter Kyle
The reassurance that I give is that we will implement this policy, having listened to employers. We will make sure that the rights to which we have committed in our manifesto are fully upheld.
What employers want is to have workers who are fully committed to their life in the workplace. If employees feel that they have an unreasonable sword of Damocles over their head, employers will not get the best productivity out of those workers.
Peter Kyle
I am going to make some progress.
We have said explicitly that our intention is to provide a less onerous approach for businesses to follow in order to dismiss someone during the statutory probation period for reasons to do with their performance and suitability for the role. The Government are committed to undertaking a public consultation to get the details of the statutory probation period right, to keep it light touch and to get the standards right. Most employers who use contractual probation periods operate them for six months or less. The Government’s preference is for the statutory probation period to be nine months long. That will enable an employer to operate a basic six-month probation period, with an option for extension where employers wish to give their employees further time to improve their performance. We will consult on the duration, which is why the Government will not agree to Lords amendments 23 and 106 to 120.
Lords amendment 48 seeks to impose a duty on the Secretary of State to have regard to the requirements for seasonal workers when making regulations. The Government do not believe the amendment is necessary, because the Bill already reflects the realities of seasonal work. For example, it allows guaranteed offers for limited-term contracts where appropriate, such as for task-based or time-bound roles. This Government do not believe the amendment is necessary, as the approach taken in the Bill already protects seasonal jobs while ensuring fair rights for workers, which is why the Government decline to support this amendment.
Lords amendment 49 seeks to require a consultation on the effects of provisions in part 1, and to ensure that at least 500 small and medium-sized businesses are included in the consultation. SMEs are the backbone of the British economy, and their insights are vital to shaping policy that works in practice. That is why our approach to the implementation of the Bill includes 13 targeted consultations, running through to 2026. We think it is more effective and proportionate for us to engage extensively with SMEs, as planned through the consultation that we have described in our road map, and to ensure that SMEs’ views help shape the implementation. Given the comprehensive process, the Government consider that the amendment must be rejected.
Lords amendment 46 would have the effect of requiring the Secretary of State to make regulations within six months to extend the circumstances in which an employee is automatically considered to have been unfairly dismissed for whistleblowing. It would require certain employers to take responsible steps to investigate whistleblowing claims. The Government do not support the amendment. We recognise that the whistleblowing framework in the Employment Rights Act 1996 may not be operating as effectively as it should be, but we believe that any reform should be considered as part of a broader assessment of that framework. That is why the Government consider that the amendment must be rejected.
Lords amendment 47 would insert a new clause into the Bill that relates to workplace representation. The amendment would allow workers and employees to be accompanied at grievance hearings by a certified professional companion. The law already guarantees workers the right to be accompanied at a disciplinary or grievance hearing by a fellow worker, a trade union representative or an official employed by a trade union. Employers may allow other companions to attend formal meetings on a discretionary basis. The current law has served workers and employees for well over two decades. It strikes the right balance between fairness, flexibility and practicality, and we believe it should remain this way.
Lords amendment 60 seeks to remove the restrictions on young people aged 14 to 16 working on a heritage railway or a heritage tramway from the meaning of
“employment in an industrial undertaking”.
The Government do not believe that this amendment is necessary. The benefits of youth volunteering in heritage railways cannot be overestimated and, with proper health and safety management, it already works well. The Employment of Women, Young Persons, and Children Act 1920 does not ban youth volunteering in appropriate roles on heritage railways. Well-run schemes, such as the one in Swanage, show that young people can still take part safely and legally.
Liz Saville Roberts
I politely remind the Secretary of State that he is therefore advising heritage railways to in effect break the law, because that is how the law stands. If parents or a local authority were to bring an action against a heritage railway, it would find itself in such a position. If he cannot change that in this legislation, I really urge him to discuss with me how to bring this forward in another way.
Peter Kyle
This matter has been the source of a lot of consternation and examination in my Department. I assure the right hon. Member that we have looked very closely at it and believe that the existing law is fit for purpose in this case. We will proceed on that basis, but as she will have found during the time we have both been in this place, I am always happy to sit down with her, and especially, being so new in the job, so to learn about that specific case. However, we will proceed in that way because the advice is very clear on this matter.
Lords amendments 61 and 72 seek to remove clause 59 relating to trade union political funds from the Bill. Clause 59 reverses the changes introduced by the Trade Union Act 2016, reinstating arrangements whereby union members are automatically opted in to contribute to political funds, unless they choose to opt out. This is a key step in lifting the burden of the 2016 Act and returning to a long-standing precedent that worked for 70 years. Removing clause 59 would break a clear Government commitment, which is why the Government consider that Lords amendment 61 should be rejected.
Lords amendment 62 seeks to remove clause 65(2) from the Bill, the effect of which would be to retain the 50% turnout threshold requirement for industrial action ballots. The Government do not support this amendment. The Bill brings union democracy into line with other democratic mandates, including votes in this Parliament and elections for each and every one of us. Clause 65 is a step towards fairness and consistency in how we respect collective voices, which is why this Government consider that the amendment must be rejected.
Lords amendment 121 is another duplicate amendment. We agree that the school support staff negotiating body should not block employers that wish to go further than the minimum terms and conditions, but that is already stipulated in the Bill. The amendment duplicates the effect of proposed new section 148M(6)(b), which is why the Government will be rejecting the amendment.
I urge Members to support the Government amendments before the House, including the amendments in lieu in relation to the extension of rights to time off for special constables. We have listened throughout the Bill’s passage, and we have made meaningful changes where needed, including on bereavement leave and non-disclosure arrangements. We will continue to listen in relation to the further work to be undertaken when implementing the Bill.
The Employment Rights Bill is a major step forward in modernising protections and delivering on our commitment to make work pay. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to speak on the Bill, and I will now allow others to speak.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
I welcome the new Secretary of State to his place, and congratulate him as well as the hon. Members for Halifax (Kate Dearden) and for Rhondda and Ogmore (Chris Bryant) on their appointments. His is a vital role in Government, and it will surely be a delight and a privilege for him to champion our hard-working, innovative businesses in Cabinet and on the world stage as President of the Board of Trade. I particularly welcome his comments that the Government’s priority must be to “double down” on growth and position themselves as
“an active partner that delivers success, supports new business and backs wealth creation.”
Where he does that, he can be assured of our support, but if that is really his view, we should not be debating this Bill today and the Government should never have brought it forward.
In fact, I well understand why Ministers may well be concerned about job insecurity and last-minute shift cancellations. After all, their predecessors, the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders) and the hon. Member for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas), had their own Front Bench shifts today cancelled by the Prime Minister with barely a week’s notice. Apparently, that boss did not even have the decency to fire them in person, but at least they can take comfort in knowing that with the current rate of departures from No. 10, there will soon not be anyone left to do the sacking.
Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
Does the shadow Minister understand the difference between fair dismissal and unfair dismissal?
Andrew Griffith
The shadow Minister absolutely understands that. He does so and understands the implication of clause 23 from having spoken to Make UK, the CBI, the Institute of Directors, the British Chambers of Commerce and the Federation of Small Businesses, all of whom urge the Government to rethink on this clause. Business does not recognise a process that ends in a full legal tribunal, flanked by lawyers, after typically a two-year wait and lost management time, as light-touch. Legal fees alone for defending an unfair dismissal case range from £15,000 to £20,000.
Katrina Murray (Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch) (Lab)
Does the hon. Gentleman not recognise that very few cases end up in a tribunal, particularly at a point where all due process happens? Not all dismissals are unfair.
Andrew Griffith
Of course not all dismissals are unfair, but if it was not a process that ended up in court or in a tribunal, we would not be facing a backlog of 491,000 individuals with current open cases—by the Government’s own figures—and business organisations would not be citing legal fees in that order of magnitude.
Sir Desmond Swayne
One reason that so many of those cases do not end up in a tribunal is that businesses, cognisant of the loss of management time and £15,000 to £20,000 in fees, simply pay up rather than contest.
Andrew Griffith
My right hon. Friend, with his experience, is exactly right. Just think about the impact on a small business of a fee of that magnitude and the length of time it takes to get justice.
What is going to happen? This is a really important point. Those on the Government Benches will be living this reality over the remainder of their term, and they will have to account for it. Businesses will be discouraged from hiring anybody without a perfect CV and a proven track record of work. Who are we talking about? We are talking about young people, people with dyslexia and related conditions, and people with a period of inactivity on their CVs—such as former prisoners seeking a second chance to go straight. Those will be the victims of that particular measure.
Labour Ministers should realise that they will be the first victims of disagreeing with Lords amendment 62. The long-standing principle here is a simple one: we should not be allowing strikes to be called when a majority of union members have not even voted, let alone voted in favour. A strike could still proceed with just over a quarter of those eligible. Opposing this amendment will guarantee that unions are held hostage by a militant minority who force strikes even when the union’s own members do not support one. We can ill afford more strikes that crush growth, prevent workers from getting to work and endanger lives, and the public will not forget the change that this Government seek to make.
Amendment 61 is a Cross-Bench Lords amendment that would maintain a consensus arrived at by the Trade Union Political Funds and Political Party Funding Committee—that only those who actively choose to contribute to a political fund opt in to do so. This is a basic principle that the Government have applied to services everywhere else in the economy, from beauty boxes, gyms and meditation apps to Netflix and newspaper subscriptions. Why should Britain’s workers not enjoy the same right? The only conceivable reason—it brings shame on anyone who votes against the amendment—is to swell the coffers of one political party.
Lords amendment 47, on the right to be accompanied, tries to finally level the playing field for the 80% of workers who are not in a union, but should have the same rights as trade union members to be supported in a disciplinary or grievance hearing. By voting against this modest but important reform, Labour is preserving what is essentially a closed shop that unions use to push people who do not want to join into doing so. We scrapped the closed shop decades ago, and no one should be bringing it back as a means of pressuring vulnerable workers into paying into union coffers.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the hon. Member give way?
Andrew Griffith
I will happily give way if the hon. Gentleman will talk about the other organisations that will do a brilliant job of representing employees.
Gareth Snell
Well, that wouldn’t be the Tory party, would it, Madam Deputy Speaker?
What the shadow Secretary of State seems not to understand is that workers cannot turn up to a trade union and go, “I’ve got a problem. Can I join and get representation, please?”. Almost every union in this country requires a qualifying period to get the representation he talks about—the idea that this is a closed shop is just nonsense.
Andrew Griffith
The hon. Member has probably wilfully misinterpreted what I said. I am talking about the right for individuals to be represented by a trade union or by a qualified professional from another domain, such as a qualified lawyer.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Bromborough) (Lab)
Will the shadow Secretary of State give way?
Andrew Griffith
Of course I will give way to the hon. Gentleman—we are missing him already.
Justin Madders
I am glad to be back.
The shadow Secretary of State just talked about legal fees for firms when it comes to defending tribunal cases. If the right to be accompanied is expanded to include lawyers, the response of firms will be, “We had better get a lawyer too”, and that will just put up costs, will it not?
Andrew Griffith
The hon. Member has done a great deal of work on the Bill, and it is a great shame that he was cut short in his prime, but with respect the point is about choice for the individual. In many cases, the long-standing right will be to be represented by a trade union, but it could also be a mediator or a qualified professional in any other domain. The point is not to extinguish that choice, which is absolutely—he will know this—what the amendment would do. The Bill—from a Government who in too many domains are now tolerant of a two-tier system—creates a two-tier system for workers’ rights.
Lords amendment 1 is a typical example of where the Government do not understand or have failed to listen to businesses, particularly hospitality and seasonal businesses. What started as an attempt to ban zero-hours contracts has morphed into a chain around the necks of both employers and workers. The Government will no doubt cry about unintended consequences when the time comes, but I can tell them now that the consequences will be clear, and a cacophony of business groups such as UK Hospitality, the British Retail Consortium and the Federation of Small Businesses have explained this precisely to them. I gently say that if the Government feel so strongly about zero-hours contracts, the best way of putting their own house in order would be to start with tackling precisely those that operate in the armed forces reserves.
Lords amendment 48 would protect the countless businesses across the country that rely directly on seasonal work. From the coasts of Devon and Cornwall to Great Yarmouth, and from the Secretary of State’s and my own county of Sussex to Ayrshire, there are millions of workers employed in seasonal industries. Seasonal work often takes place in communities that are heavily reliant on tourism, both foreign and domestic, and that are competing in a competitive international market. The Government have already taken an axe to the hospitality and retail industries with the removals of relief. The amendment would be a very good way of going in some direction to support them.
In opposing Lords amendment 49, the Government are showing their commitment to ignore small business above all others. The Secretary of State says that he wants to listen to businesses, and I take him at his word, but why then oppose this amendment, which would codify precisely that? Countless small business will have a real challenge in dealing with this Bill, which is now 330 pages of red tape. Why on earth would the Government put their Members through the Lobby to oppose listening and consulting with small businesses?
We support Lords amendment 60, which has cross-party support, at the behest of millions of those who enjoy heritage railway attractions. If the Secretary of State has not yet made it to the Amberley museum, which is not that far from his constituency—[Interruption.] He knows of it? Well, he is welcome to come and visit and listen to how the volunteers who are gaining valuable experience will be affected.
I am perplexed about why the Government are so opposed to Lords amendment 46 on the protection of whistleblowers. It is genuinely confusing. Time and again Ministers on both sides of this House have come to the Dispatch Box to talk about Government scandals. We have seen brave people in organisations try to speak up and raise their concerns, only to have them dismissed. The Government claim that the Bill is about workers’ rights yet seem to have zero interest in protecting workers who try to reveal serious problems in the private and public sectors. I urge all colleagues to read that for themselves and to make up their own minds on where they think the right place to be is. Good luck to those who vote against that entirely reasonable amendment, which would protect people who do the right thing, and then have to try to explain to their constituents why they did so.
Justin Madders
I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, which includes an election donation from the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers and my membership of the Unite and GMB unions.
I welcome the Bill’s return to the House and the opportunity to consider the amendments made in the other place. I also welcome the new Secretary of State to his place and thank him for his kind words. I also welcome the Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade, my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Kate Dearden), to her ministerial position—undoubtedly the best job in Government—and wish her every success in that role. I know that she will be a champion for workers and that she will be committed to introducing the “make work pay” agenda in full, as we promised in our manifesto.
I am speaking a few rows back from where I had expected to be today. The shadow Secretary of State mentioned getting a short-notice cancellation payment—I am afraid that has not winged its way to me yet. However, I am delighted to be speaking in any capacity, because this Bill really is what a Labour Government should be delivering on. I was able, alongside my right hon. Friends the Members for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) and for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds), to take the new deal for working people—a policy programme carefully developed in opposition—and turn it into legislation that was laid before the House within 100 days of taking office, as we promised we would. While I started my ministerial role as I ended it—fired with enthusiasm—my hopes for the meaningful change that the Bill can deliver remain undimmed.
That we are here entering the Bill’s final stages is testament to the hard work and dedication of those who developed the policy programme both in opposition and in government. I place on record my thanks to those in the Department for Business and Trade who helped shape those manifesto commitments into the Bill. I also pay tribute to Baroness Jones of Whitchurch, who did a sterling job of guiding the legislation through the other place amid intense scrutiny and opposition, which of course we will talk about.
I will not go through every Lords amendment; I will just pick out a few of those I consider to be most damaging and undermining of the intentions that we set out in our manifesto about how we will rebalance the workplace to make it work for ordinary people. First, Lords amendment 1 completely undermines the principle, set out in our manifesto, of banning exploitative zero-hours contracts. The amendment would water down the commitment we gave to provide workers with an offer of a guaranteed-hours contract to a right to request guaranteed hours.
There has long been a misunderstanding—perhaps a wilful misunderstanding—of how the policy operates. It does not prevent those who want to remain on zero-hours contracts from continuing to do so, and neither does it prevent employers from hiring seasonal workers. It simply provides the opportunity for those who want certainty about the hours they work, week to week and month to month, to have guaranteed hours. We understand that not everyone will take advantage of that, but it might just be a lifeline for those who struggle to balance fixed costs such as bills, housing and childcare by taking out the stress of the potential variations that we see so often in zero-hours contracts at the moment. This is a very good thing for the Government to be doing, because one of the key principles in the Bill is the need to restore security and dignity at work, which would be damaged by the amendment.
I understand that the noble Lords argued that the wording of the amendment would prevent employers from rejecting guaranteed-hours requests. It is presented as a reasonable compromise that achieves the same outcome, maintaining workers’ rights to guaranteed hours while removing the employer’s requirement to make offers. I disagree with that analysis. It shifts the right from one that is passively applied to one that has to be actively invoked by workers. This means that an individual would have to know their rights and have the confidence to approach their employer in order to benefit from them.
As the Secretary of State said, those working on zero-hours contracts are some of the least empowered workers in this country, their contracts are inherently precarious, and those working on them are more likely to be younger, working part time and in low-paid sectors. There are plenty of examples out there of how the allocation of hours has been used by management as a tool of control and, in some cases, a tool of abuse. The Bill already sets out a number of anti-avoidance measures, because we know that that massive power imbalance has to be addressed, and this amendment would fatally undermine all that good work.
I have similar concerns about Lords amendments 6 and 7, which seek to impose 48 hours as a reasonable notice period. If passed, these amendments would remove any chance for workers or employers to make representations in a consultation process, and instead force an arbitrary cut-off of 48 hours. Throughout my time as a Minister, we were committed to consulting widely on changes and incorporating the feedback we received into our approach. I remember the Conservatives complaining during the original passage of the Bill that we were not consulting enough, yet now they lend their support to amendments that would chop that consultation off entirely.
That said, I must welcome the comments from Opposition Front Benchers in the other place, who indicated that they supported the principle of compensation for cancelled or curtailed shifts. I note that Lord Hunt of Wirral said:
“We are fully in agreement that workers deserve reasonable notice of shifts. That is a fair and modern expectation.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 14 July 2025; Vol. 847, c. 1612.]
Quite how that fits with the Tory pledge to scrap the entire Bill, I do not know. Of course, it is to be expected, as night follows day, that they will object to measures that improve the rights of working people, but that would mean scrapping things that I thought even they supported, including ending non-disclosure agreements for victims of sexual harassment, a new right for bereavement leave for those who have suffered a pregnancy loss, and finally an end to fire and rehire, which they did so much to condemn while in government but did nothing of substance to deal with. That is the Conservative position on this, and it is something that the British people will completely and wholeheartedly reject.
Lords amendment 23 relates to unfair dismissal, which is something I know rather a lot about. It seeks to impose a six-month qualifying period for unfair dismissal rights rather than day one rights, which everyone on the Labour Benches has campaigned for. This is another brazen attempt by the other place to remove a clear manifesto commitment. I and other Labour Members were elected on a mandate to introduce basic rights, including unfair dismissal rights, from day one. How can we allow people who essentially have a job for life to prevent millions of people in this country from getting basic employment protections on day one? It is fundamentally wrong that workers can currently be treated so disposably, and that they can be dismissed arbitrarily with no legal recourse for two years. This is about fairness. A worker deserves to be treated with dignity, fairness and respect, no matter how long they have worked for an employer.
Sarah Edwards (Tamworth) (Lab)
I commend my hon. Friend for the work that he has done and that the Department continues to do on this. One of the interesting things about this provision is that, in 2013, the Conservatives changed the period from 12 months to 24 months. They increased the amount of time that people were in an insecure position in the workplace. It is essential that we support working families and working people, so does he agree that this is absolutely the right step forward?
Justin Madders
I certainly do. In my conversations with employers, I did not come across any who were prepared to defend the status quo of a two-year qualifying period for unfair dismissal, because they recognise that is an awfully long time to be in employment without any protection at all.
The Government are sensitive to concerns about hiring, however, and we have included provisions in the Bill to establish a statutory probationary period during which an employee’s performance and suitability can be established, and a lighter-touch dismissal procedure will apply during that time. This will mean that, to coin a phrase, if a new hire is not working out, an employer will be able to follow a lighter-touch procedure to dismiss them fairly. But crucially, there will still have to be a process; there cannot be an arbitrary dismissal without explanation, as happens far too often now.
We know that recruiting someone is an expensive and time-consuming business, if it is done properly, so why would we not expect the same care and attention to be put into determining whether someone had a future in the business at all? This country, to our shame, has one of the least regulated approaches to dismissal protection in the OECD, leaving an estimated 9 million workers vulnerable to dismissals without protections. How can someone plan their life, make financial commitments and so forth if they can be sacked at the drop of a hat? We believe that this must change. People deserve greater security and dignity at work, and they deserve to be treated fairly, not just as disposable commodities.
This Bill strikes the right balance, and although much of the detail is to be determined by consultation and regulations—I will come back to that later—it sends an important message that we will not accept the race to the bottom any more and that dignity and security at work start from day one. That is the lodestone of what a Labour Government should be about.
I am delighted that the Bill is on track to become law in a matter of weeks. It is a landmark piece of legislation that will end the race to the bottom and provide the biggest uplift in workers’ rights in a generation. We on the Labour side have long been clear that it will benefit everyone across the country. It will be good for workers and it will be good for businesses.
Passing this Bill is not, of course, the end of the matter. There is so much more that needs to be done outside the Bill, particularly on finally ending the industrial-scale exploitation that is bogus self-employment. We cannot have a Bill that massively increases protections for millions of people at work but fails to address the growing scandal of a deliberate manipulation of the law to deny people the same basic protections. Over the coming years, there will be a range of secondary legislation, codes of practice and guidance issued to implement the Bill’s provisions. I wish the new Minister every success in working through and navigating the 80 or so statutory instruments that will be needed to ensure that the Bill is implemented in full and that we stick to the road map that was published earlier in the summer. I welcome the Secretary of State’s comment that the road map remains in place in full.
However, given the volume and complexity of all this—the details of the consultations, the scope of the regulations, the language in the codes of practice and even the commencement dates—it goes without saying that there are plenty of opportunities for those who do not want to see workers’ rights improved in this country to chip away at the strong baseline that the Bill represents, and of course it is far easier to do that in some stuffy Committee Room away from the main Chamber. I do not think that is the Minister’s intention, but I am not sure that everyone shares our enthusiasm for improving the rights of millions of working people, so we will all be looking at this closely and encouraging the Minister to keep to our manifesto commitments that we all believe so strongly in.
On that point, I know how enthusiastic Labour Members are about the Bill, and how enthusiastic many of the people we represent are about it, so let us see that enthusiasm replicated across the whole of Government. What better way to demonstrate that we are still the party of working people, and what better way to show that democratic politics can still make a difference than by championing the many ways that this Bill will improve people’s lives? From the shop worker on a zero-hours contract who for the first time will have a right to guaranteed hours, to the social care assistant whose voice will finally be heard through a national negotiating body, to the warehouse operative who will be able to have a trade union collectively bargain on their behalf, this Bill can be the antidote to the politics of division and despair. Let us not be timid in our backing of improved employment rights. Let us not apologise for at last restoring balance to the workplace. Let us be confident, and committed to all the good things the Bill can achieve, and let us shout them from the rooftops.
This Bill is Labour at its best. It shows us what can be done when the broadest experiences and the voices of our movement are harnessed together to deliver change. I am proud that I played my part in that, and I will do all I can to ensure that we deliver on the promises we made to the British people to truly make sure that work pays.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders), and to hear his passion for the Bill; I wish him every success. I also welcome the new Secretary of State for Business and Trade to his place. I look forward to opposing him.
The Liberal Democrats support many of the Bill’s aims. We have long called for employment rights to be strengthened in several ways, including by boosting statutory sick pay, strengthening support for whistleblowers and increasing support for carers. There is a lot in the Bill that we support in principle, and that moves the country in the right direction. However, we remain concerned about how many of the measures will be implemented. We must ensure that the legislation strikes the right balance for both employees and business. Some of our worries arose from the extent to which crucial detail has been left to secondary legislation, or will be subject to consultations. That does not facilitate stability and certainty for business or workers, and it precludes long-term planning. That will particularly impact small businesses, start-up businesses and those businesses looking to grow. That is why we are supportive of, for example, the amendment that sets the qualifying period for unfair dismissal claims at six months; that would create certainty for business. Any new measures to support workers must go hand in hand with much-needed reforms to support our small businesses, which provide employment. Those reforms include reform of the broken business rates system, a removal of trade barriers, and proper reform of the apprenticeship levy.
I am in favour of Lords amendment 1, which would change the obligation to offer guaranteed hours to a right to request them. The Liberal Democrats have long stood for giving zero-hours workers security about their working patterns, and we are deeply concerned that too many zero-hours workers struggle with unstable incomes, job insecurity and difficulties in planning for the future. However, we also recognise that many value the flexibility that such arrangements provide. Many young people and those balancing caring responsibilities alongside work value adaptability in their shift patterns. It is therefore important to strike a balance that ensures that workers can have security and flexibility.
Katrina Murray
I spoke to a hospital catering worker in my constituency who was contracted to work 12 hours a week, but she regularly worked 36 hours a week. However, when she took annual leave, she was paid for 12 hours a week. Does the hon. Lady not think that this catering worker deserves the respect of actually being paid for the hours she works, and of having a contract for the hours she works?
Sarah Olney
If the hon. Lady supported Lords amendment 1, the catering worker would have a right to request, and could get the certainty she requires. The amendment would very much offer that right, which she currently does not have, but it would also mean there was no requirement on the employer to maintain records, and the employer would not have the administrative burden of being forced to offer those hours to workers in the industry who did not require such flexibility. That is why we think the amendment strikes the right balance.
We strongly support the principle of enabling workers to obtain fixed-hours contracts, but we have concerns about the implementation method proposed in the Bill. Small businesses have highlighted that having to offer employees fixed-hours contracts on a rolling basis could impose significant administrative burdens. Many small employers lack human resource or legal departments, and the change could be a significant cost for those with limited resources. That would compound other challenges, such as the recent increase in employers’ national insurance contributions and the fallout from the previous Government’s damaging Brexit deal. In the retail and hospitality sector, part-time and entry-level roles are often taken up by young people looking for flexible hours, people with caring responsibilities, and others who may not want to make long-term work commitments. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dunbartonshire (Susan Murray) offered a compelling example of a zero-hours contract giving someone what they required from work. For all those groups, flexibility is key.
The amendment is in line with our long-standing manifesto commitment to give zero-hours and agency workers the right to request fixed-hours contracts—a right that employers could not refuse unreasonably. The measure would maintain a flexibility that benefits both parties, whereas an obligation to offer guaranteed hours imposes a significant burden, which does not benefit either party.
We are clear that employees should be supported to exercise this right—and all employment rights—without fear of any negative consequences in their workplace, and we are pleased that the Government have taken steps to set up a unified Fair Work Agency. We hope that the Government will look into our other proposals—for example, the proposal to give zero-hours workers a 20% higher minimum wage to compensate them for the uncertainty of fluctuating hours.
The amendment strikes a balance between security for workers and flexibility for employers. Much of the contention about the Bill relates to the lack of detail and clarity around key definitions, which makes it hard for businesses and employers to plan. That is why I also wish to speak in favour of Lords amendment 8, which would define a short-notice cancellation as a cancellation with 48 hours’ notice. That provides a workable balance. It gives employers clarity, while ensuring that workers are compensated when shifts are cancelled late.
Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)
Does the hon. Member agree that fair notice may be relative to the industry we are talking about? What is fair notice in, say, the retail sector may be completely different from what is fair notice for someone working on an offshore oil rig.
Sarah Olney
No, I do not think so. Forty-eight hours is a reasonable amount of notice in any sector. That is the kind of notice that enables, for example, parents to rearrange childcare, or other members of the family to rearrange their shifts. The 48 hours is a proper definition of reasonable notice, and 48 hours is 48 hours, whether you work on an oil rig or in a shop. I disagree that it is context-dependent.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
I am passionate about ensuring that single parents can enter the workforce, and a big barrier to that is childcare. When thinking about which amendments the hon. Member will support, has she discussed the matter with any organisations representing single parents? Forty-eight hours does not seem like a lot of time.
Sarah Olney
As someone with a long history of having to arrange childcare at short notice, I am well aware of the limitations that needing to arrange childcare presents, particularly for working women, both those who are single parents and those in a relationship. Forty-eight hours is not ideal, but it is a reasonable compromise, and it is absolutely vital that employers have clarity about what “reasonable notice” looks like in this circumstance.
I wish to speak in favour of Lords amendment 48. Businesses, particularly those in the hospitality sector, that rely on seasonal workers are particularly vulnerable to changes in labour regulations and the knock-on impacts on the cost and availability of labour. The sustainability of farming businesses, for example, depends on being able to get the right people to the right place at the right time, and obstacles to that can have a big impact on ability to generate produce for sale, and therefore on the sustainability of the business. If we allow a different set of regulations to apply to seasonal work, a clear definition of “seasonal work” must be created to prevent employers from avoiding their legitimate responsibilities by claiming seasonal work in inappropriate circumstances. While we do not believe that this legislation should create contrasting employment law requirements for businesses, we continue to defend the principle that businesses should be properly considered when secondary legislation is created, so I urge Members to support the amendment.
Lords amendment 46, tabled by my good friend and Richmond Park predecessor Baroness Kramer, would introduce protections for whistleblowers. It follows her long-standing campaign for support for whistleblowers, and I pay tribute to her commitment to the cause.
Ian Roome
There is no standard requirement for most companies to have a whistleblowing policy. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Bill would be a good opportunity to put in place real protections for whistleblowers who try to highlight crime, danger and malpractice in the workplace?
Sarah Olney
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The current framework for whistleblowing applies only if somebody has lost their job. It does not address the duty on businesses to follow up whistleblowers’ serious concerns about crimes. That urgently needs to be addressed.
Too many whistleblowers who raised serious concerns about matters ranging from fraud to patient safety are ignored by their employers, or are reticent to speak out because of fears of unfair repercussions. The new clause in Lords amendment 46 has received the support of numerous international civil society organisations, including Protect and Spotlight on Corruption. It would be a long-overdue update to our once world-leading whistleblowing legislation, and I urge colleagues from across the House to support the change.
I support Lords amendment 47, which would expand the right to be accompanied to employment hearings to include certified professional companions. Currently, employees may be accompanied only by certified trade union representatives, leaving many workers to navigate proceedings alone. Although trade unions provide valuable support to their members, only 22% of workers are in a trade union, including only 12% of private sector workers, with recent figures at a record low. The current provisions made sense at a time when trade union membership was higher nationally, but those provisions have become largely outdated as trade union membership has fallen and the labour market has modernised. Without the amendment, we consign many employees facing unfair dismissal to navigating the requirements of disciplinary hearings on their own, without any kind of professional or educated support.
Sarah Olney
No, I do not. I think that people should have the freedom not to join a trade union if that is what they wish, not least because their trade union contributions might go to a party that they do not vote for. Many professions these days are better represented not by trade unions that cover a whole range of different employment categories but by professional bodies. As an accountant, I was a member of the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants. Had I been facing a disciplinary in relation to my professional duties, I would have been much better represented by a fellow member of that body than by a trade union.
Katrina Murray
I am a member of the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development. Professional bodies are there to set the standards of the profession. Does the hon. Lady not recognise the conflict of interest that could arise from the professional body representing an employee at a disciplinary hearing when it has to uphold the standards of the profession?
Sarah Olney
I understand the hon. Lady’s point, but a fellow qualified accountant would be better able to advise somebody facing a disciplinary than an official from a general trade union, who would not necessarily understand the points in dispute.
Gareth Snell
The hon. Lady makes good points in some parts of her speech, but not in others. The point of a trade union representative—or any representative who goes with an individual to a disciplinary process—is not to advise on the particulars of the worker’s skillset, but to ensure that processes are followed and the worker’s rights are protected. I fully understand what she says about accountancy, but are there people in her professional organisation who can give her employment rights advice? Disciplinaries relate to employees’ rights, not their professional skillsets.
Sarah Olney
As the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch (Katrina Murray) have said, that has not been a requirement for professional bodies, but if we create the right for suitably qualified professionals to accompany employees, I fully expect that those bodies would go on to develop that capability. It is surely up to an employee to decide whether they want a fellow professional or a trade union official to protect and defend their interests. They should have the opportunity to make that choice for themselves.
The Liberal Democrats also support the retention of the opt-in system for contributions to trade union political funds. We believe in maximising choice and transparency for individuals in relation to the political funds to which they contribute. We therefore oppose measures that would make it an opt-out system.
Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)
I refer to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my support of the trade unions. On the thresholds, does my hon. Friend agree that those who choose to abstain should be counted as “no” votes?
Sarah Olney
I am slightly surprised to be referred to as “hon. Friend”, not least because I am probably going to disagree with the hon. Gentleman. To undertake such massive action, including in the NHS, and on the tube—we saw the level of disruption that that caused the public last week—there needs to be a positive vote in favour of strike action, which is why I back this amendment.
Ian Lavery
I simply mean that if there is a threshold of 50% and it is not met, are those who did not participate in the ballot classed as “no” votes? Is that correct? It is pretty simple.
Sarah Olney
I think the point that the hon. Gentleman is making is that people who did not express a view either way should be counted as voting against. What I am saying is that in order to justify the levels of disruption that strike action has caused recently, it is important that a trade union can demonstrate that it has majority support from its workforce. That is why I support the amendment. We believe that the current threshold for strike action is suitable, and that making it easier to strike risks putting further pressure on public services and damaging the economy, as we saw last week with the disruption across the capital caused by the tube strikes.
Most employers are responsible businesses that want to do the right thing by their staff, and many of them support the aims of the Bill. However, they have significant concerns about the lack of clarity and the proposed implementation process. So much of the detail of the legislation is still undecided and will compound the challenges that small businesses are facing—from the Government’s changes to employers’ national insurance and the reduction in business rates relief, to the absence of any meaningful action to bring down commercial energy prices. We must find a way to support and provide clarity for businesses that are trying to plan ahead. The Liberal Democrats support many aims of the Bill and the spirit of measures that strengthen employment rights, but we will support the Lords amendments that will help to ensure that the legislation strikes the right balance for workers and businesses.
Tristan Osborne (Chatham and Aylesford) (Lab)
I welcome the Government amendments, and thank those who have steered the legislation to this point.
This is a generational upgrade in employment rights, and as a Labour MP, I am very proud to support it. It is a landmark shift in some ways—a declaration that in modern Britain, hard work should be rewarded with decent, stable work, security, dignity and fairness. Having worked in the private and public sectors at different times in my life, I believe that the Bill strikes a fair balance between the workplace rights of the individual and the rights of the employer. That is why I welcome the extensive consultation that the Government have undertaken with the private sector and with trade unions and other organisations. I am a member of USDAW—the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers—and the National Education Union and have proudly represented and spoken for them in my career to date.
I wish to speak about a number of the Opposition Lords amendments and my concerns about them in short order. I have concerns about Lords amendment 1. Zero-hours contracts have allowed people to be trapped by insecure work, low pay and one-sided flexibility. I know from speaking to shop workers in my constituency that they have not been able to plan ahead with their finances because of the unscrupulous nature of some working relationships with employers. That has left families unable to plan their weekly shopping and childcare as well as their futures, especially in respect of securing loans and other financial settlements. It has become a way for employers to manage down by allowing too many people to take very short hours and then not allowing them to gain other forms of employment.
The Government’s measures to ensure zero-hours contracts are controlled—where the individual can request zero-hours contracts but there is an onus on the employer to support guaranteed hours—strike the correct balance. I therefore reject Lords amendment 1 as the Government’s measures strike a fair balance between the employee requesting and the employer giving.
Lords amendments 23, 106 and 120 relate to sensible changes on unfair dismissal. As has been mentioned, under the last Government the unfair dismissal provision was set at 12 months and that was extended to two years under the current Government. This does not take into account the fact that many who are subject to unfair dismissal might have been working for the employer for a significant period and also be subject to paternity leave, parental leave and other types of support. We should be supporting people with secure provision in work, and I believe that six months is a fair period in which most employers would be able to grade that assessment.
I do not accept Lords amendment 48 on seasonal work. It would add a loophole by which employers could exploit workers. The Bill pays due regard to the realities of seasonal work, both at Christmas and in farming and other types of practice, and I would welcome consultation on such provision continuing.
On political funds, I urge colleagues to reject Lords amendments 61 and 72. We must return to a model that has worked for over 70 years where people choose to opt out of political funds, because securing employment rights is one of the endeavours of a trade union. The trade unions were set up to secure rights for employees, and seeking to achieve that is one of their political endeavours.
I have concerns about Lords amendment 62. The Conservatives complain about the 50% threshold but they did not adopt that in their former leadership election, and perhaps it will not be the threshold in their leadership election to come in the next six months. If they adopted their recommended 50% threshold of members, we might not see a replacement. If they cannot use it for their own internal processes, that raises questions about why others should be made to do so. I also encourage the Government to consider online balloting as a next necessary step. We do online balloting for many of our leadership processes and it is a sensible way forward, as well as other forms of engagement by post.
As a former teacher, I do not support Lords amendment 121. Negotiations should be conducted in a fair way and the Bill covers that, preventing one-sided correspondence between teachers and their professional body.
As a former special constable, while I accept Lords amendment 21 in principle in supporting our special constables on the ground, that should not just be for a single group of people but should be considered for others, perhaps including carers and other support workers. I welcome the Government’s review of employees’ right to take time off; that is the most sensible approach.
On balance, I am not surprised that the Conservatives and others do not support the Bill—I and others have written as USDAW MPs. I believe that we should support a balanced approach between employees and employers. I welcome the work the Government and former Ministers have done to that end. The Bill strikes a fair balance between those who work in the private and public sectors and the obligations employers are to offer, which is why I will be supporting the Government tonight.
Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)
I am grateful to have the opportunity to speak to two specific Lords amendments proposed in turn by Lord Burns and Lord Sharpe in the other place. While addressing different clauses, both amendments essentially come down to the same principle: defending fairness, transparency and democratic legitimacy against narrow sectional interests.
On Lords amendment 61, in 2016, after long and at times fraught debate, Parliament reached a carefully constructed settlement on the question of trade union political funds. That settlement was not only fair and balanced but, crucially, was broadly accepted by all sides. The compromise was a simple one: it resulted in new members contributing to a union’s political fund only if that member gave their active, informed consent. In contrast, existing members were left untouched and, importantly, unions were required to remind all members annually of their right to change their decision. This is both a fair and a balanced settlement. It is not a carve-up; it is a genuine compromise. It respected both the collective strength of unions and the personal liberty of individuals.
Yet what do we see now? We see a Government seeking to dismantle that settlement, and the result is a return to an era where consent was assumed and where individuals found themselves supporting causes they did not share simply because the rules made it cumbersome to say otherwise. That is not a positive reform; it is regression. In every walk of life—whether a subscription service, an insurance policy, or a mobile phone contract—the public quite properly expect clarity in respect of the terms they are committing to. Why should those standards of fairness be cast aside when it comes to political funds of unions closely bound to the governing party?
Lords amendment 62 deals with the threshold for industrial action. Strikes have consequences. We have seen that only in the last week, with transport links across London brought to a standstill, commutes drastically prolonged, and the consequential significant disruption to people’s day-to-day lives. As a former doctor who, I should point out, did not go on strike in years gone by, I have seen at first hand the consequences of medics taking industrial action: operations cancelled; out-patient appointments postponed; and the provision of healthcare delayed. When the livelihoods and wellbeing of citizens up and down this country are so significantly impacted, it is neither unreasonable nor undesirable that such action rests upon a clear majority. The 50% threshold is precisely that safeguard. It serves as a clear assurance that industrial action has broad legitimacy and is not just the preserve of a militant minority. Yet this Government seek to sweep away that protection by voting down this very sensible and considered improvement to the legislation.
Both these amendments remind us that democracy depends upon consent, transparency and legitimacy. Those values have been the bedrock of Britain for generations. It would be a poor bargain indeed if they were set aside to placate the financial and political interests of a narrow few.
Louise Haigh (Sheffield Heeley) (Lab)
I rise to speak to new clause 22, which will ban the use of non-disclosure agreements in cases of harassment and discrimination.
I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders) who did remarkable work in pushing this huge Employment Rights Bill through in a relatively short space of time. I am incredibly grateful for their support and hard work. I also place on the record my thanks to the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) who has worked on this issue over many years, and to the countless other campaigners in both Houses who have not stopped until this legislation was to become law.
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
Sadly, we are not here to relitigate this entire Bill, which is so wide in scope and impact, and yet so skimpy in detail, having been cobbled together for a headline under Labour’s “first 100 days” banner. I refer the House to Lords amendment 61, which without doubt will be dashed aside as Labour seeks to salvage something, anything, as a legacy for its deposed red queen, the former Deputy Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), whose Bill this very much remains.
Lords amendment 61 would reinstate the requirement for trade union members to opt in to contribute to the political fund. Incredibly, Labour Members, who bristle at commercial subscriptions that rely on consumer inertia, will likely vote down this sensible and proportionate change. The reasons why demonstrate the wider issue with the Bill. The left’s hive mind aside, the Bill is a love letter to the unions—a thank you for all the support.
Labour has been bought with union gold, with donations totalling almost £40 million since the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) took the helm of his party. It means that the Bill is payback for the unions, all the time masquerading as a fillip for the working class. We know how important that working-class concept is for the Labour party from watching the candidates for the vacant deputy leadership engage in a “prolier than thou” contest, with hairshirt-and-gravel shades of Monty Python’s “Four Yorkshiremen” sketch thrown in.
In reality, the Bill has little to do with actual working-class people, and the Labour party has no monopoly on them in their ranks. Instead, the Bill does rather more for what is sometimes called the “boutique left”—the trade union apparatchiks and their ilk. The Bill only makes sense if we see it through the skewed prism of every employer being a robber baron and every union organiser a saint. It does nothing for all those who will struggle to find a job in the first place, as its granting of day one rights will give companies—already facing big bills thanks to employer national insurance contribution rises—pause for thought. Other amendments fight a rearguard action with a sensible six-month qualification period. The Bill means that unions are going to party like it is 1979—but they should have a care. In ’79, restive unions triggered strike after strike, sounding the death knell for both their own unfettered power and for the Labour Government.
Lords amendment 62 addresses the threshold for strike action, meaning that 50% of eligible members would have to vote for action. Are the unions not better being sure of the complete backing of their members before lighting the picket-line braziers? Again, the unions should learn the lessons of the past. Next year marks a century since the general strike. Although often talked of in reverential tones by the left, the strike left the unions’ proud red banners in the dirt and the miners it was meant to support back in the underground galleries with worse pay conditions. Why? Because the strike alienated the public. Last week, the chat from the man forced on to the Clapham omnibus when London was crippled by transport strikes was less, “Up the workers!” than, “Right up the workers,” with their £65,000 base salaries and demands for a still shorter working week.
Business cannot afford the Bill unamended, as it will take an estimated £5 billion out at a time of belt tightening. The public cannot afford the Bill unamended, as it will facilitate more frequent and more damaging strikes, and it will make jobs harder to come by. Labour itself cannot afford the Bill unamended. Labour Members may think that, with scandal and crisis all around, they cannot sink any lower in the popularity stakes. Oh, they can, and the Bill is the ticking timebomb that could take them to their nadir faster than they imagine.
Michael Wheeler (Worsley and Eccles) (Lab)
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, and to my proud membership of the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers and the GMB. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders), who has just popped out for some well-earned tea, for his hard work steering the Bill through the House. I welcome the Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade, my equally hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Kate Dearden), to her place; we both know that she has big shoes to fill.
Today, we finally arrive at the concluding stages of this historic Bill’s long journey through Parliament. It is a moment that has been many years in the making. For well over a decade, working people have been calling for the protections that this landmark piece of legislation will introduce. It is our duty to deliver them, and to deliver them in full. Last year, people voted for change. They are crying out for change, and this Bill delivers real, meaningful and positive change. It is therefore immensely frustrating, although sadly not surprising, to see the old coalition band get back together in the other place, to have one final go at obstructing this Bill through changes, like Lords amendment 1, which will be the focus of my remarks.
One of the defining aims of the Bill is to end exploitative short and zero-hours contracts. The right to a guaranteed-hours contract is at the heart of the new deal for working people because, as I said on Report, the rise of one-sided flexibility has been one of the most damaging labour market developments of the past 14 years. Such contracts leave workers—often the lowest paid—vulnerable to sudden changes in income, with weekly working hours varying unpredictably. It is an unstable, precarious life that many are forced into, and it is long past time that this exploitative practice was brought to an end.
Lords amendment 1, a throwback team effort from the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives, seeks to replace the Bill’s right to a guaranteed-hours contract with a far weaker “right to request”. At just five words long, the amendment may seem minor, but it is anything but. As working people know from bitter experience, a right to request often means no right at all. Unfortunately, it is clear from the comments made by the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) that either Liberal Democrats do not understand or they are wilfully misrepresenting the amendment.
Lords amendment 1 creates a loophole, enabling unscrupulous employers to use pressure or coercion to deter employees from making requests. It also puts that crucial protection out of reach of those who simply are not aware of their rights in the first place. Far from delivering a new right, it reopens the door to workplace conflict, insecurity and exploitation, something of which I am sure the Liberal Democrats would not be proud. It is completely at odds with the spirit and purpose of the provision, and it must be rejected.
We must deliver greater security, stability and dignity to people in their working lives. The right to a guaranteed-hours contract, and the increased financial security that brings with it, is central to achieving that. It will be transformative for living standards, productivity and the economy. I urge colleagues from across the House not to undermine this essential provision and to reject Lords amendment 1. Working people are counting on all of us to do the right thing by them.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
I am pleased to speak in favour of the Government amendment in lieu of Lords amendment 21, which commits the Government to reviewing whether to add special constables to the list of roles that entitle an employee to request unpaid time off work from their employer under the Employment Rights Act 1996.
Special constables are volunteers who give their time freely, at no cost to the taxpayer, to support our police forces and keep our communities safe. They hold the same powers as regular constables: the power to arrest, to search and to detain. They carry the same responsibilities, face the same dangers and accept the same risks. Yet, unlike their regular colleagues, they are unpaid.
The special constabulary is one of the most remarkable institutions of British policing, with its history stretching back almost two centuries. The Special Constables Act 1831 allowed justices of the peace to conscript volunteers to help restore order during riots and unrest. The specials were called upon again during the first world war, when regular officers enlisted to fight. Their success led to the Special Constables Act 1923, which ensured their permanent place in policing.
From their inception, specials were designed to be a national contingency force: citizens stepping forward in times of crisis to strengthen the police service when needed most. That role is no less relevant today. The Government recently published a resilience plan, addressing the higher level of threat we face from Russia, global instability and multiple risks here at home. In such a context, specials are not a relic of the past, but a vital part of our security and civil defence framework, and a reserve force in all but name.
Andy McDonald
I proudly refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, which relates to support from trades unions. I welcome the Secretary of State and the new Employment Rights Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Kate Dearden), to their places. I especially pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax for her support and hard work in the taskforce, when I was shadow Secretary of State for Employment Rights and Protections, that led to the production of the new deal for working people. We are in good hands as she carries on the excellent work. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders) for his excellent stewardship in securing the Employment Rights Bill and taking it thus far.
I welcome the return of the Employment Rights Bill and the opportunity to address the urgent priorities of the people of this country, which are improving employment rights for better security at work and, ultimately, better pay from work. The cost of living crisis remains a burning issue, and giving people the tools at work to tackle in-work poverty is crucial. This Bill starts the process of delivering much-needed dignity and security for working people. It will not have escaped the attention of colleagues that Members of the party now purporting to speak for working people are nowhere to be seen in this debate. We know whose side the Reform party is on, and it is not working people.
These Lords amendments demonstrate the problems before us. I urge the House to reject the Opposition’s amendments, which, if passed, would weaken the rights and protections that this Bill seeks to deliver.
On Lords amendment 1, which would water down the right to guaranteed hours, let us be clear: moving from a duty on employers to proactively offer secure contracts to a model in which workers must request them would completely undermine the purpose of the Bill. Vulnerable workers, often young people on their very first job, should not be left in the position of having to plead with their employer for basic security. We have heard from Unite members such as Izzy, a pub worker who felt unable to raise issues for fear that her hours would be cut, and Caren, a restaurant worker who was left with 40 hours one week and barely any the next, with her mental health paying the price. This House cannot endorse a model that forces workers into the role of Oliver Twist, asking, “Please, Sir, may I have some more?” The duty must rest firmly with employers.
Lords amendments 7 and 8 would reduce access to short-notice cancellation payments. Again, the effect is to let employers off the hook. A 48-hour limit is wholly inadequate. Imagine a parent who is told late on a Friday night that their Monday shift has been cancelled; there is no compensation, but there is still childcare to pay for.
Mr Joshua Reynolds
The hon. Gentleman says that a 48-hour time period is unacceptable, yet the Bill does not specify what time period would be acceptable. Does he have an idea in mind of what that number would be? How many businesses has he spoken to about that?
Andy McDonald
The amendment speaks to those sorts of figures. I am making the point that that sort of notice is simply not acceptable.
People cannot live structured lives and be able to plan for their futures under such a dreadful regime, and I reject it wholeheartedly. That is not reasonable notice; it is a transfer of cost and stress on to the worker. USDAW’s evidence shows that, in many sectors, workers already get four weeks’ notice of shifts. The risk here is that by lowering the standard, we drag conditions down across the board. That is why the Government have rightly committed to setting notice periods through consultation, not through arbitrary amendment.
Andy McDonald
We want to get through this consultation as quickly as possible and to get this Bill on the statute book so that the position is clear, but I take the hon. Gentleman’s point. We need to move on these issues as a matter of urgency, and he is right to point that out.
Lords amendments 23 and 106 to 120 propose to reduce the qualifying period for unfair dismissal from two years to six months. We cannot support that halfway measure. Our manifesto is clear: Labour will deliver day one rights. Accepting these amendments risks entrenching insecurity and delaying meaningful reform. Workers should not have to serve a probationary period of six months or two years before being protected from arbitrary dismissal. We will fully consult on probationary arrangements to get them right, but we will not compromise on our principle of security from day one.
I must urge the rejection of Lords amendment 62, which seeks to retain the 50% turnout threshold for industrial action ballots. The threshold was a deliberate barrier imposed by the Trade Union Act 2016. No other democratic process in this country faces such a hurdle—not parliamentary votes or local elections. This House was elected without such restrictions. Trade unions must not be uniquely singled out. Removing the threshold restores fairness, strengthens industrial relations and honours our commitment to repeal draconian Conservative legislation.
Finally, Lords amendment 121 would permit academies to deviate from pay and conditions agreed through the school support staff negotiating body, which risks entrenching inequality. It could mean teaching assistants in the same trust being on wildly different terms, creating a postcode lottery in education and exposing staff to equal pay disputes. Instead of undermining sectoral bargaining, we should be expanding it, ensuring fair, consistent and collectively agreed standards across the board. Let us be frank: after years of pay erosion, school support staff truly need a pay restoration deal that values the vital work they do.
In every case, the Lords amendments before us risk weakening rights, not strengthening them. Our task is to make work pay, end one-sided flexibility and ensure fairness and dignity for every worker. If this legislation does not go far enough to meet union demands for sectoral bargaining and a single worker status, Members of this House will rightly call for a second employment Bill this autumn. We cannot sustain this anathema of fragile, insecure work for so many millions of people in this country; they need that security to plan their futures, and they need to have the protections that those in employment enjoy. In addition, were they to be brought into that architecture, the Treasury would benefit to the tune of more than £10 billion per annum, opposite the uncollected tax and national insurance contributions.
Working people have waited long enough. It is time for us to deliver the stronger rights and protections that they truly deserve.
Damian Hinds
I intend to speak mainly to the provisions dealing with guaranteed hours, but I begin with a word of thanks to the Government for what they have announced about special constables. It is not quite as good as adopting the amendment, but I welcome the review. I also commend my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox) for the work he has done. I hope the review will report quickly, and I hope for a growth in the number of special constables, not only in neighbourhood policing, which my hon. Friend rightly mentioned, but among people working in the tech sector. We need cyber-specials to tackle the scourge of cyber-crime and fraud, which is now the single largest category of crime, and is, sadly, growing once again.
Damian Hinds
I am very grateful to the Secretary of State for suggesting that he will try.
I turn to the provisions dealing with guaranteed hours and zero-hours contracts. I understand why it is attractive to the Government and the Labour party to seek to restrict the availability of contracts that do not have a guaranteed number of hours. From listening to Labour colleagues, it seems almost as if “exploitative zero-hours contracts” is one word. It is as if those words must always go together. We all want to end exploitation—that is why, in 2015, the then Government passed legislation to stop employers imposing exclusivity. We said, “If you are not going to guarantee your employee a minimum number of hours, it is not all right to say that they must not work for somebody else.” But not all zero-hours contracts are necessarily exploitative.
One of the biggest users of zero-hours contracts in our country is none other than the national health service, through its use of bank staff. I notice that the Liberal Democrats announced a new policy today, which would require extra pay for people on zero-hours contracts; I do not know whether they have yet costed that policy. By the way, for many of the people working as bank staff in the NHS, that is not their primary job but a second job. This allows a hospital or other setting to respond to spikes in demand. For many people with a zero-hours contract job, it is their second job, not their primary source of income. Zero-hours contract jobs are also very important to people coming back into work, as the hon. Member for Mid Dunbartonshire (Susan Murray) said powerfully in an intervention.
Many people on zero-hours contracts are students. Particularly in hospitality, there is a pattern of work whereby an employee lives in two places: at home, and at their term-time address. They can stay on the books of their employer at home—it might be a local pub—while they are away studying during term time. It could be the other way around: they could have a job in their university town, and stay on the books when they come home. They can dial up or dial down their hours; for example, many students do not want to work a lot of hours, or any hours, during exam time. Contrary to what we might expect, and contrary to the all-one-word conception of “exploitative zero-hours contracts”, some people actually prefer a zero-hours contract.
Damian Hinds
And some people do not, as the hon. Gentleman quite rightly says.
When I was working at the Department for Work and Pensions, the issue of zero-hours contracts became a totemic issue under the leadership of the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), the immediate predecessor of the current leader of the Labour party. There was this idea that there had been a huge increase in the number of people in the country on a zero-hours contract. We discovered that less than 3% of people had a zero-hours contract as their primary source of income, and the average number of hours those people worked was not zero or close to zero, but 25. Even more unexpectedly—this was the bit that really got people—the average job satisfaction of people on a zero-hours contract was higher than it was for the rest of the workforce.
I think we understand why the Labour Government wish to legislate in this way. It is something for Labour MPs to bring home. When so much else in their manifesto is falling apart before our eyes, they can say, “At least we’ve killed off this modern scourge, this huge growth in zero-hours contracts.” As I say, the number of those contracts is not nearly as big as most people think. If you think about it, we have always had zero-hours contracts in all sorts of forms, whether it be piecework, commission-only sales, agency catalogue work or casual labour. In fact, it is possible that today, there are fewer people on a zero-hours contract than ever before in the history of the labour market. Many colleagues might reflect on their first job. Mine was washing dishes in a restaurant. We did not have the phrase at that time, but it certainly would have been a zero-hours contract, apart from the fact that there was no contract at all.
If the Government wish to reform this area, as they may, I ask them to consider the situation in sectors with great seasonality, including hospitality, tourism and retail, and to please look again at the concept of a 12-week reference period, which does not reflect the reality of seasonality. I know that this will be introduced through regulations, not the primary legislation, and I welcome what the Secretary of State said; I think he indicated that the Government were open to looking at a more sensible length of time. The Government could also do things differentially by sector; there could be one period for employers in general, and another for sectors or sub-sectors that have particularly strong patterns of seasonality.
I also ask the Government to reconsider the requirement to not just offer guaranteed hours once, but keep on doing it. That is introducing unnecessary bureaucracy. If the Government want to make changes in this area, I encourage them to at least ensure that once an employer has made the offer once, the right can become an opt-in right.
The Government think that these provisions are something for Back-Bench Labour MPs to take home, but I ask Labour colleagues whether they really want to take them home. Do they want to take home higher unemployment, and particularly youth unemployment? Do they want to take home fewer opportunities for people returning to the workplace after many years away? Do they want to take home fewer opportunities for ex-offenders—those furthest from the labour market? Do they want to take home—because this will come as well, as night follows day—a further trend away from permanent employment and towards fixed-term temporary employment? Do they want to take home a shift from waged or salaried work to more self-employment? Is that really what Labour wants to deliver?
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
I start by saying a massive thank you to the new ministerial team and the new Secretary of State, who I welcome to his role, for keeping in clauses 14 to 18 of the Bill, as well as for their warm words at the Dispatch Box. It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds), but we heard all those arguments before from Conservative Members when they opposed the minimum wage, which did none of the things they warned about.
I turn to my declaration of interests. It is a shame that the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith), is not in his place, because he asked all Labour Members to declare our trade union affiliations. I will proudly do so—they are in my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests—but my interest in this Bill does not stop there. I have worked a zero-hours contract, and I would have benefited from this Bill. I have been a care worker who would have benefited from the collective bargaining that this Bill will introduce, and the Bill would also have meant that I was paid for time spent travelling between the jobs I had to travel to. I am proud to stand by my declaration of interests. It is a real shame that the shadow Secretary of State did not mention that he used to be a non-executive director for Just Eat, a company that has faced a number of claims for giving employees bogus self-employed status. Perhaps that would have been of interest to everybody in the Chamber.
The Employment Rights Bill has been called lots of things by lots of critics, but to me, it is about ensuring that all people can work safely, with respect and dignity, and have security in their work. For the past 15 years, we have seen people at the sharp end. We have heard stories of businesses struggling, and nobody wants that, but we have not heard the stories of what the previous Government subjected working people to. They called it a living wage, when actually it was a minimum wage, which ensured that people were stuck in in-work poverty. A woman is 34% more likely to be stuck in a zero-hours contract than a man. If we are talking about black and Asian minority people, that figure reaches 103%. Disabled workers are 49% more likely to be stuck on such a contract. This Bill is about protecting all workers, not just some.
On the right to sick pay, no one chooses to be sick. There are 1.3 million people without the right to any sick pay whatever. That is the difference that this Bill will make, and the difference that a Labour Government will make to working people’s rights. As has been mentioned, where are the grifters who sit on the Opposition Benches? They pretend that they care about the ordinary working man—not often mentioning women; often they talk only about the working man—but where are they? They probably have their hand out for some more of Elon Musk’s bitcoin, shall we say.
I will talk about clauses that touch on our work on the Women and Equalities Committee. The parental leave review, although not specifically in this Bill, will impact on so many workers. It is a pleasure to hear that being talked about under a Labour Government. We know that parental leave is also a problem for self-employed people. We have heard a lot about the impact of bogus self-employment and rogue bosses, but we have not heard enough about the protections for self-employed people. In the course of our Committee’s parental leave review, we heard that 31% of self-employed people do not take a single day off after their child is born. That is a shocking statistic. It is damaging not just for our economy, but for individuals and families.
I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Heeley (Louise Haigh) and all the campaigners for their work on misogyny in music and on banning non-disclosure agreements following sexual harassment and bullying. We heard loud and clear how many people in the music industry are self-employed, and many have been subjected to NDAs. That goes unreported and is unknown. The measure before us will make such a difference for so many people in many sectors, and it is so important that we get it through. The Conservatives and the Lib Dems talk about bits of the Bill that they do not like, and they list things that will be problems, but I ask them to think of the people we are trying to protect, because there will be a real impact.
Lords amendments 14 to 18 concern an issue that has a special place in my heart, and the hearts of many people, both in this Chamber and outside it. I am pleased that in spring the Government accepted the principle of two weeks of bereavement leave for parents who lose a pregnancy before 24 weeks. There is no sliding scale on pain for bereavement and loss, particularly for expecting parents. As a result of this change, grieving parents will no longer need to push through their pain to carry on working. Women who experience baby loss will not need to use sick leave, which implies that their body had something wrong with it. Arguments against the measure were founded on, “Well, you can always just take sick leave,” but a person who has lost a child blames themselves. It is natural instinct. Your first reaction is, “Did I do something wrong? Could I have done something differently? Should I have not eaten that? Should I have not done this? Should I have not jumped? Should I not have gone to an exercise class?” You think of all the things that you could have done to prevent it. For someone to go to their employer and say, “I need to take sick leave”, as if there is something wrong with them, is fundamentally different from how society sees pregnancy loss and miscarriage now, and I am grateful for that.
Chris Law
I thank the hon. Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen) for her brave and personal testimony, and for sharing the testimonies of many others on the importance of bereavement leave.
Let me begin by welcoming the news that the bus manufacturer Alexander Dennis will keep its sites in Scotland open after the announcement by the First Minister, John Swinney, that the Scottish Government have committed £4 million to a furlough scheme while the company obtains new orders over the next six months. I am sure the whole House will welcome the action taken by the SNP Government in giving domestic manufacturing businesses the opportunity to succeed and protecting skilled manufacturing jobs.
From the outset of this Bill, we in the SNP have been clear in our support for legislation that will strengthen the rights of workers, having long campaigned for many of its provisions. There are progressive attempts to guarantee working hours and protections against unfair dismissal, and the Bill begins to reverse some of the most damaging and insulting anti-union legislation of the previous Government. None the less, throughout its passage in the House of Commons we have called on the Government to be bolder and to use this opportunity to deliver transformational change for workers. We proposed amendments to be more robust on fire and rehire, to improve statutory sick pay and to strengthen protections for migrant workers in accessing their rights, all of which were sadly rejected by the Government. Disappointingly, none of those issues has returned to this House in the amendments agreed to by the House of Lords. Instead, we see a series of amendments that seek to weaken the Bill and weaken the rights of employees by watering down provisions on protections against unfair dismissal, the right to guaranteed hours, and the capabilities of trade unions. Let me be crystal clear: the SNP will not accept proposals that seek to diminish workers’ rights.
One of the most important elements of the Bill is the provision ensuring that workers have rights from day one, a significant change from the current two years. Workers should not have to wait to be protected from unfair dismissal. Unfair dismissal is unfair no matter what time limit is imposed, so there should be none. The Lords amendments would still allow for employees to be dismissed without the right to claim unfair dismissal for the first six months of their employment. Failing to reject this amendment today would fundamentally undermine the principles and objects of the Bill.
The provisions on sexual harassment are also significant, particularly those that void agreements preventing workers from making allegations of harassment or discrimination, and void provisions preventing workers from speaking out about their employer’s response to the relevant harassment or discrimination. We have heard some eloquent speeches today about the very reasons why that can never continue. Astonishingly, the Lords are attempting to except parliamentary staff from the protection from non-disclosure agreements. I have not heard that mentioned today, but it is a disgusting attempt by the House of Lords to protect itself from allegations of sexual harassment and to silence those who are victims of sexual harassment in Parliament. What is it about that unelected Chamber, which brazenly seeks to use its power to protect and entrench its own privileges time and time again? This is just another ludicrous example of why the House of Lords needs to be abolished: it is utterly shameless.
It has long been recognised that insecure work is one of the biggest problems facing our society. I have been listening carefully to what has been said about zero-hours contracts, and I want to register a few facts. Contrary to what was said earlier, in the past decade there has been an increase in the number of zero-hours contract workers—not a small increase, but a 65% increase. More than a million workers are on zero-hours contracts, including over 100,000 in Scotland, and many more are on very short-hours contracts. Rather than providing flexibility, zero-hours contracts offer little or no control or ability to forward-plan. Let me give an example. A recent report from the Work Foundation noted that when Wetherspoons introduced an option for guaranteed hours—guess what?—99% of its workers opted for guaranteed-hours contracts, with only 1% choosing zero-hours contracts.
The Bill seeks to require employers to make an offer of guaranteed hours to a qualifying worker after the end of every reference period, but once again the Lords have attempted to weaken that by taking the onus away from employers and putting it on employees, requiring them to request guaranteed hours. It is important for the Government, as well as rejecting this amendment, to provide clarity on the duration of the reference period and to define what constitutes a “low” number of guaranteed hours.
Similarly, the Government seek to reject Lords amendment 8, which defines “short notice” for the purpose of an employer cancelling a shift as 48 hours, with Ministers in the Lords suggesting that when the regulations are made, “short notice” will be defined as a period greater than 48 hours. That is fine, but, as I have pointed out a number of times today, it is cold comfort for those who are currently on zero-hours contracts, who will have to wait until 2027 at the earliest to find out what comes back from the Government’s consultation.
One of the biggest problems with the Bill is that so much of it will not be clarified until further down the line, through secondary legislation and regulations, which means that much of it is still uncertain, much of it will avoid scrutiny, and much of it will be easy for future Governments to reverse. Indeed, the Opposition are on the record as having made that last point today.
Of course, voters in Scotland know that devolution of employment law is a far better way to protect workers’ rights in Scotland from a future UK Government who might remove those protections. Fair work practices are already being delivered by the SNP Scottish Government, such as supporting collective bargaining, achieving real living wage employer status, and closing the gender pay gap faster than other parts of the UK. Workers in Scotland should never again have to see their employment rights eroded by any Tory-led Government, and we in the SNP will continue to campaign—as Scottish Labour was previously committed to doing—to ensure that employment law is devolved to Scotland or, better still, that Scotland gains independence from consecutive Westminster Governments who seek to erode Scottish workers’ rights.
Jo White (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, and my proud membership of the GMB and Community unions.
In Bassetlaw, where the average hourly rate is £14.16 per hour for women and £14.69 for men—over £5 per hour less than the national average and not much higher than the national living wage—levels of pay and working conditions are issues that really matter to my constituents. My constituents are not afraid of hard work, but they want to go out each day in the knowledge that they have rights under the law that will protect them from unfair dismissal and guarantee that they can bring home a good wage and put a meal on the table.
The Employment Rights Bill has now ping-ponged its way back to this place, and my constituents cannot wait for the fairness and rights that it will bring. This is their chance to level the playing field. The Bill is not a handout; it is a foundation for fair treatment at work. It ensures that when people go to work they are treated with dignity and respect. It is about strengthening rights, about no more hire and refire, about no more exploitative zero-hours contracts, and about job security from day one. It gives workers the power to have guaranteed hours of work, and to receive compensation for cancelled shifts. It gives them the power to demand safer workplaces where no one has to choose between their pay cheque and their health. It gives them the power to stand up against unfair firing and discrimination. This is not just about the law; it is about restoring a sense of justice in the workplace.
The other House has attempted to water down those rights, and Reform has opposed the Bill all the way through Parliament. While the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) keeps telling us that he “doesn’t know” when he is pushed on the difficult questions, I have no doubt that he and his colleagues will be making their way through the “vote against workers’ rights” Lobbies later this evening. Reform has aligned itself with the powerful interests—the corporate lobbyists and the chief executives—who are fighting the Bill, telling us that it is bad for business and that it will hurt the economy. It is no friend of working people.
As local people often tell me, good business is based on strong partnership, whereby employers and the workforce strive to meet the daily challenges in the workplace and the ups and downs of the economy. This legislation will work to strengthen those alliances. The Bill is aligned with this Government’s ambitious industrial strategy and commitment to rebuild our economy, and I am focused on getting new jobs, and skills and training, into Bassetlaw.
Laurence Turner
I am grateful for being able to contribute to this debate. It is a privilege to follow so many powerful speeches, and the speech delivered by my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen) was the most powerful I have heard in this place. Her words rose to the moment; mine are inadequate by comparison. I can only thank her for speaking so powerfully about an issue that affects so many of us.
I welcome the new Secretary of State to his place, and thank him for the way in which he opened this debate.
At the outset, I draw the House’s attention to my background as an officer of the GMB union and my current unpaid role as chair of the GMB parliamentary group. In that capacity, I thank the hon. Member for Dundee Central (Chris Law), as he leaves the Chamber, for what he said about Members’ staff in this place. GMB is the union that represents the majority of people who work in support of us as Members of this House. I am sad to say that they are perhaps uniquely vulnerable to some of the abusive practices that have shamed our democracy for too long, and I am at a loss to understand how the relevant Lords amendments were ever brought forward from the other place.
I wish to speak specifically against Lords amendments 121, 11 and 1, and in support of the Government amendments that seek to strike them out. Before doing so, I want to say a few words about my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders), who is not in his place at the moment. As a former shadow Minister and latterly as the sponsoring Minister for this Bill, he unfailingly and characteristically brought graft, industry and good humour to the brief. This will be a weaker and lesser Bill without him, and those of us who support the Bill and its principles owe him a debt of thanks. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Kate Dearden), who brings a real depth of knowledge and understanding to the role of Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade, is now guarding the Bill’s passage to Royal Assent. I know that she will be both pro-worker and pro-business in her approach.
I believe that Lords amendment 121 contains significant drafting weaknesses and would fundamentally alter the nature of the proposed and restored school support staff negotiating body. First, the amendment states that employers may introduce new terms and conditions of employment that
“meet or exceed any minimum standards set by the SSSNB.”
In legal terms, however, the SSSNB will not set or determine those standards; it is a statutory forum for negotiation. The actual conditions of employment will be set through regulations drafted by the Secretary of State and approved by Parliament.
Secondly, the actual parameters of a future pay and grading structure will be negotiated by the relevant parties: the representatives of employers, and the representatives of employees. That was the spirit of the original 2008 Act and the actual operation of the SSSNB in its original incarnation. Given my experience as a former trade union officer representing school support staff, I know the contractual issues that need to be addressed are so complicated that they cannot be satisfactorily resolved on the Floor of the House. That complexity is a result of 14 years of drift, dither and political disinterest in the 800,000 support staff workers in England who keep our schools going, and it is a damning indictment of the decision to cancel the original SSSNB.
Finally, Lords amendment 121 risks creating confusion at a local level. The amendment states that employers must not be restricted from introducing “improved terms and conditions”, but changes to contracts are not merely introduced; they are consulted on and agreed, either individually or collectively, under existing statutes. The effect of the somewhat loose wording in the amendment may be to encourage local attempts to make unilateral variations to contracts and terms and conditions. Members who support this amendment might say that only improvements could be made under it, but both “improvement” and “detriment” are subjective terms. They are in the eye of the beholder, and I believe that if the amendment were to be carried through, the actual effect may be to increase the number of court cases concerning school support staff.
I urge the Opposition not to push a point, and to reconsider their wider opposition to the school support staff negotiating body. School support staff undertake essential roles, and they deserve the same professional standards and professional respect that is afforded to teachers. That is what the restoration of the school support staff negotiating body will achieve.
We have debated the official Opposition’s amendments many times at various stages, but I want to comment on some of the Lords amendments that stand in the names of Liberal Democrat peers, either in whole or in part. When I entered this Chamber at the start of the debate, I did not presume that those amendments necessarily enjoyed the support of the Liberal Democrat Front Benchers in the Commons, but I am afraid that impression was dispelled by the contribution from the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney).
I am at a loss to understand how the radical change in approach has come about among the Liberal Democrats in this House between Committee stage, Report, Third Reading and the debate that we are holding today. In fact, listening to the hon. Lady, I felt an uncomfortable sense of déjà vu: it was like watching the Rose Garden press conference all over again. After all, her Front-Bench colleagues—the hon. Members for Chippenham (Sarah Gibson) and for Torbay (Steve Darling)—were at all times appropriately critical in Committee, but they were essentially supportive of the principle of enhancing workers’ rights. Lords amendment 11, which was originally a Conservative amendment in the Commons but now stands in the name of a Liberal Democrat peer, was not supported by the Liberal Democrats in Committee.
Lords amendment 1, which stands in the names of both Liberal Democrat and Conservative peers, seeks to amend clause 1. However, the Liberal Democrats supported that clause in Committee and only voiced concern, which was reasonable, that timely guidance to employers must be issued to accompany it; indeed, they voted with Labour Members when it was put to a vote in Committee. I fear that this amendment, too, could have serious unintended consequences.
The clause that it seeks to amend puts a duty on employers to offer regular-hours contracts to “workers”—that is the language used in the legislation as it stands at the moment—but the amendment seeks to convert that duty into a right to request by employees. “Employees” is, of course, a more restrictive category than “workers”; indeed, clause 148 of the Bill as drafted makes it clear that for the purpose of the interpretation of this Bill, “workers” and “employees” mean two different things. Many of the people who are classed only as “workers” are precisely those who may benefit the most from these protections. Some 5 million people who are nominally casual workers in sectors such as social care, construction, hospitality, security and retail could be excluded from these protections if the amendment, which stands in the names of Conservative and Liberal Democrat peers, were to be carried. I hope it is not the intention of those on the Conservative Benches to exclude those 5 million people. At the start of this debate, I could not believe that that was the intention of the Liberal Democrats, but now I am not so sure.
Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)
The Women and Equalities Committee heard compelling evidence earlier this year about misogyny in the music industry. That is exactly one of the areas where people who are classed as “workers” need protection, so I thank my hon. Friend for raising this issue.
Laurence Turner
I thank my hon. Friend for raising a very powerful and relevant point. She is absolutely right that those are the groups of workers who would enjoy greater protection as a result of this legislation being carried.
I want to respond to a couple of points that have been made in this debate. It was a shame that the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds), who is not currently in his place, did not have the self-confidence in his arguments to take interventions on his points. He referred repeatedly to the validity of estimates of the number of workers employed on zero-hours contracts, but there are good reasons for not having confidence in these estimates. After all, they are derived from the Office for National Statistics labour force survey, which has had well-advertised and well-understood problems with response rates that have wider implications for both the current Government and the previous Government. It is well known that the number of people who identify as being on a zero-hours contract corresponds to changes in the wording of that particular question. In addition, the labour force survey has well-understood limitations when it comes to reaching people who are employed in what might be called the most marginalised parts of the economy. I therefore urge Conservative Members not to have too much confidence in those estimates, but to look instead at the surveys of workers undertaken by many organisations, such as the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development and trade unions.
It was a shame to hear during the debate the number of references to trade union political funds only in the context of party funding. Of course, the great majority of trade union political funds are operated by trade unions that are not affiliated to any political party. Furthermore, the political funds even of Labour-affiliated unions in practice often support meaningful and consequential campaigns that are supported by Members across the House. One example to which I would draw Members’ attention is the Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Act 2018—sometimes called the protect the protectors legislation—which began as a result of trade union campaigning that was not party political in its nature, and that legislation has since been broadened. I pay tribute to USDAW’s “Freedom From Fear” campaign and the work that has been done to extend the same protections to retail workers. These are exactly the sort of valuable campaigns that, sadly, Members from both the official Opposition and the Liberal Democrats are looking to restrict.
Finally on points raised, I had not intended at the start of the debate to talk about heritage railways. Indeed, it must be said that during those long years in opposition, when we were looking closely as trade union officials at the potential future issues that would be covered by trade union legislation, I think it is fair to say that that issue never once came up, but perhaps we were guilty of tunnel vision. [Interruption.] Sorry, I will not do that again. Throughout all the debates on this matter in the other place and here, it has been discussed purely in theoretical terms. The contention has been that the 1920 Act has had a chilling effect on the of operation heritage railways across the country. I do not think, but I would be glad to be corrected, that any actual examples have been brought forward of either court cases being taken or legal advice being received from those organisations, but it certainly feels like an issue that the Transport Committee may wish to consider.
I have tried to limit my comments only to the details of the Lords amendments, but if I may, I will make two general comments. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough said, the Labour manifesto committed to
“implementing ‘Labour’s Plan to Make Work Pay…’ in full…and introducing basic rights from day one to parental leave, sick pay, and protection from unfair dismissal.”
Yet in front of us are Lords amendments that would either obviate many of those commitments or reduce their potency to homeopathic levels. As he also rightly said, there can be no question of nodding through amendments that contradict the clear mandate we first received a year ago, and which commands broad support among voters of all parties.
Sam Rushworth
I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests—like most Labour Members, I am proud to be supported by trade unions. Others have mentioned the absence of Reform Members from this debate, and of course we know why they are not here: they do not support the measures in the Employment Rights Bill, but they do not have the guts to say that to their voters.
I am here to speak on behalf of my constituents, particularly those who feel insecure at work. They are the people who do not have assets and safety nets, who are not mobile and confident, who live pay day to pay day, and who feel that they must take whatever pay and conditions they are offered because they are terrified of the alternative. It is 12 years since this party announced a commitment to end exploitative zero-hours contracts as a means of controlling workers and avoiding employment obligations.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
I am a former teaching assistant, and many teaching assistants were working under a form of zero-hours contracts. Does my hon. Friend agree that this Bill, as well as bringing back the negotiating body for teaching assistants and support staff at school, will greatly help them by taking away the zero-hours contracts under which they previously suffered?
Sam Rushworth
The Bill absolutely will do so.
I remember speaking to a young couple when I was canvassing 12 years ago. The young woman had just had a baby, but because she was on a zero-hours contract, she was unable to get the maternity rights to which she was otherwise entitled. Her young partner, who likewise was on a zero-hours contract, talked about his pay and conditions at work, and after asking him why he did not challenge his employer, I understood that so many young people do not feel able to do so because they feel so insecure and sometimes just so grateful to be in a job. That is why I am speaking against Lords amendment 1.
It is absolutely right that the onus be placed on the employer to ensure that people are given regular contracts, and that we are not asking people who are often the most vulnerable and insecure workers to go to their employer and start asserting and demanding their rights. I have met many constituents over the past year or so, and I have learnt about the sheer vulnerability that, sadly, many working people feel, such as a tenant who tells me that they are frightened of demanding rights from their landlord because they fear they will be evicted. Of course, Reform also voted against our reforms banning no-fault evictions.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a very powerful speech. He quite rightly mentioned that the Reform UK Members are not in their place, and does he agree with me that this really is a travesty? When we think about the social media posts that they put out and the grand speeches they give up and down this land, does he agree with me that it really is a travesty for them to claim to be on the side of working people when they have the audacity to vote in this House against a Bill introduced by a Labour Government on the side of working people?
Sam Rushworth
It will not surprise my hon. Friend to hear that I completely agree with that assessment. They are clearly not on the side of my constituents or the people I am talking about, who just do not feel that they can assert their rights. Too many feel completely powerless, so it is right that we put the onus where it is. I will vote against the attempts in the Lords to water down that part of the Bill.
Michael Wheeler
On accessing the rights in the Bill, does my hon. Friend agree that, for people going about their busy daily lives at work and possibly struggling to make ends meet, there is a fundamental difference between a right to a contract with guaranteed hours and a right to request one?
Sam Rushworth
There is a difference. My hon. Friend is an expert in this field, having come to us from USDAW, and I know that those who worked on the Bill will have thought this through carefully. It certainly chimes with my experience. People should not need to have to request and assert their rights; they should be given those rights. That is what this Government are doing.
Gareth Snell
I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests: I am a member of Unison and the GMB, and during the election I received financial support from trade unions. One thing I found when I was a trade union official was that it was not necessarily people who were not confident in asserting their own rights. A number of workers simply did not know what their rights were. Oddly enough, employers were not running around handing out little laminated cards saying, “Here are all the rights you can ask me for.” If employers are not made to tell them their rights, how else are employees meant to find out?
Sam Rushworth
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. That is what the Bill speaks to. There is a power gap between the ordinary working person who does not necessarily know their rights and is unable to assert them, and the sort of person who, for example, might buy a house in their girlfriend’s name. I will progress.
I also oppose the attempt, in Lords amendment 106, to water down the Bill by requiring six months for protection from unfair dismissal. There is of course a difference between unfair dismissal and fair dismissal. No employer is prevented from using fair grounds to dismiss an employee. The previous Government extended the time before you could even claim unfair dismissal to two years. That left far too many people vulnerable to being dismissed at a whim, or dismissed because they had demanded their rights at work.
I had an experience of that myself. I have never talked about it before, because I signed a non-disclosure agreement. Shortly after becoming the branch rep for the University and College Union when I was a college lecturer, I pointed out that the college I was teaching at was not paying the minimum wage to some of its staff. The college then attempted to dismiss me for bringing it into disrepute. Thankfully, I was able to take on one of the top employment lawyers in the area at the time—only because they had forced me to teach an HR course—and give myself a crash course in human rights law. I left that place with a payout.
I remember the shame I felt at the time for signing the non-disclosure agreement. I wanted to fight for other people, but at the end of the day I was terrified that I was going to miss my next mortgage payment and I was thinking of my children. That is the position that far too many people find themselves in. So what we are doing on non-disclosure is right. I have to ask all Members, as they vote on whether to water this down, whose side they are on. Will they be on the side of those seeking to cover up sexual harassment, rather than on the side of the whistleblowers?
In my mind’s eye, as I vote this evening, will be real people in my Bishop Auckland constituency. I want to tell the House about two or three of them. A few months ago, I received correspondence from a parish councillor who is also a local farmer and a member of the Labour party. He told me of his concern that every day he saw two women sitting in the bus shelter in a cold hilltop village. He approached them to ask them what they were doing there, because they were there for several hours. It turned out that they were care workers. They were dropped off in the morning and did a visit. At another point in the day they would do another visit, and another visit later. But they were only paid for the specific time that they were in people’s houses; they were not paid for the entirety of the day. That is a workaround to avoid paying them the minimum wage. The Bill makes provision for a fair pay agreement in adult social care to address such practices. By the way, he then opened the village hall for them and made sure they had a warm space to wait in each day between shifts.
Jayne Kirkham
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I, too, was a Unison rep, and I have taken contributions from Unison and other unions towards my election expenses. The point my hon. Friend makes is very real in Cornwall too. Migrant care workers were left on a bench in a village from the early morning shift to the late evening shift. That must be addressed, and it will be addressed under the Bill.
Sam Rushworth
It will, absolutely. We should not have people working in those kinds of conditions and that sort of poverty in 2025.
Laurence Turner
My hon. Friend speaks about care workers. Does he agree that one issue so brutally exposed during the pandemic was the fact that many thousands of care workers were classed as workers, not employees? As a consequence, they could not get full access to sick pay. One consequence of that was that the fatality rates among both residents and workers were much higher in the care homes that did not make that provision available. If the provisions in the Bill were in place then, many thousands of lives could have been saved.
Sam Rushworth
My hon. Friend raises an excellent point. Another great provision in the Bill is that right to sick pay, which is so important and would have been so important for many care workers during the pandemic.
In my mind’s eye are those women sitting at that bus stop in the cold. Two other people I met who were also care workers—one lives in High Etherley and the other in Etherley Dene—told me similar stories. They did not vote for me. They did not vote for anybody, because they did not believe that anybody could fix their problems. They just told me that their lives were tough. They had to pay for their own uniforms. They were not really getting the minimum wage for their work. They felt disrespected by everybody. They felt vulnerable and left behind. But I made them a promise that if I came to this place, I would speak up for them. I am doing that today and I am voting for them today.
Finally, the Employment Rights Bill is not just good for workers; it is also good for businesses. So many family businesses in Bishop Auckland, Shildon, Crook and Barnard Castle all tell me the same thing. They tell me how much they enjoy contributing to our local economy and how important it is to them that they are a responsible, decent employer. But they tell me how tough it is when there is a race to the bottom. They want employment rights strengthened. They do not want the watered-down version coming to us from the Lords. They want the full-fat version of this Bill, because they know it is good for their workers and good for their businesses.
Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)
I would like to start by thanking all Members who have contributed to the debate, but especially the new ministerial team and senior Ministers across the Government who recommitted to this legislation in public, and especially to the previous ministerial team who advanced the Bill as it went through the Commons.
In my constituency, of the six key pledges on our leaflets, this was the one that got the younger generation interested and engaged. They were worried about where they would work, how they would work and how they would get ahead in life. The vast majority of young people across this country are aware that the path to a better life comes through the workplace.
What do we see when we look at these Lords amendments? It is another week, another paltry attempt by the Opposition parties in the Lords to undermine my constituents’ rights at work. A couple of weeks back, there was an Opposition day motion that told my constituents that if they worked behind a bar, they should have fewer rights than if they worked behind a desk. These amendments are just another feeble attempt at watering down a popular and generationally crucial piece of legislation.
Gareth Snell
I wonder whether my hon. Friend agrees that when Conservative Members oppose day one rights, they are not really worried about the day on which the rights start; they are actually opposed to the rights. That is why many of them cannot muster an argument that is about more than, as he says, spreadsheet efficiency.
Euan Stainbank
I agree, especially if we look at unfair dismissal. The issue is not the cause of the dismissal; at its core, this is about denying people recourse. If a worker cannot claim unfair dismissal because of the two-year threshold, their recourse is substantially weaker. The course of the conduct is not changed simply because a worker has been in a place of employment for 23 months, as opposed to two years.
This issue is real and corrosive. I have had young people in my constituency office who have experienced this issue, especially in the run-up to consideration of this Bill. There has been a course of conduct in the workplace that has resulted in them wanting to leave, or somebody wanting to force them out, and this issue makes it substantially easier for bad employers—not every employer, of course—to force an employee out. It does not change the nature of the conduct, or what we should be tackling, which is poor employment practices.
I do understand the concern that has been raised, but a two-year threshold often leads to workers, early on in their careers, being taken out of the workplace without process or prior warning. Their only right of recourse, as I have said, is taking the employer to court through a far weaker form of redress that is often time-consuming, exhausting, fruitless and restrictive, and so deters them from pursuing their rights.
Sir Ashley Fox
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many small businesses are fearful of day one rights because they worry that they might take someone on, only for it to become apparent within a few days that they are not appropriate for their business, and they then fear an employment tribunal for procedurally unfair dismissal, and the costs involved. The result of granting day one rights is that small businesses will be less likely to employ more people, and far less likely to employ people at the margins of the labour market, such as someone recently out of prison or someone with mental health problems. The Bill will increase unemployment.
Euan Stainbank
I have to disagree with the characterisation of the Bill as increasing unemployment. We have heard the same about other measures. To tackle the hon. Gentleman’s point about somebody coming into a workforce and not being cut out for it, which I have seen happen in hospitality and retail industries, I believe that is addressed by the probation provisions in the Bill.
Michael Wheeler
I fully agree with my hon. Friend that the probation period is the core of the answer to the question from the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox). Does my hon. Friend agree that a large part of the fear we see is due to scaremongering and misinformation spread by Opposition Members?
Euan Stainbank
I agree on the misinformation being put out about hypothetical situations, which are often talked about when we discuss hospitality.
I recognise the point being put forward for small businesses, but I also recognise that those businesses have the right to a probation period, and to other employment models, such as part time working. I have seen that happen quite frequently.
Sam Rushworth
Does my hon. Friend agree that the Conservatives bequeathed us an economy in which more and more people were moving out of work and becoming long-term sick? A lot of that sickness was driven by mental health disorders— in particular, anxiety, worry and stress, which are driven by an insecure labour market. Does he also agree that the measures in the Bill to make people safer and more protected at work will improve mental wellbeing and productivity, and be good for economic growth?
Euan Stainbank
I fully agree that the economic benefit of security in the workplace is evident. I have worked in some of the most insecure industries in hospitality, and people trying to rush themselves back into work was a severe issue, especially just after the pandemic, because they did not have another source of income. If they had to isolate, there was financial support, luckily, which was just about enough to cover wages for a period, administered by local authorities. However, there were still a lot more people who tried to drive themselves back into the workplace. I remember coming back after a 10-day isolation period after having covid, and I could tell that I was not prepared physically or mentally to re-enter the workplace. It did make me think that I wanted to call in sick. It is then substantially more difficult for someone to re-enter work, especially in high-intensity industries. We often forget how physically intensive hospitality and retail workplaces, where people are working on zero-hours contracts, can be.
Laurence Turner
My hon. Friend is making a very powerful case. I rise merely to support what he is saying. About a decade ago, the University of Manchester published research that found that being in forms of insecure employment may be more damaging to health than being unemployed.
Euan Stainbank
That is substantially clear. I would add the concern that long-term sickness translates into long-term unemployment, which is often seen in the most insecure workplaces. We often think of people burning out in a very high-stress, high-income job, but it happens right through our labour market. In my experience, it has led to devastating consequences, but those are personal stories that I do not have the permission or time to go into.
Suella Braverman (Fareham and Waterlooville) (Con)
I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is trying to get through his speech, and I very much respect the position he has taken, but I have to fundamentally disagree. We Opposition Members have been accused of scaremongering and of misinformation, but what does the hon. Gentleman say to the Federation of Small Businesses, the British Chamber of Commerce and the Confederation of British Industry, all of which have said that because of the Bill and the regulations it will impose, employers will be letting go of staff, and that there will be a damaging consequence to employment and jobs? Does he think that that is misinformation and scaremongering, or is that just expert voices urging caution about the Bill?
Euan Stainbank
To address the point about substantial issues facing businesses, I acknowledge that is the case at the moment. We are not talking about energy costs or business rates, but I have a local business improvement district on my high street and I am well aware that it is talking about the costs that are put on business.
This Bill is a fundamental rebalancing in favour of workers, and frankly that would have to happen, irrespective of economic conditions. We need it to get people to believe that work pays again, because sadly much of my generation have not had that perception of work for too long. They may have seen other avenues—easier, passive income that does not come from hard graft, and from learning skills that are needed at a fundamental level.
The problem is that the entry point to work for many young people has been casualised and is insecure, and often it does not seem as though there are any prospects. I believe the Bill will change that perception substantially. To go back to doorstep conversations, this was one of the pledges in our manifesto that got young people engaged and thinking about how politics could fundamentally change their life and their experience in the workplace.
Turning to Lords amendment 1, I want to Members to put themselves in the mind of somebody experiencing a zero-hours contract for the first time. The hon. Member for Mid Dunbartonshire (Susan Murray) made some reasonable points about the right to request, rather than the right to have a contract that reflects hours, but in my experience of who zero-hours contracts are meant for in society, they are extensively given to the younger generation at the entry point of their career. There is a fundamental flaw in the concept of a right to request. Someone may be in their first job behind the till at Argos, or at a pie kiosk, or at a hotel bar or a restaurant—I do not have to imagine it; this is essentially my CV, prior to entering politics, all done in the last 10 years. At age 18, people do not necessary know their rights beyond what their mum and dad tell them, and this is a point I have heard addressed by several Members.
Imagine a person who, after years of zero-hours contracts, reliance on casualised working and low pay, is in an industry that is still adapting to the Bill’s provisions. They ask for a contract that reflects their hours, rather than what they would be entitled to under the Bill if we reject the amendment. How likely would they be to press the issue with their employer in this market? How likely is it that somebody will bang their fist on the table and say, “I want the contract that I can request, rather than the one I am entitled to”? People often want to make a career in the retail and hospitality fields, but how likely are they to do so if they cannot get the hours they are entitled to, or foresee their income for the coming year? They can get a contract that reflects the shift that they are putting in.
The problem with the amendment is that it shifts the power dynamic ever so slightly back to the employer, when the legislation quite rightly tips the balance in favour of the worker—the working people who have endured the acute impacts of a pandemic. I lost my job and my ability to privately rent, and I had to move back home, aged 20, in a cost of living crisis.
Dawn Butler (Brent East) (Lab)
My hon. Friend talks about tipping things in favour of the employee. How important is that, when we have heard of employees who have been exploited through zero-hours contracts, and who cannot say no, or pay their bills? Some people, especially young women, have been sexually abused at work when they try to adjust their contracts. These measures are a vital part of the legislation.
Euan Stainbank
I thank my hon. Friend for her excellent intervention. That dynamic is apparent in the workplace, from the smallest perceived grievance all the way up to the very serious criminal allegations she refers to. It is a power dynamic that we need to address through the Bill. Zero-hours contracts put far too much power in the hands of the employer over the employee.
To address the point about notice of cancellation, I have worked as agency staff, and have been told not to come in the night before a shift. It is demoralising, quite frankly. In the workplace, it alienates people from colleagues they have had a good laugh with the day before. They may have worked closely beside them and said, “See you tomorrow”. Most good employers know that and do not cancel shifts the night before. Sadly, short-term cancellation has increased, especially post pandemic. This is something I endured, having lost my job during the pandemic picking up takeaways.
Imagine young parents working payslip to payslip who have to arrange childcare on a Friday night and are then sent a text at 3 am on a Saturday by their boss that says, “Don’t bother coming in on Monday.” Are we seriously saying that that gives them enough time to arrange their life and that it is fine to arrange their life around the employer, or should we rightly acknowledge that it is insufficient to provide legitimate flexibility? It is a cover for the rare but corrosive practices of bad employers. We must keep this purpose in mind during the consultation with Ministers. That moral clarity should negate the need for a lengthy consultation.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
With the leave of the House, I call the Secretary of State.
Peter Kyle
I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and your colleagues for conducting this debate so efficiently and effectively. I am grateful to Members from across the House for the contributions they have made to the debate today and throughout the development of this legislation. It has been exhaustively debated—in Committee and in both Chambers—and now it has come back again to be exhaustively voted on this evening.
The Employment Rights Bill will benefit millions of people across the country, raising the floor for workers and strengthening protections in the modern workplace. It will help unlock higher productivity, drive innovation and create the right conditions for long-term, sustainable and secure economic growth. This has been a constructive debate, and I thank Members from across the House for their varied and valuable views. I will now turn to individual contributions. Many Members spoke about their broad views on the Bill without asking specific questions, but I would like to unpick as many as I can, because it was a good, high-quality debate.
I start with the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith), whose contribution I enjoyed very much, particularly because we are both Sussex MPs. He referred to many places in his constituency and asked whether I had visited some of them. I grew up in Bognor Regis just down the road and at weekends would often walk to places that he now represents in Parliament. It is one of the most beautiful parts of the Sussex Downs.
The shadow Secretary of State said that the Bill was a bad day for democracy. He is not unknown for overstatement, but given that the Bill was in the manifesto that won the trust of the public, I would say that today is a good day for democracy. It is a day when the Government elected by the people deliver on a promise made to the people, when a Bill that was introduced in the House of Commons, debated here in Committee, and debated extensively in House of Lords, has come back. This is democracy at its very best. I hope he will reflect on that.
There are a lot of issues with voting percentage thresholds, which the shadow Secretary of State also raised. I point out that he was elected to this place on 28% of the vote of the community that he represents. If we apply his logic, he is advocating one rule for him and another for every other worker in the country. To the Labour party, that simply does not stand.
I also point out that during the Conservatives’ period in government from 2010 onwards, employment tribunal delays increased by 60%. We therefore take no lectures from those who criticise some of the costs that may or may not be incurred as a result of the Bill, because they inflicted enormous measures and costs on businesses around the country.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders) made a passionate, detailed and personal speech about the Bill. It is clear that the Bill is the culmination of his career before coming into politics and in politics, both in opposition and in government. I cannot thank him enough for his work and for how he has engaged with me since I was appointed to this job just over a week ago. I hope that he sees in the debate and the approach of this Front-Bench team the legacy he left being represented loud and clear.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tristan Osborne) spoke passionately about the cause of seasonal workers. He spoke for the consultation that we have pledged to have to ensure that we get this right. Several hon. Members from across the House spoke about seasonal workers; it was good to see them represented. As a Member of Parliament for Sussex—my hon. Friend is a Member of Parliament for Kent—we care deeply about these issues, and we will strive to ensure that we get it right.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Heeley (Louise Haigh) raised an important point on non-disclosure arrangements, which she has campaigned so hard for. I thank her not only for speaking with passion but for standing on a record of delivery on this matter. She is an advocate for whom we should all be proud, because she has used her parliamentary prowess to deliver the real change needed on NDA reform. I thank Zelda Perkins —I believe she is not in the Gallery now, but she was here—who has shown extraordinary bravery through her advocacy for victims of harassment and discrimination. I have stood by in admiration of the work she has undertaken.
My right hon. Friend asked what the consultation will cover. We will consult on the regulations that expand the types of individuals and measures that apply beyond those who were within the definition of “employee” and “worker”, and on the conditions for excepted NDAs. To give an example, where a victim requests one and workers are covered by an excepted NDA, they can speak about the relevant harassment and discrimination to, for example, a lawyer or a medical professional.
My right hon. Friend also asked about the timings. Unfortunately, I cannot provide a timetable tonight, but I want to be clear that this is a personal priority for me. I reassure her that we will be moving as fast as possible to consult on the related secondary legislation and commence the measure. I will stay in touch with her so that she is fully informed along the way.
I am grateful to hon. Members across the House for their contributions today and for their hard work in getting the Bill where it is. It is of paramount importance that we get the Bill on to the statute book and start delivering for businesses and workers as soon as possible.
Laurence Turner
My right hon. Friend is rightly talking about the contributions made in the debate by hon. Members of various parties. I am always reluctant to criticise individual Members who may not attend a debate, because they often have good reasons, but there has now become a pattern: at no point in the Bill’s passage has any Reform Member spoken to justify their stance of scrapping thousands of laws, including employment laws. Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a democratic deficit in not one Reform Member ever having spoken to defend their stance?
Peter Kyle
Yes, indeed. When we talk about seasonal workers, we do not mean Reform Members. Of course, Members have lots of duties elsewhere, but it is not surprising to me that a party led by somebody who goes to another country and invites that country to punish this country would be absent from a debate all about giving rights to workers right across the country. Reform wants to strip our workers of their rights, their dignity and, through its actions, the pay in their pockets. The absence of Reform Members today suggests nothing else.
I urge hon. Members on both sides of the House to consider carefully the amendments I have proposed in lieu of those made in the other place. One of my predecessors as President of the Board of Trade once argued that workers need protection because, without it,
“the good employer is undercut by the bad, and the bad employer is undercut by the worst”.—[Official Report, 28 April 1909; Vol. 4, c. 388.]
That predecessor was Winston Churchill. He knew that the best employers need protecting from unfair competition by companies who trade at the expense of rights at work. The Bill protects workers from exploitation and protects businesses from unfair competition. That is why the Bill is pro-worker and pro-business.
Government amendment (a) made to Lords amendment 22.
Government amendment (b) made to Lords amendment 22.
Lords amendment 22, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 1
Right to guaranteed hours
Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1.—(Peter Kyle.)
Employment Rights Bill
Tuesday 28th October 2025
(5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Employment Rights Act 2025 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 133-I Marshalled list for Consideration of Commons Reasons and Amendments - (27 Oct 2025)
16:24 - Division on Motion A1 - Ayes: 302 / Noes: 159 - Motion A1 agreed.
17:18 - Division on Motion E1 (as an amendment to Motion E) - Ayes: 301 / Noes: 153 - Motion E1 agreed.
18:01 - Division on Motion H1 - Ayes: 267 / Noes: 153 - Motion H1 agreed.
18:41 - Division on Motion L1 - Ayes: 249 / Noes: 142 - Motion L1 agreed.
18:53 - Division on Motion M1 - Ayes: 240 / Noes: 143 - Motion M1 agreed.
19:07 - Division on Motion N1 (as an amendment to Motion N) - Ayes: 184 / Noes: 195 - Motion N1 disagreed.
Lord Collins of Highbury
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 1, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 1A.
The Deputy Leader of the House of Lords (Lord Collins of Highbury) (Lab)
My Lords, I beg to move Motion A, and shall also speak to Motions B, E, E1, H and H1.
I start by thanking your Lordships’ House for the constructive contributions, debate and scrutiny that this Bill has received throughout its passage. The Bill has been strengthened in many places in this House, reflecting the depth of engagement and careful consideration that it received during earlier stages. At this point, I place on record my thanks to my noble friend Lady Jones for all her work at those earlier stages.
I believe that the Employment Rights Bill as agreed by the House of Commons strikes the right balance between promoting secure employment and protection against exploitative employers, while providing the flexibility that good employers need to grow. Our approach is based on the recognition that an engaged and content workforce underpins success.
By now, after the extensive debates we have had at each stage of the Bill, I know your Lordships are fully aware of the arguments that have been advanced in support of this progressive piece of legislation. The Bill delivers on the manifesto commitment to make work pay, improving protections and standards for workers. These arguments have been thoroughly rehearsed, and I will not detain the House by repeating them today. However, I will speak to Motions A, B, E and H, which address amendments that remain to be agreed across the Bill. For each of these, I will set out the clear rationale as to why the Government cannot accept these amendments.
In this group, we will be debating amendments made in this House relating to zero-hours contracts, unfair dismissal and seasonal work. This House has debated these topics rigorously and we have had the pleasure to meet the noble Lords, Lord Fox, Lord Sharpe of Epsom and Lord Hunt of Wirral, to discuss their amendments. I will take these in turn, outlining why the Government believe these amendments are unnecessary or would disrupt the balance of the Bill.
On the right-to-request model for the right to guaranteed hours, I will speak to Motion A, relating to Amendment 1, and Motion A1, relating to the amendment in lieu tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Fox. The amendment in lieu would require employers to write to workers at the end of each reference period explaining the workers’ right to receive a guaranteed hours offer and giving them the option to accept or decline. I am grateful to the noble Lord for his contributions on this matter. The Government fully share the objective of protecting workers from precarious employment, and we recognise that the amendment seeks a practical and balanced approach.
Having discussed this with the noble Lord, I understand the intention behind his amendment is for the initial reference period to operate as a right for eligible workers to be offered a guaranteed hours contract as the Bill currently prescribes. The intent of the amendment is that there should then be a right to request or opt into guaranteed offers after each reference period. I share the noble Lord’s desire to ensure a meaningful right for workers while seeking to carefully manage burdens placed on business. The Government share this intention and are committing to delivering the promises set out in Make Work Pay and supporting businesses to drive the country’s economic growth. I certainly welcome continued conversations with noble Lords on these important matters.
I appreciate the sentiment behind the amendment as drafted. It would, however, undermine the Bill’s core aim of ending exploitative contracts and providing security for the workers who need it the most. I hope my comments will reassure noble Lords that the Government are committed to supporting vulnerable workers and maintaining a workable approach for employers.
I move on to Motion B, which relates to Lords Amendments 7 and 8 on the right to payment and the definition of short notice. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Goddard of Stockport, for originally tabling the amendments for consideration. I appreciate the concern of the noble Lord that leaving the definition of short notice to future regulation could create uncertainty for business. Defining short notice in the Bill would pre-empt the Government’s planned consultation and limit our discretion to consider a range of options. The Government have chosen to retain flexibility to set the short notice period through regulations, allowing for careful engagement with stakeholders and ensuring practical implementation while enabling the Government to respond to evolving circumstances without further primary legislation.
There will be a familiarisation period, so that businesses, including smaller firms, will have clarity and sufficient time to prepare for their legal obligations once the period is set in regulations. I hope this reassures noble Lords and allays their concerns around business impact. I can also reassure the noble Lord that the Bill already provides that payments are not due when shifts are cancelled with more than the period of short notice, which is to be set in regulations. Therefore, Amendment 7 is unnecessary.
Lord Fox
As an amendment to Motion A, at end insert “, and do propose Amendment 1B in lieu
“(1A) From the date on which this section comes into force, after the end of each reference period the employer must send the worker a written notice explaining their right to receive a guaranteed hours offer under subsection (1) and giving them the opportunity to decline such an offer.
(1B) If the worker does not respond to the notice, or responds to confirm that they wish to receive an offer, the employer must make a guaranteed hours offer under subsection (1).
(1C) A worker who is sent a notice under subsection (1A) may at any time ask not to receive any further notices or offers, after which the employer must not send further notices or make offers under this section.
(1D) A worker who has asked not to receive notices or offers under subsection (1C) may notify the employer that they wish to start receiving notices and offers again after the end of the next reference period, after which the employer must act in accordance with subsections (1A) and (1B).”
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, I think I am right in welcoming the Minister, noble Lord, Lord Collins, to the Bill. I too missed all of Report and so I thank my noble friends Lord Goddard, Lord Palmer and Lady Kramer for picking up the pieces. The Minister and I find ourselves at an interesting point in the Bill’s progress—the sharp end—when we come down to a small number of key issues. These issues are nevertheless crucial.
The Government have not been short of advice since the last time the Bill was discussed in your Lordships’ House. Some 13 major business organisations wrote to the Minister. The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development set out issues in a report and, just a couple of days ago, the Resolution Foundation—an organisation not unfamiliar with the Treasury—set out serious concerns.
These and other warnings come at a time when unemployment is rising and job vacancies are falling; when inflation continues to be worse than most of our international rivals; and when growth is, at best, stagnant. None of these warnings came from organisations that are antipathetic to the lot of workers. Nevertheless, we should leave this to the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, who put it best when he said that Britain faces a “growth emergency”.
I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, will go into more detail on some of those reports, so I will not attempt to undercut him. The unifying theme from all these commentaries is that the Bill is likely to—or will have, in most cases—a chilling effect on our economy. The Bill contains 173 statutory instruments and still awaits the outcome of dozens of consultations—for example, we await the conclusion of the consultation on notice periods that the Minister set out.
Even when the Bill gains Royal Assent—assuming that it will—no one will actually know the details of what it will do. This creates an environment of deep uncertainty, which is the enemy of investment and which leads to expansions being delayed and new hires being put on hold. At a time when things way beyond the control of national governance are running amok, this Government are wilfully adding something else to the uncertainty that business faces. They could control this, but they are instead adding more uncertainty. That is at the heart of our concerns.
As we have heard, the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, will introduce his Motions E1 and H1 in this group, and I will leave it to him to explain their intention. However, the need to place a qualifying period and initial period of employment in the Bill is an important concern on these Benches. As it stands, the Bill will remove this provision entirely. The noble Lord can expect our support should he move to a vote.
On Motion H1, we believe that the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, is right to focus on the need to properly understand and delineate how work organised seasonally should and could affect certain rights. This is largely absent from the primary legislation. Once again, we are going to rely on statutory instruments. I am not necessarily 100% convinced by the noble Lord’s wording for this amendment, but the intention is correct, which is why we will support him. Perhaps the Minister could take onboard this uncertainty and demonstrate how certain key regulations following on from the Bill will operate to manage the irregularity of seasonal work, while still making sure that such work pays for employees.
I turn to the detail of our Motion A1. A feature of the Bill is that laudable aims have sometimes been delivered clumsily. An example is in trying to tackle the important issue of zero hours, and we share the Minister’s aim to make sure that every employee has the right to move from zero hours to guaranteed hours. Nothing we have ever said or proposed in this House has undermined that from the start.
We support the aim that after a reference period those on zero hours should be entitled to an offer of guaranteed hours from their employer. Our original amendment, which the Commons rejected, sought to avoid the necessity of employers being compelled to calculate and make that offer from the outset. We understand—and heard—some of the issues that were raised: that it is difficult for certain employees working with certain employers to get past that first stage, initiate the contact and make the ask. Therefore, rather than reassert the amendment we tabled before, we have amended it. I have to say that the noble Lord, Lord Collins, did a better job of explaining it than I am probably going to do now.
In essence, we should start off and stay the same as the Government require. In other words, once an employee passes the reference period, the employer will be required to offer guaranteed hours. After that, if the employee indicates that they are not interested in that because they want to remain on zero hours, the employer will not be compelled to keep reoffering guaranteed hours, time after time, as each reference period is passed. Under the Bill, the process of calculating those hours has to be redone each time. That may seem trivial; certainly, for large employers, it probably is. However, for the smaller and medium-sized employer, it is an added burden that does not need to be there if the employee does not wish to leave zero hours.
The aim of the amendment is to make sure that both sides are managed well and have the opportunity to change. The employee can opt back in to being made those offers if and when he or she requires, and a letter from the employer will remind them of that opportunity. I am happy that the Minister wants to continue to talk about this, and I am very happy to continue to talk, but to do so, we need to agree Motion A1. I beg to move.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
First, I am also very grateful to the Minister and his new colleagues for their time during the past couple of weeks. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for his amendment. If he wishes to test the opinion of the House, we will support him.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
Motion E1 is the most important amendment we will be debating today. The introduction of day one unfair dismissal rights is the most damaging element in this Bill, in my opinion. While there are problems with much of the Bill, there will, I believe, be a lot of unintended consequences.
For most of the proposed changes to employment rights, the Government are trying to solve genuine problems. Zero-hours contracts can be abused, and the abuse of fire and rehire is well known, to give a couple of examples. But despite my asking many times, no Minister has yet provided any evidence that the current qualifying period is being abused or causing actual harm to employees, and the Minister has added nothing to that today. The impact assessment that accompanies the Bill likewise provides no evidence of cost or harm. We have already heard from the Resolution Foundation that it agrees, saying:
“Making dismissals as hard as in the ERB might also be for little obvious gain to workers”.
Uniquely among the employment rights changes in the Bill, there is little or no evidence that there is really a problem to solve or harm to be prevented here, but very real harms will arise as a result of this policy. The ability to claim unfair dismissal from day one will make it more difficult for employers to take a risk on new employees. The Government’s own impact assessment makes this clear, and it points out that the greatest impact will be on more risky hires, such as young people trying to get that first all-important break, people trying to get off benefits, ex-offenders and so on—all people the Government keep telling us they are trying to help. To repeat, do not take my word for that: the Government’s own impact assessment confirms this.
We have just heard about the business organisations. All that I have seen also points to these unintended consequences, but even if you think, “They would say that, wouldn’t they?”, listen to the Resolution Foundation, not an organisation that has ever been accused of being in hoc to employer organisations. It says, as we have heard:
“The Government’s plan … of getting rid of qualifying periods entirely by making this a ‘day one’ right—has the potential to inhibit hiring”.
It goes on to say, importantly:
“One group of particular concern at the moment are younger adults. The number of young people (aged 16 to 24) not working or studying has risen post-pandemic, and is at its highest level in a decade. And young people’s employment prospects are more sensitive to hiring conditions than older workers”.
I think we can all agree that the current two-year qualifying period is unnecessarily long. That is why the amendments passed on Report reduced it to six months, which should be long enough for most employers to decide whether the hire is working or not. That would bring us into line with countries such as Denmark, Germany, Norway and Sweden, none of which are well known for employment rights abuse. That seemed a sensible compromise, protecting around 6 million more people from unfair dismissal, while reducing the unintended impact on higher-risk hires such as young people. To quote the Resolution Foundation again— I think it is going to get quoted a lot today:
“Reducing rather than scrapping qualifying periods would still respect the spirit of the Government’s manifesto, and it would deliver a security upgrade to millions of workers …but it would do so in a way that doesn’t needlessly put employers off hiring”.
The Government simply rejected this compromise, while providing no reason and no evidence whatever of a problem.
What is needed for a probation period to allow an employer to give a potential new hire the benefit of the doubt is for there to be no risk of being taken to an employment tribunal during that period, other than for the standard existing statutory reasons, such as discrimination. Before anyone suggests, as they have in the past, that there will not be an increase in tribunal claims, I remind noble Lords that the Government’s own impact assessment states that a benefit of the policy is that there will be an increase in tribunal awards. That is actually in the impact assessment.
We have heard that the Government intend to consult on the matter and to create a nine-month, light-touch probation period. That sounds good, but the Bill pre-judges that consultation. New Section 98ZZA(3) sets out very clearly that certain fair reasons must be given to dismiss someone during a probation period, and unfortunately, those reasons are materially the same as those that must be given after the qualifying period. That means that, as the Bill is drafted, the risk of being taken to an employment tribunal will always remain. It will not in fact be possible to create a genuinely light-touch probation period after the Bill is passed, whatever the results of the consultation. So the Government’s suggestion that it will be okay because of the future consultation and regulations just does not stand up to scrutiny.
We have often heard that this is a manifesto commitment, but the Government never mention the other explicit manifesto commitment: that they would
“consult fully with businesses, workers, and civil society … before legislation is passed”.
It is in the same paragraph. It seems to be okay to breach that manifesto commitment.
As I say, the Government’s own impact assessment clearly acknowledges the harm this policy will cause. If you know that your actions will cause harm and you go ahead anyway, that is a deliberate act. So, if the Government are not prepared to listen, including to the Resolution Foundation, the only conclusion we can reach is that the Government intend, knowingly and deliberately, to damage the life chances of young and vulnerable people. Do they really want to do that? Please, Minister, take this seriously.
Baroness O’Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)
My Lords, I oppose Motion E1, which is unnecessary. Under the Employment Rights Bill, employers can still dismiss workers fairly—for example, as they can now if they are incompetent or there is misconduct or a redundancy situation. But without the day one protection proposed by the Government, when workers move to a new job, they would continue to bear the risk that they can be sacked at whim.
I encourage noble Lords to put themselves in the shoes of a worker, who in good faith leaves a secure job where they have completed the qualification period with protection against unfair dismissal to take up a new post, and who then finds themselves sacked, out on their ear, stripped of a livelihood for no good reason.
I also remind noble Lords that many groups of workers are already protected against unfair dismissal from day one, as their dismissal would be deemed automatically unfair—for example, if they are pregnant, on family leave or are a trade union rep, or, indeed, if they are a whistleblower. The Government simply intend to extend that protection to all workers. In addition, if someone thinks they have been unfairly dismissed because of race, sex or another protected characteristic, this could be discrimination. They could make a claim to an employment tribunal for both discrimination and unfair dismissal, and for that discrimination claim, workers do not have to meet that qualifying period of two years.
Finally, so far, I have heard little mention of the thorny issue of job mobility in this country, which economists agree is a significant barrier to economic growth and productivity. In the UK, reports show that job mobility has fallen badly—according to one report, dropping by 25% over a period of barely two decades. Poor job mobility is bad for workers—they have less chance of improving their wages if they stick in the same job—and bad for the economy, because we are failing to move workers fast enough into areas of growth. Under the previous Government, we saw insecure contracts at work soar. In 2012, the Conservative-led Government shamefully doubled the qualification period for protection against unfair dismissal to two years, stripping workers with less service of protection at the stroke of a pen.
I am very conscious of the employer lobby that has mobilised in support of this amendment. But when I look back on employers’ opposition to the national minimum wage, to equal pay for women and to stronger health and safety rights, it is clear that business lobbies do not always know what is best for Britain. Labour’s manifesto commitment is clear—to deliver day-one rights in full. I hope that noble Lords will join me in opposing this amendment.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, noble Lords have mentioned the lack of detail in the Bill. As somebody who has been heavily engaged in employment law over the last 40 years, I am very much aware of the need to ensure that there is secondary legislation to give time to consult on issues. You cannot simply put a lot of detail in relation to employment law in a Bill. That has been the practice, from my experience, since the mid-1980s.
My noble friend has just made the point about the business and trade discussions. Business groups have written urging many noble Lords to support amending the Bill, particularly the qualifying period. The Department for Business and Trade has held constructive discussions with business representatives and organisations through the development of the unfair dismissal. We will consult fully with business groups, trade unions, employers, employees and civil society on how to put our plans into practice before legislation comes into effect, adopting a very sensible approach of proper consultation. Any qualifying period is weighted unfairly in the employer’s favour. My noble friend made the point that repealing the two-year qualifying period addresses the issue by giving all employees the basic right from day one not to be unfairly dismissed. The reality is that most dismissals are fair, but there are occasions when they are unfair.
I welcome the current journey of the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe. As my noble friend pointed out, when this protection was introduced there was a six-month qualifying period. The Conservative Government increased it to one year, then to two years, so I very much welcome the pathway that the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, is now on. If he goes from two years down to six months, it will not be very hard for him to accept day-one rights. We are on the right pathway and can very much welcome that.
I welcome the Resolution Foundation’s contribution, which I have heard on the radio and read. It is important that employees can enforce their rights. We are contributing to how the tribunal system can be far more effective. But, to come back to my noble friend’s point, what often constrains our economic growth strategy is that many employees are resistant to leave jobs that they are currently in to seek new opportunities, new trades and new occupations. That is what is happening in our economy at the moment. The flexibility that we want can be better served, as my noble friend said, by day- one rights.
I come back to the other amendments. On the points made by the noble Lords, Lord Fox and Lord Sharpe, we are determined to address the issue of one-sided flexibility. I understand the points made about hours that fluctuate seasonally, but the current one-sided flexibility can leave people unclear on when they will next get paid work and how much time they need to keep available for work. Under the Bill, there are several ways, depending on the circumstances, in which an employer can approach seasonal demand while upholding the new rights, such as using limited-term contracts or guaranteed hours in various ways. The Bill absolutely covers that.
On the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Fox, the important thing is that he recognises the need for that right to be guaranteed initially. To create an economy that works for all, we want predictability and security to be a baseline in all jobs, and we think that employers should have to offer all qualifying workers guaranteed hours. The Bill is the best way to ensure that all qualifying workers benefit from that right.
The provisions in the Bill will apply to all employers, allowing good employers to benefit from a level playing field, which is the important point here. We need to recognise that most employers are adopting incredibly positive policies. This legislation is underpinning those good employers, so that the cowboys and others who are not playing a fair game can be properly addressed. We are trying to ensure that there is fairness at all levels.
Lord Sentamu (CB)
I was hoping to hear an answer to the question posed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Phillips: without a qualifying period, will employers take on people with a criminal record? That question has not been answered. Secondly, Clause 25 talks about the right not to be unfairly dismissed, so this question of people being wrongly dismissed because there is a qualifying period is not quite right. Will the Minister answer that difficult question? Would you employ somebody who has a criminal record without a qualifying period?
Lord Clarke of Nottingham (Con)
I was about to make exactly the same point, but the noble and right reverend Lord beat me to it. The Minister has not addressed this point at all. The strongest argument against the day-one issue is that employers plainly will not take the risk with ex-offenders, who we are trying to get rehabilitated, or many young people—20 year-old boys and girls—who have never had a job before. The Government’s own impact statement seems to bear this out. The Minister has not even been briefed on the subject, and he certainly has not addressed it in his reply. This is the best argument made against the Government’s proposals.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
Sadly, I have not got through my contribution in response to all the questions, so please give me a bit of time. I will certainly address that specific question when I get to it.
The general point on day-one rights that we are trying to make—my noble friend made it very adequately —is that they currently apply in certain circumstances, so they are not a novel, innovative thing, and they have been a demand for some time. On probation, most good employers have probationary periods that they use for a purpose. That purpose is ensuring that employers can retain an employee so that they can offer opportunities to improve and address issues of competency or capacity.
So probationary periods are not an opportunity to dismiss; they are an opportunity to continue employment. It is important to say that, and the point about a chilling effect is not correct, because all good employers have proper processes and procedures to address dismissal within the probationary period. This legislation tries to promote that and to ensure that it exists.
I was looking for a particular page, which I have now found. There was a particular issue in relation to offenders.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
Yes, it was on ex-offenders. I certainly saw a page on that and will hopefully get to it soon. I will repeat the point I am making: the probationary period is an opportunity to ensure that people can retain a job.
There we go; I knew I had the page somewhere and that I had read it. Currently, having a spent conviction is not a proper ground on which someone can be dismissed, unless it is from one of the roles listed in the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
Two questions were posed to me: one was about the employment of offenders and one was about young people. Am I not answering the right question?
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
We seem to be missing the point somewhat. The point is that, if this day-one unfair dismissal right comes in, the person will not be employed in the first place. It is not that they will be fired afterwards; it is that the employer will not feel able to take the risk or take a chance on them in the first place.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
If you have a spent conviction, you do not have to disclose it, so I do not understand the point that the noble Lord is making. I challenge noble Lords on their experience. The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, sitting opposite me— I am sorry to name her in person—worked with me in relation to Tesco, the biggest private sector employer in the country. It has very positive employment policies, including very positive policies for flexible working, and also proper disciplinary and grievance procedures.
The simple fact that needs to be understood is that probationary periods provide the opportunity for an employer, who has spent a lot of money recruiting someone, to properly assess their ability to do the job. It is not an excuse to dismiss unfairly.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I think we need to consider the position of SMEs, as well as big employers such as Tesco. I cannot speak for Tesco any more, but it contributed to a letter that was sent to us all, and everybody was concerned on this point. Some of this probationary stuff has to be written into the Bill, or at least published before the Bill is passed: when I was a civil servant, you did the SIs at the same time as the Bill. We really need clarity here before we pass the Bill, because we cannot go into reverse once it is passed.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
Well, I wish I had heard the noble Baroness say that when she was a Minister and many other Bills were being pushed through in recent years and we did not have statutory instruments. A classic case that noble Lords here will remember was the minimum service level Bill that was pushed through the last Parliament. There was no indication of statutory instruments there. I repeat that the important point is about the opportunity to properly consult and agree a proper process to introduce the necessary secondary legislation.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
Well, I would argue very strongly that it does. I come back to the point—and I make it strongly—that the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, and his party increased the qualifying period. It started at six months, then went to one year and then two years; now he is saying six months. Go that one step further and say day one rights at the beginning. That is what we need.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
I am very grateful to the Minister. I come very late to this discussion, but what does influence my mind is the Resolution Foundation. Could I ask the Minister what his answer to that is?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I thought I had made my response. This is what we are trying to do: where there are specific concerns, we can address them in the secondary legislation. We have said that a probationary period of nine months would ensure that those companies and businesses have three or six months and can extend that to ensure that issues of capability and competency are addressed. We are also ensuring that we look at all other opportunities. My noble friend made the point that every change we have made in the labour market to improve the conditions and the opportunities for workers and employees has been resisted, and resisted strongly, particularly by the party opposite. But we now have the situation—
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
Maybe the Minister could respond to this. There are more opponents to these parts of the Bill than just the party opposite, as the Minister described them. All the concerns that have been raised—across the House, but also outside this House—have come from a wide range of organisations and interests that are actually interested in workers’ rights. They are concerned that a lack of forethought about what day-one rights mean will impact some people, who will never get the chance to have workers’ rights because they will not be employed: it will lead to a risk-averse employer.
I think it is inappropriate for the Minister to constantly suggest that the only opposition to this comes from a particular, caricatured version of a Conservative, anti-workers’ rights view. That is misinformation and is not even reflected in the discussion we have had today. So will the Minister answer the concerns raised not just by the Resolution Foundation but by a wide range of employers and organisations that are worried that, just because it says on the tin that this is for workers, that does not mean that it is in the tin, and that the consultation afterwards will not help a Bill that is cemented into law?
This Government constantly tell us about the rule of law. We are worried that they are about to make a law that is unbreakable with any consultation afterwards and that that will be bad for workers. That is the driving factor of our concerns.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I would argue very strongly that the focus of our efforts is about what is good for this country, and what is good for this country is economic growth and what will stimulate that growth, for which creating a secure and flexible workforce is a key ingredient. I admire the noble Baroness’s ability to suggest that she supports workers’ rights while siding with people who oppose workers’ rights. The reality, I repeat, is this: where we have made progress in employment rights over the last 45 years, it has been resisted; many times, it has been resisted because people were fearful of where it may lead, but the reality—the proof of the pudding—has been in the eating. These rights have enabled people to prosper; they have enabled people to adapt to different workplace challenges; they have enabled women not to suffer discrimination and to demand equal pay. I am determined that we will stick to our manifesto commitment and deliver a progressive, forward-looking economy that protects workers’ rights.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, pick the bones out of that, if you wish. There is quite a lot to respond to there, to which I will not completely respond, but I think it characterises that this is an unusual ping-pong. Usually, most of it is cut and dried, and it is down to tiny nuances; that is not the case in this Bill.
There is a lot of detail to be litigated in this Bill. Part of the problem we come back to is that virtually none of the Bill is there. This is paving legislation. Back in Committee, when the Minister did not even dream that he would be sitting taking these questions, I found myself in the unlikely position of agreeing totally with the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey. She and I put forward a proposal for a proper code of practice; that was proposed prior to the adoption of this primary legislation. Had we gone to that trouble, many of the uncertainties that noble Lords are rightly picking up now would not exist. They would have been sketched out and put out into a code of practice. That did not happen. Milk has been spilled, and there is no point crying over it, but I would point out that, in future, there is stuff that can be done when you have Bills that are packed full of statutory instruments. That was one thing that we could have done, which the Government decided not to do.
The Minister talked rightly about the majority of good employers. He is right: the majority of employers are good employers who want to treat their workers well, and they do so. He described this legislation as “underpinning” good employers, but I am not sure how it underpins what good employers are already doing. What it can do, and in some cases will do—which comes back to my point—is make unnecessary work for good employers to do when they are already doing it. It is bureaucratic.
Finally, I come back to the point about day-one rights. There are millions of people who are not working at the moment, and the Government are very clear that they want to find ways of helping these people back to work. If the Government want these people to work, they will require jobs from businesses, which have to take a risk. Businesses have to take a risk on people who have, in many cases, not worked at all in their lives or who may not have worked for years and years. That is a risk, and full day-one rights make the risk even higher. The employer has to take a punt; they have to take a bet on that employee. Sometimes they will win; sometimes they will not. Noble Baronesses opposite can shake their heads, but this will make employers reticent about making that move. The noble Lord is correct in his Motion. However, returning to Motion A1, I think there is still work to be done. On that basis, I would like to test the will of the House.
Lord Collins of Highbury
That this House do not insist on its Amendments 7 and 8, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reasons 7A and 8A.
Lord Leong
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 21 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 21A and 21B in lieu.
“Review of extent of right to time off for public duties
(1)The Secretary of State must, before the end of the relevant period—
(a)review the purposes for which employers are required to permit their employees to take time off in accordance with section 50 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (right to time off for public duties), and
(b)publish a report setting out the findings of the review.
(2)In carrying out the review, the Secretary of State must, in particular, consider whether employers should be required to permit their employees to take time off in accordance with that section for the purposes of performing the functions of a special constable.
(3)In this section—
“the relevant period” means the period of 12 months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed;
“special constable” means—
(a)a person appointed as a special constable for a police area in England and Wales,
(b) a person appointed as a special constable under section 25 of the Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003 (special constables of the British Transport Police Force), or
(c) a person appointed as a special constable under section 9 of the Police and Fire Reform (Scotland) Act 2012 (asp 8) (special constables of the Police Service of Scotland).”
“(za) section (Review of extent of right to time off for public duties)(review of extent of right to time off for public duties);”
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Leong) (Lab)
My Lords, in moving Motion C, I will speak to Motions K, K1, N and N1. In this group, we will be debating amendments made in this House relating to special constables, heritage railway volunteers and the school support staff negotiating body. The Government have listened carefully and openly to the concerns raised by noble Lords and Members of the House of Commons who have engaged extensively on these issues.
I will speak first on special constables and to Motion C, relating to Amendment 21 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe. This amendment would give employees who are special constables the right to reasonable time off to carry out their police duties. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Hogan-Howe and Lord Paddick, and Sir Ashley Fox MP for their championing and advocacy on this important issue. I am pleased to say that the Government have tabled an amendment in lieu in the other place to address this matter.
This Government recognise and value the role that special constables play in keeping our communities safe—a role that has been highlighted by the campaign led by the Association of Special Constabulary Officers. The amendment makes a statutory commitment to undertake a full review of the list of duties captured under Section 50 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and to publish a summary of the findings of the review within 12 months of Royal Assent, with specific reference to special constables. The Government have existing powers to deliver any updates to the list as a result of the review via secondary legislation.
As my officials have discussed with the noble Lord, the review is already under way and will consider whether the current list of eligible roles remains fit for purpose and whether any changes should be made, including the case that noble Lords have put forward to add special constables to the list. The review will consider whether changes to the list will deliver the intended support for public services and assess the potential impact on businesses. I hope this provides reassurances to noble Lords about our commitment to review this legislation fully, including in relation to special constables, as we all want to see them supported in performing their important duties. I thank the noble Lord for championing this matter in earlier debates, and I ask for his support for this amendment in lieu.
I now turn to Motion K, relating to Amendment 60, and Motion K1, relating to an amendment in lieu tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, and my noble friend Lord Faulkner of Worcester for their continued engagement on this important subject. While we recognise the important contribution that these volunteers make, noble Lords will know that the Government could not accept the original amendment as it risked creating inconsistencies within the broader legislative framework governing young people and volunteer work.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, for tabling his amendment in lieu and seeking to find common ground. While we have concerns with the current drafting, the Government consider that targeted guidance for heritage railways can address his practical concerns, without the need for a legislative exemption, and support the intent of his amendment. This is why the Office of Rail and Road and the Health and Safety Executive have offered to work with the Heritage Railway Association to produce written guidance for heritage railways, which will support them in actively encouraging 14 to 16 year-olds to take up volunteer opportunities on their railways. We are grateful to the HRA for its prompt response in relation to this offer and look forward to working with it on the guidance.
This guidance will have an equivalent status to that of other similar material published by both the ORR and the HSE. It will provide an authoritative benchmark for heritage railways of what we consider to be reasonable activities for children to undertake. Importantly, this will provide a benchmark for regulatory inspectors when making enforcement decisions. We would make it clear in the published document that following the guidance would not be compulsory and railways would be free to take other action, but that if they followed the guidance then they would normally be doing enough to satisfy the law. The Government are committed to this guidance. Both the ORR and the HSE agree that this work is a priority. Our officials are ready to begin work with the HRA on preparing the guidance, with an intention to publish it by 31 March 2026.
As I mentioned, the noble Lord’s amendment has some drafting deficiencies. For example, it requires an instruction to be given to the ORR and the HSE on the day of Royal Assent, which would actually slow down the timeline agreed with the HRA. At this stage, there is little that divides us. We are keen to continue our discussions with relevant parties ahead of the Bill being further considered in the other place in order to resolve the matter. The Government will therefore not oppose this amendment today.
I now turn to Motion N, which addresses Amendment 121 on the school support staff negotiating body, or SSSNB, and Motion N1, relating to the amendment in lieu tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran. The proposed amendment in lieu would allow employers to employ support staff on pay and other terms and conditions that are below statutory minimums agreed by the SSSNB provided that their overall package of terms and conditions of employment meets or exceeds collective statutory minimums on an aggregate basis.
I understand that this was a point the noble Baroness wished to make on Report, though her original amendment actually offered an alternative form of words to a provision that the Government brought forward for the purposes of clarification. This new amendment would require employers to assess the relative values of different terms and conditions on a case-by-case basis. Such an arrangement would result in uncertainty for employees and remove the protection offered by statutory minimums. Ensuring a consistent flow for all support staff terms and conditions is fundamental to the purpose of SSSNB.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I can be very brief because the Minister has brought glad tidings. I thank him very much for that and for the way that he set out this debate.
As noble Lords who followed this narrow but important issue will know, this confusion stems from the question of how a 1920 Act of Parliament applies in the modern era to volunteers and young employees on heritage railways and tramways. For more than a decade, this has been taken up by the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, who has been campaigning to clarify this in law; I pay tribute to him for 10 years of hard work and for his efforts behind the scenes to secure this important change today.
I am grateful to the Minister and to the noble Baroness, Lady Lloyd of Effra, whom I welcome to her place. We had a very helpful meeting last week with them both. They were in listening mode and I am glad they have taken this away and helped to solve it. We welcome the drawing up of guidelines, as we said in our meeting, and I am glad to report that the Office of Rail and Road and the Health and Safety Executive have already begun their work with the Heritage Railway Association, as the Minister said. I am delighted to hear that the target is for that to be completed by 31 March; I am sure that work can indeed be done.
The sticking point for us is that this needs to be clarified in law as well as in guidelines. In our debate on Report, the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler- Sloss, said that it is no use Ministers saying that guidance shows that organisations will not prosecute; the fact is that the law forbids it—and if the law forbids it, no respectable organisation should allow it to go forward. That is why I was so keen that these guidelines should be given some statutory backing. In effect, the amendment that I tried to table sought to describe what the Government, the Office of Rail and Road and the Health and Safety Executive have offered and are happy to happen. I am delighted to hear that the Government are happy for that to be written into the Bill. I accept that my version has some drafting deficiencies, which I would be very glad to work with the Government to clear up.
I have a non-financial interest to declare: I am the unremunerated chairman of the Heritage Railway Association. I am very pleased to have succeeded the noble Lord, Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill, who had to give it up to become the Rail Minister. Next week, I will be in Southampton with heritage railways from across the country, which will be delighted to hear that this long-standing problem, which holds back young volunteers from getting experience and skills in our heritage railways, will finally be solved, and I am grateful to the Government for their part in solving it.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)
My Lords, I am almost lost for words. As the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, said, this campaign has been running for almost 15 years. The first stage was when I took a Private Member’s Bill through your Lordships’ House to attempt to address the problems of the 1920 Act. It passed without any opposition, except from the Government Front Bench, sadly—not this Government Front Bench but previous one.
We have reached this point because the organisations involved—the Office of Rail and Road and the Health and Safety Executive—have been instructed by the department to come to a conclusion. We had an excellent meeting on 21 October, which the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, referred to, which my noble friends Lady Lloyd of Effra and Lord Leong also attended. I offer them, the ORR and the HSE my warmest congratulations and thanks for what is a very satisfactory outcome.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
My Lords, in addressing Motion C, I thank the Government for their amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Katz, in particular, has been very patient and has provided us with his time. He has responded to an issue that was first raised by Sir Ashley Fox in the Commons, when one of his constituents, who was a special constable, presented the unfairness of the fact that he could not get time off from his employer as a right. That issue was raised in his amendment, which was dismissed in the Commons but was supported in the Lords by the noble Lords, Lord Paddick and Lord Evans, which I appreciate.
Of course, I would have preferred that the specials were added to the list of those who get that right, but the Government responded by saying that they would have a review. I then said that reviews often do not happen—and if they do happen, they do not get any outcome. They replied, “In that case, how about making it a statutory one that is time limited? Now what is your argument?” That is a fair point, and I accept that the review will take place and is time limited, and I look forward to its outcome.
The Government’s other point was that, of course, there are other groups that might want a similar right on a list that is waiting to be addressed, and it would be unfair to consider the specials only. That is a fair point. Nevertheless, I am glad of the progress that has been made and the support that the Government have shown.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, I feel in a lonely position in not being able to thank the Government for their comments on my amendment. I feel sad that I have to speak again, as I hoped that the Government would have talked to those running our schools and trusts and would have adjusted their approach. They clearly have not done that, so we are here again.
I feel slightly sorry for the Minister, because the remarks he was given about my amendment were—if I may say so—ill-advised. It is disingenuous to suggest that my amendment would have facilitated contracts where someone was offered a free lunch and then paid below the minimum wage. There is absolutely nothing in my amendment that suggests that, and both the Minister in the Department for Education and his predecessor, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, whom I met at the end of July, were very clear that there was nothing at all like that. I will also challenge some of the other remarks that he made, but there is nothing in my amendment that would worsen the terms for employees. It is therefore unfortunate that that was the advice he was given on how to approach this.
Before I come to my Motion, I remind noble Lords, by way of context, that this is—unlike heritage railways, with the greatest respect to my noble friend—a big issue. There are 800,000 support staff in our schools and about half a million full-time equivalent employees. Half of them are teaching assistants and the other half are in a multiplicity—literally thousands—of different roles, so when the noble Lord says that this is not a top-down approach, my jaw hits the ground. The idea that the SSSNB is going to be able to create a full range of role profiles, pay scales, et cetera, is just not realistic. We are going to end up with either a labyrinth or a straitjacket, and neither, I would suggest, is an ideal outcome. Despite me having raised this at every stage of the Bill, the Government have not explained how they will address the multiplicity of roles that exist. When the SSSNB was in existence previously, before 2010, we did not have about 2,500 trusts of different sizes and geographic footprints, organised differently with various roles within them.
The amendment also does not address the inconsistency in the Government’s approach between the schoolteachers’ pay and review body and the SSSNB. In the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, the Government accepted the principle of a framework that academies must have regard to. In Schedule 3 to the schools Bill, it says that academies
“must have regard to any provision of an order under section 122 that relates to conditions of employment”.
It goes on to say that they
“must also have regard to guidance”.
We tried to bring in an identical amendment on Report—my Amendment 111A—which mirrored the Government’s own amendment to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, but, at the time, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, argued that it would be wrong to create a two-tier system. We actually have a two-tier system for teachers in maintained schools and in academies, but we are rejecting a system, proposed through my amendment, which would offer only upside to school support staff, so that we end up with a triumph of uniformity over innovation.
My Motion N1 aims to give the Government a practical way to deliver their objectives of consistency and fairness, without unduly constraining the judgment of school and trust leaders in managing their workforce. Without this amendment, employers in academies and maintained schools will lose their ability to design contracts which meet the needs of both the workforce and their pupils. That might include, for example, paying someone above the agreed pay scale if they agree to work towards a qualification or, in a trust which has schools in multiple local authorities, they may receive a higher salary in return for working across a wider geographic footprint. The Government’s approach removes the ability to do that; every individual element in an employee’s pay and conditions has to be above a minimum standard, rather than allowing an employer to pay someone more in return for greater flexibility or the commitment to a work towards a higher qualification.
The Minister wrote to me on 1 September. I will not detain the House by going through the examples, but all the examples in that letter were where this legislation will not apply. We are interested in and worried about where it will apply.
Lord Hampton (CB)
My Lords, I speak in support of Motion N1 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, and declare that I am still a teacher in a state secondary school in Hackney, east London.
In over 10 years of teaching, I have encountered tens—maybe not hundreds—of TAs, technicians, IT staff, catering staff, site staff and all the support staff who make schools function. My subject, product design, is entirely reliant on technicians. They set up and prepare materials, maintain equipment and teach skills to us and the students.
I have seen technicians who had to be hunted out from one cigarette break to another to do their job, and those who have used the school’s 3D printer to print a better 3D printer, to print a better 3D printer, and so on. Support staff are not all the same. Some are quite happy to do the basic 8 am to 3.30 pm job and are content to be paid for that, while others will take on extra responsibilities and duties.
I had one very fine technician who would not go into the classroom while students were there, because he used to be paid extra for a teaching role, but the Government abolished it. Quite rightly, he would say that if he was not paid to do the job, he would not do it. I have also seen technicians paid well over the going rate because schools could see that they were irreplaceable; otherwise, their job would have to be done by teachers who had neither the skill nor the time.
At the moment, these decisions rest with heads of department, who can make them. Schools need that flexibility. The amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, very sensibly creates a floor, not a ceiling, on pay, as in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, meaning that all get a decent wage, but those who put in extra time and effort get rewarded. Should she be minded to test the opinion of the House, I will be with her.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, very briefly, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, on making progress, along with the cosignatories of that amendment. I also congratulate the noble Lords, Lord Faulkner and Lord Parkinson, who have realised a lifelong dream of putting children back to work on the railways.
Lord Fox (LD)
Less—or more—prosaically, the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, has set out the issues here doggedly and in detail. I still feel that we are in a “he said, she said” situation, and it is extremely difficult to unpick how this will work. I assume—I am sure—that the statutory instruments and the rules will probably fill in the detail. We on these Benches will wait to hear what the Minister says but we are not currently minded to support the noble Baroness.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, I join the noble Lord, Lord Fox, in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, on the progress he has made on a very valid point he raised earlier in these debates. I also say to my noble friend Lord Parkinson and the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner: my goodness, they must be chuff-chuffed with the result. It has been a major step forward.
I also congratulate my noble friend Lady Barran on making some compelling points. I hope that the Minister will listen carefully to them and rethink the approach that he outlined earlier. We were greatly helped by the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, bringing his personal experience to bear on this problem.
If my noble friend wishes to test the opinion of the House, certainly, on these Benches, she will have our support.
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords for their thoughtful contributions to today’s debate. The debate has been wide ranging, from special constables and heritage railways to the SSSNB. I am grateful for everyone’s valuable insight. I will address the points raised by all noble Lords.
On Motion C, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, for indicating his support for the Government’s proposed amendment in lieu.
On Motion K1, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, on his new role within the Heritage Railway Association. I am grateful to him for working with the Government on this matter and look forward to continuing to work with him and my noble friend Lord Faulkner.
I will address Motion N1 and the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran. First, I want to make one point absolutely clear: I can confirm that the Bill will not set a ceiling on pay. In fact, it sets a minimum standard—the floor—where all support staff are entitled to negotiated pay. When taken together, the SSSNB measures in the Employment Rights Bill, the teacher pay measures in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill and subordinate legislation respectively will mean that teachers and support staff in all maintained schools and academies in England can rely on a minimum pay offer. All schools will be able to innovate with pay. No one is saying that they cannot pay more than the minimum pay offer; they can be innovative in their pay and conditions to attract and retain the very best workforce that they need for our children.
We are legislating for a new statutory body for school support staff rather than extending an existing system. School support staff have been without a school-specific national voice for far too long. It is right to establish a body where minimum terms are negotiated and agreed by school employer and employee representatives. As most noble Lords will know, roughly half of the 22,000 state-funded schools in England are now academies, and the body is being newly established, so it is right that academies are included in the statutory remit of the SSSNB in the same way as maintained schools.
As I said earlier, beyond the minimum offer, school support staff will be able to benefit from more favourable pay and conditions. The SSSNB will also allow for greater consistency in the relationship between roles and training, and no one is saying that staff cannot be accorded any training support and pay. It will be up to the SSSNB to agree how this is to be done and what the core offer will look like.
This can all be done by local arrangements. We want there to be a core offer that all support staff can expect to receive, with flexibility for employers to go beyond that in their respective local circumstances. Employers will be able to retain contracts for their employees that contain more favourable pay and conditions than were agreed prior to the SSSNB regulation.
I hope I have answered some of noble Lords’ concerns. I urge all noble Lords to give due consideration to the Government’s amendments and trust that Members will feel able to lend support to our position.
Baroness Barran (Con)
On the noble Lord’s last point about employers being able to retain their existing contracts, in the letter I received from the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Malvern, on 1 September, she writes in relation to that specific point:
“As set out above, a term of an employee’s contract will only be altered by regulations where this is not detrimental to the employee. This allows employers to retain pay and conditions for their employees that contain more favourable pay and conditions … provided”—
and I stress this point—
“all terms are the same as or more favourable than statutory minimums”.
If an employer today has an employee whom it is paying well above the statutory minimum but is requiring them to work in more schools than would be in the standard role profile, that employer will no longer be able to continue the same contract. It will have to, I guess, reduce the scale of that employee’s work and reduce their salary. Does the Minister think that is a good outcome?
Lord Leong (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for that. I must admit that I have not had a chance to look at my noble friend Lady Smith’s letter. As far as I know and have been told, employers will be able to retain contracts for their employees that contain more favourable terms and conditions that were agreed prior to the SSSNB. Basically, if they are offering more than what is negotiated, they can keep the terms, but it should not be less than that.
Baroness Barran (Con)
I am sorry to intervene again on the Minister, but I asked this question specifically of the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones and Lady Smith, because that is what employers are worried about: that their existing staff will suffer as a result of this. I think the noble Baroness’s letter is absolutely clear. It uses the same language that the noble Lord has in his speaking notes but with the additional detail that all terms are the same or as favourable. I believe that we will not vote on this Motion until a little later, so if the Minister is able to clarify things in the meantime, I would be grateful.
Lord Leong (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for that. I will make sure that I read the letter and will ask my officials to confirm in writing for her.
Baroness Lloyd of Effra
That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 22A and 22B.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Information and Technology (Baroness Lloyd of Effra) (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak also to Motions F and J. I first come to Motion D, on non-disclosure agreements, also known as NDAs. In the other place, the Government proposed two minor amendments to the clause on NDAs. The first will extend the scope of the clause to include staff of the House of Commons and the House of Lords. We are proposing this change following discussions with the parliamentary authorities. The second will extend the scope of relevant discrimination covered by the clause to include a failure to make reasonable adjustments for disabled persons under Section 21 of the Equality Act 2010. This will ensure that all forms of harassment and discrimination in the Equality Act are covered.
Turning to Motion F, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, for her advocacy for reform of the whistleblowing framework in the Employment Rights Act 1996. Whistleblowers play a critical role in shining light on wrongdoing, and the Government recognise that the framework may not be operating as effectively as it could be. The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, has also championed the importance of whistleblowers, and the Government would welcome further engagement with her and others about their views on whistleblowing. The Minister for Employment Rights and Consumer Protection would be pleased to extend an invitation for a meeting to the noble Baroness to discuss this matter further.
Motion J relates to Amendment 49 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Leigh of Hurley. This amendment would require a formal consultation with at least 500 SMEs on the Bill’s impact, with a report to Parliament within 18 weeks. The Government have engaged extensively with stakeholders on their make work pay reform since August 2024. A major part of this engagement has been to seek the varied views of SMEs. As of 15 October, we had engaged directly with more than 250 stakeholders. This included 139 businesses, of which 75 were SMEs. This approach to engagement will remain throughout the various consultations, where due consideration will be given to views from small business organisations and their members. We will also look to arrange focused sessions with SMEs, specific to the practical implementation, to understand any challenges and ensure that we can target guidance where necessary.
We are proud to announce that the consultations for the duty to inform workers of the right to join a union, union right of access, enhanced dismissal protections for pregnant women and leave for bereavement, including pregnancy loss, are currently live. We encourage all interested stakeholders to respond.
Lord Collins of Highbury
That this House do not insist on its Amendments 23 and 107 to 120, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reasons 23A and 107A to 120A, do not insist on its Amendment 106, and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 106A to the words restored to the Bill by their disagreement with Lords Amendment 106.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion E. I beg to move.
Motion E1 (as an amendment to Motion E)
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
Leave out from “House” to end and insert “do insist on its Amendments 23 and 106 to 120, and do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment 106A.”
Baroness Lloyd of Effra
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 46, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 46A.
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion F. I beg to move.
Lord Collins of Highbury
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 47, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 47A.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, in moving Motion G, I will also speak to Motions M and M1. In this group we will debate amendments relating to the right to be accompanied and trade union industrial action ballots. I will take these in turn, to outline the Government’s belief that these amendments are unnecessary.
I will first speak to Motion G, relating to Amendment 47, and Motion G1, relating to the amendment in lieu tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Fox. I thank the noble Lord for his interest in this matter.
The Government believe that the existing statutory framework on the right to be accompanied works well. It allows workers to be accompanied at disciplinary and grievance hearings by a fellow worker or a trade union representative or official. This approach ensures that workplace disputes are more generally dealt with internally, with only people who work for the employer or who have a close relationship with the employer having a legal right to attend. This means that the conversation happens in a less formal setting, which helps the open dialogue that is often needed to resolve disputes.
Employers are free to allow workers to bring other people with them to these meetings if they wish and deem it appropriate. Indeed, some workers may have a contractual right to be accompanied by persons other than those listed—for instance, a professional support body, partner, spouse or legal representative. But legislating to introduce certified professional companions to the list of people who can accompany workers to these meetings could create additional complexity.
I am grateful to the noble Lord for tabling his amendment in lieu, which, instead of seeking to change the law on right to be accompanied, seeks for the current law to be reviewed to see whether any changes are appropriate. I am happy, today, to commit to a review of the relevant legislation to allow the Government to consider this issue in further detail. I hope that provides sufficient reassurance to the noble Lord and I ask him not to press his amendment.
I will now speak to Motion M, regarding Amendment 62, and Motion M1, insisting on this amendment, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom. The Government are clear that we want to foster a new partnership of co-operation between trade unions, employers and the Government, putting us in line with other economies that already benefit from more co-operation and less disruption. This is why, as set out in our manifesto, we are repealing the Trade Union Act 2016—an Act which only makes it harder for unions to engage in the bargaining and negotiation that settles disputes.
The existence of the 50% turnout threshold for industrial action ballots is not in line with the Government’s intention to create a positive and modern framework for trade union legislation that delivers productive, constructive engagement, reduces bureaucratic hurdles and respects unions’ democratic mandate. As the period of disruption between 2022 and 2024 has shown, bureaucratic hurdles only make it harder for unions to engage in the bargaining and negotiation that settles disputes. Some 2.7 million working days were lost to strike action in 2023, up from 2.5 million in 2022. These were the highest annual numbers of working days lost to strikes since 1989, all while the 50% threshold was in place. Indeed, as was mentioned in the previous stages of the Bill, the 50% threshold is a high bar not consistent with other democratic decision-making. Votes in Parliament, and elections for MPs and local councillors, do not normally include any turnout threshold, but are not therefore considered less legitimate. Further, local elections are contested with a turnout below 50%.
Those who oppose industrial action are free to vote against it in a ballot and will have their voice heard. The date for repeal of the 50% threshold will be set out in regulations in future, with the intention, with good reason—I notice my noble brother opposite has made a comment—that this is aligned with the establishment of e-balloting as an option for trade unions. I hope that that will encourage greater participation than that provided by the existing statutory arrangements for postal ballots. Together with the delivery of modern and secure workplace balloting, the intention is that this will ensure that industrial action mandates have broad and demonstrable support.
Once again, I am grateful to noble Lords for the contributions they have made throughout the Bill’s passage. I hope your Lordships agree that a healthy relationship between workers and employers, where disputes can be resolved constructively within organisations, can be achieved through strong unions and the measures set out in the Bill. I hope noble Lords agree to the Motion before them. I beg to move.
Motion G1 (as an amendment to Motion G)
“Report on the right to be accompanied
(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, lay before both Houses of Parliament a report on the feasibility of expanding the statutory right to be accompanied at disciplinary and grievance hearings.
(2) The report must consider in particular—
(a) whether the categories of individuals permitted to act as a companion under section 10(3) of the Employment Relations Act 1999 should be expanded;
12 Employment Rights Bill
(b) the potential benefits and risks of such expansion for employers and workers;
(c) any safeguards that may be necessary in relation to confidentiality, independence, or professional standards of proposed companions;
(d) the impact on access to fair representation, particularly for workers not represented by a trade union; and
(e) the potential impact of any expansion on individuals with protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010.
(3) In preparing the report, the Secretary of State must consult such persons as they consider appropriate, which may include—
(a) representatives of workers and employers;
(b) professional bodies;
(c) legal and employment rights experts;
(d) organisations with experience of supporting workers in grievance and disciplinary processes;
(e) organisations representing individuals with protected characteristics.”
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, I welcome the Minister’s response from the Dispatch Box, but I will speak to this Motion a little, to set it in context and perhaps put down some markers for the discussions that will be happening with the Secretary of State.
Responding to the spirited work of my noble friend Lord Palmer, this House voted overwhelmingly on Report, with cross-party support, to expand the right of workers to be accompanied at a disciplinary or grievance hearing by a trained companion. The provision was removed by the Government in the other place because of concerns about potential increases to cost, complexity and length of such hearings. The Liberal Democrats disagree with the Government’s position, because there is no evidence to support it; in fact, there is excellent evidence to the contrary that trained companions reduce cost, complexity and escalation. We hear this from organisations that already accompany workers on a non-statutory basis, and we can see it in the research of ACAS and in other academic areas.
None the less, this amendment in lieu presents a reasonable compromise, as I think the Minister has conceded. It would allow the Government to conduct a proper review into the creation of a new category of trained companion, at which point any concerns could be properly examined. In the spirit of working collaboratively, I hope that we can now move forward on this and that, instead of frustrating this process, we can develop one that is a proportionate step to enable the Government to examine this issue properly and finally take into account the experiences of the vast majority of its own voters, let alone the country, who are not members of a trade union and still need support in times like this.
I turn briefly to Motion M1, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, and spoken to by his colleague, which would reinsert a Report stage amendment requiring that industrial action can proceed only if at least 50% of those eligible to vote in a ballot participate. We continue to support this amendment, which would maintain the status quo.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, I speak briefly to support, from the perspective of teachers, the comments by the noble Lord, Lord Fox. Of course, teachers and other front-line caring professionals carry immense responsibility for the welfare and safety of children, which brings with it considerable legal obligations that few other professions face. Employers in schools are rightly duty-bound by safeguarding law to investigate every allegation, however unfounded it may later prove to be. As a result, teachers are far more likely than most to face formal hearings during their careers.
The number of allegations is rising sharply, with data from Teacher Tapp, which surveys about 11,000 teachers every day, showing that, in the last academic year alone, allegations against teachers increased by around 35% compared with the previous year; that figure rises to nearly 60% in schools with the highest proportion of pupils on free school meals. As we have debated earlier, in this Bill and others, technology is changing the landscape, with an ability to create ever more complex complaints using artificial intelligence.
As the noble Lord, Lord Fox, said already, this carries a human cost but also a financial cost, with suspended teachers remaining on their salaries while schools fund cover. Some local authorities are spending hundreds of thousands pounds each year on suspended staff awaiting hearings, and still more when flawed procedures lead to tribunal claims.
The right to be accompanied by someone trained to provide calm, professional support is not an indulgence but a practical safeguard. The strength of feeling in the profession is clear and almost unanimous: according to Teacher Tapp, 97% of teachers believe they should be entitled to a trained companion, whether or not they belong to a union, and almost two-thirds say they would wish to have legal representation. This speaks volumes about the professional anxiety that teachers and other school staff face when formal allegations arise.
I hope very much that, when the Minister comes to close, he can confirm that this review will look closely at how accompaniment rights operate in practice, including teachers and other school staff within that to make sure that those who dedicate their lives to educating and caring for our children are treated with the fairness, dignity and compassion that they deserve.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Government and the Minister for their comments. When we debated this earlier, we talked about who was going to represent and who was not. I felt at the time that there was an undue feeling that we were trying to get at trade unions. That is not the case at all. Trade unions have a really relevant part in this, but not everybody belongs to a trade union. Many people and firms are not trade unionised, and they therefore use the other course available, which is to have a co-worker there. That works very nicely—you have a good pal who comes along and represents you, but they are not trained to do so. All the amendment was doing was finding that, when and if a trade union is not representing them and can well do so, a trained person accompanies the person at a tribunal. I gather from what the Minister has said that there is some merit seen in this proposal; that is what I have read, and I hope the Minister will confirm that when he finalises. If my understanding is correct, will the Minister and his department keep us updated on what is happening on this issue?
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, on the Minister’s response, I positively welcome the Government’s commitment to this review of the right to be accompanied, and I thank the Government in this instance for listening to the concerns raised at Report and Committee stages. On Report, I put forward an amendment that would have allowed workers to have a companion of their own choosing at disciplinary or grievance hearings—I felt it should be that open. I was happy none the less to support the amendment by the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, which, as has already been noted, was overwhelmingly supported. I would still like it to be a statutory right for workers—as this is a workers’ rights Bill, as we are constantly told—to be able to choose who represents them when they face grievance procedures, but I am really pleased that the Government will look at this. I hope that they look widely and think about the issue and that we can resolve it.
I want to respond very briefly to the way the Minister talked about the decision on keeping the issues internal and to draw attention to one of the problems with that. Over recent years, sometimes the grievances that workers have been involved in have been quite ideologically contentious, and issues have been very difficult, so simply to call upon fellow workmates to come with you into the grievance internally has been difficult because of a nervousness about guilt by association. It is also the case that not everyone is in a union, so, when the union might be representing someone, that is the opposite of keeping it internal and informal, because the person in that grievance procedure does not even know who they are with.
I also want to draw attention to just one thing: I wish it were not the case, but sometimes trade unions’ own policies can see them at odds with their own members. There have been a few instances of that recently—see the case of Sandie Peggie, who is suing the RCN around the issue of single-sex changing rooms for nurses. These things have been well documented, so I will not go into them, but it is not always as straightforward as saying that the trade unions will be the best people to represent a member of staff.
To finish, I stress that, historically, trade union representatives have very often protected and represented brilliantly, and been brilliant advocates for many people facing difficulties at work. I sat in many grievance procedures, representing members of my own union when I was a trade union rep. That is an ideal. Now that only a minority are represented by trade unionists, and based on the aspiration of the Bill to represent all workers and give them more rights, I hope this review will broaden the rights that workers have through representation so that they can choose who represents them. In general, however, I am very positive about the Government’s decision.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, on having introduced a really important issue. Undoubtedly, any appearance at a grievance or disciplinary hearing can be a huge setback for any individual and, as my noble friend Lady Barran pointed out, these individuals do need to be accompanied. I therefore thank the noble Lord for raising this, and I agree with his noble friend, the noble Lord, Lord Fox. I also agree with the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley. I hope that the Minister will respond positively to the points that have been raised in this debate.
Motion M1 is in the name of my noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom. I must express my disappointment in Brother Collins—the noble Lord, Lord Collins—and his whole attitude that we no longer need 50% to call a strike. What sort of message does that send?
It has been over one year since this Government came to power. In that time, they have proceeded and presided not over progress but over paralysis. They promised to reset industrial relations and said that a new partnership was on the horizon. However, what we have had instead is a Government in retreat, tearing up safeguards, buying off disputes and calling it “reform”. Their great idea is to repeal the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act, removing the last protection that the public have when vital services grind to a halt.
They handed out no-strings-attached pay rises to members of the RMT and the BMA, with no plan, no reform and no responsibility. What happened then? It spectacularly backfired. Wes Streeting, the Secretary of State for Health, admitted that the majority of BMA members did not even vote for strike action. Yet this Government’s answer to that embarrassment is not to rebuild trust but to lower the bar for future strikes. The removal of the strike action ballot threshold will invite permanent disruption: hospitals stalled, railways paralysed, classrooms dark and the very arteries of our public lives clogged by chaos.
It does not stop there. Under these new so-called union access rights, small businesses already struggling with costs, labour shortages and regulation will now face inspectors at their doors; refuse entry and they face thousands of pounds in fines. What a message to the entrepreneurs, builders and wealth creators who keep this country moving. I urge the Government to accept this amendment to protect our small businesses, entrepreneurs and public services.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. I certainly acknowledge what my noble brother—the noble Lord, Lord Hunt—has said, particularly on the right to be accompanied.
In addressing the debate on the 50% turnout for industrial action, it is important for me to stress that trade unions play a vital role in representing members and ensuring that workplace democracy is upheld, including in decisions on political engagement and industrial actions. In fact, our reforms recognise the importance of trade unions as democratic institutions, strengthening their ability to campaign, negotiate and give working people a fair voice. Strong trade unions foster constructive relations between staff and employers, which, in turn, is beneficial for business as well as working people.
I point out to my noble brother that, believe it or not, strikes are not an end in themselves. Strikes are a tool, as a last resort, to help bring people together to negotiate and reach a settlement. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Did the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act, with its 50% threshold, result in improved collective bargaining? Did it result in fewer strikes? The simple answer is: no, it did not.
Our focus should be on having good industrial relations and proper collective bargaining, and on strengthening the tools to deliver improved conditions. Legislating to prohibit things has proved not to work. Our intention has been very clear: with the 50% turnout, we want to ensure that there are new means of ensuring greater participation through e-balloting. We discussed that during the passage of the 2016 Act and in the debate on minimum service levels.
I hope the noble Lord will understand that we are very committed to good industrial relations, strong collective bargaining and good employment practices that will deliver growth in our economy. Legislating as the Conservative Government did in the past did not achieve the so-called objectives that they set themselves to reduce the number of strikes; it had the completely opposite effect.
We want to ensure that, where instruments such as industrial action are used, they are a tool to bring people together, not to drive them apart. Simply imposing the thresholds that have been imposed before, particularly through the minimum service levels Act, has had the completely opposite effect. I hope that noble Lords will agree that that is not the way and that the Government’s proposals are the best way of doing this.
In response to the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, as I said in my opening remarks, the Government commit to reviewing in its entirety the functioning of Section 10 of the Employment Relations Act 1999, which includes provisions on who can be a companion and the right to be accompanied. As part of the review, we will engage with relevant and interested stakeholders and, following its conclusion, we will publish our findings in Parliament. This will also include the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran.
I hope that this satisfies the noble Lord, Lord Fox, and that he will withdraw his Motion. I also hope that noble Lords will reflect carefully, not just on an ideological position but to see that the most important thing to focus on is outcomes. We want to focus on improving industrial relations and good employment practices—and that is what the Bill is intended to do. I hope that noble Lords will reflect on what I have said and will be minded to support the Government’s approach.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his words and for committing to this review—or this section of a larger review—from the Dispatch Box. We are very satisfied with that concession. I beg leave to withdraw Motion G1.
Lord Collins of Highbury
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 48, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 48A.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion H, that the House do not insist on its Amendment 48, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 48A. I beg to move.
Motion H1 (as an amendment to Motion H)
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
At end insert “, and do propose Amendment 48B in lieu”—
“Definition of seasonal work
(1) In making regulations under Part 1 of this Act, the Secretary of State must have regard to the specific characteristics and requirements of seasonal work as defined in subsection (2).
(2) “Seasonal work” means work that—
(a) is performed during a particular period or periods of the year,
(b) recurs substantially in the same periods each year,
(c) is directly linked to a predictable and temporary increase in demand for
labour during those periods,
(d) is carried out in one or more of the following sectors—
(i) agriculture and horticulture,
(ii) the creative industries, including theatre and live performance,
(iii) retail
(iv) hospitality,
(v) tourism, leisure and events, and
(vi) construction and landscaping, and
(e) is entered into for a fixed duration not exceeding 26 weeks to meet the temporary demand.
(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations made by statutory instrument add further sectors to the list in subsection (2)(d), provided that work in those sectors meets the criteria outlined in subsection (2)(a) to (2)(c).
(4) Regulations under subsection (3) are subject to the affirmative procedure.”
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Baroness Lloyd of Effra
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 49, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 49A.
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion J. I beg to move.
Lord Leong
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 60, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 60A.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay
At end insert “, and do propose Amendments 60B and 60C in lieu—
“Restriction on the employment of children in industrial undertakings
The Secretary of State must, on the day this Act is passed, instruct the Office for Rail and Road and the Health and Safety Executive to draw up guidance on the industrial undertakings which they consider are, and are not, appropriate for people under the age of 18 to carry out when employed by or volunteering for a heritage railway or heritage tramway.
(2) This guidance must take into account—
(a) the Employment of Women, Young Persons, and Children Act 1920,
(b) the Children and Young Persons Act 1933,
(c) the Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act 1937,
(d) the Children and Young Persons Act (Northern Ireland) 1968,
(e) the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974,
(f) the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999, and
(g) other relevant legislation.
(3) The Office for Rail and Road and the Health and Safety Executive must publish this guidance within six months of the day on which this Act is passed.”
“(za) section (Restriction on the employment of children in industrial undertakings) (restriction on the employment of children in industrial undertakings);”
Lord Collins of Highbury
That this House do not insist on its Amendments 61 and 72, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reasons 61A and 72A.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, Clause 59 restores the long-standing practice that existed for 70 years—even during the Conservative Governments of Margaret Thatcher and John Major—before the passage of the Trade Union Act 2016, whereby new members are automatically included as contributors to a political fund unless they choose to opt out. The Government believe, as I said earlier, that the 2016 Act placed unnecessary red tape on trade union activity that works against trade unions’ core role of negotiation, dispute resolution and giving a voice to working people. We have a clear manifesto commitment to repeal it.
We seek to redress this balance and remove burdensome requirements on how unions manage their political funds. We are not—and I make this absolutely clear—removing choice. At the point of joining, every new member will be clearly informed on their application form that they have the right to opt out. This same form will make it plain that opting out has no bearing whatever on any other aspect of their union membership. Most union membership forms are now online and most of these details are contained in a highly accessible form. So we are not removing choice; people will be very aware of what they are doing.
It is important to stress that trade unions are not groups that conscript or compel members to join them; they are democratic organisations whose political funds are ultimately controlled by their members through the democratic structures of the union. All members are free to participate in these democratic structures and thereby to decide how their political fund is used. Members who object to a union’s political fund can use the union’s democratic structures to close the fund, get involved in the union to be part of the decisions about how the fund is spent, and opt out of political fund contributions on an individual basis. These are all important elements of choice.
Political funds are one mechanism that union members can utilise to represent their collective interests. Political funds are not just about affiliations to certain political parties. Indeed, some unions do not contribute to any political party at all. Political funds can allow unions to participate in campaigns on a range of issues in their members’ interests. Examples include lobbying MPs, broader public campaigns, research to develop policy ideas, and paying travel expenses for workers to attend Parliament to give evidence about the issues they face at work. Indeed, as I have repeatedly said, UNISON operates two separate political funds, or two parts of one political fund, related to affiliation and to wider campaigning.
I also remind noble Lords that establishing a political fund is not a requirement for trade unions and that the majority of unions do not operate one. Political funds are set up through democratic structures of a union and must have sufficient support from its membership to do so. These structures make unions accountable to their members, who are free to participate in the democratic process to shape how political funds are utilised. What we propose today returns us to a system that is both workable and proportionate. We do not wish to saddle unions with excessive paperwork when the principle of choice is already safeguarded.
I hope this reassures noble Lords that automatic opt-ins will reduce the administrative burden on unions while retaining members’ capacity to make an active choice not to contribute to the political fund if they so wish. Once again, I hope we can move on in relation to this issue and respect what the Labour Party committed to in its manifesto, restoring the rights for unions that have existed for over 70 years. I beg to move.
Motion L1 (as an amendment to Motion L)
Lord Burns
Moved by
Leave out from “House” to end and insert “do insist on its Amendments 61 and 72.”
Lord Burns (CB)
My Lords, in July, this House agreed my amendment on trade union political funds with a large majority. The amendment would maintain a position where new members have to opt in to make a contribution to a union’s political fund. This was debated in the House of Commons and rejected. I have had a conversation with the Minister and the Deputy Leader of the House about this, for which I am grateful— I welcome the Minister to her new responsibilities.
In the Commons, three reasons were given for rejecting my amendment; we have heard the noble Lord, Lord Collins of Highbury, make similar points. The first reason given was that it was necessary to lift the “burden” of the 2016 Act. I am sorry that giving members more autonomy and an active choice in the decision whether to contribute to a political fund is seen as a burden. If there is an administrative cost, surely the correct response should be to examine the procedures and methods within the unions that create this burden. My understanding is that today—we heard it repeated this evening—members generally communicate online with their union. This should be much more efficient than in the days of pen, forms and postage, and surely cannot be a decisive factor.
The second reason given was the familiar argument that the Government’s proposal simply returns to the long-standing precedent that has worked for 70 years. However, as I argued last time, using an arrangement whereby members are automatically opted in unless they take on the additional burden of opting out is no longer acceptable in most walks of life. In that case, members are not exercising an active choice; it is using passive inertia to reduce the likelihood that members will exercise their right to opt out.
The third reason given was that accepting the amendment would break a clear government commitment. I can find no reference to trade union party funds in the Government’s election manifesto—maybe I have missed something. I can find no mention of political funds in the paper Labour’s Plan to Make Work Pay. That paper charges the previous Government with having “attacked rights at work” and says that Labour “will repeal” those measures, but in which universe is giving people the right to make a transparent and active choice about paying into a political fund attacking rights at work?
I recognise that since the 2016 Act came into force, the proportion of trade union members paying the political contribution has fallen. However, to examine the change and compare it with 2016, we have to omit the figures for Unite the Union, because it has not submitted figures for the past three years. Taking it out and making the comparison with the other unions with political funds, we see that 86% of members contributed in 2016-17 while in the most recent year for which we have numbers, that has fallen to 68%. I can understand the concern, but the real question is: what does this tell us?
For me, the most plausible explanation is that it tells us something about the decisions that members wish to make when faced with a clear choice. It is interesting that reduction in participation is not the same across all unions with political funds. I suggest that unions should ask themselves why they have failed to persuade those members to contribute to those funds, rather than relying on inertia and hoping that members will make their contribution without really considering the issue.
I want to address one further argument. Several times it has been suggested that trade unions are subject to constraints and regulations that do not apply to other organisations; for example, the National Trust. Some even question why they should be required to have a separate political fund. But to me, this overlooks a significant difference: trade unions are regulated bodies. They are protected against being sued for damages and have legal immunity for their funds in trade disputes and their core services. However, the law does not allow them to impose compulsory levies on all members to fund political representation. They are allowed to have a separate political fund but must have safeguards to protect individual members’ freedom of choice. Of course, the crux of the matter is: what do we mean by freedom of choice?
I would like to find a solution that provides genuine freedom of choice and avoids going through these arguments—rather bitter arguments, sometimes—with each change of Government. In my view, this means giving members a clear and equal choice when they join a union, or when that union votes to establish a new political fund. They should be required to choose between two options: do you wish to pay the fee to the political fund, or do you not wish to do so? This seems the only fair way to provide people with an equal choice.
I emphasise that I do not have a position on whether members should pay the political contribution. I am not trying to discourage them from contributing. All I am asking is that members be given a clear and equal choice that meets the transparent standards we expect today. I beg to move.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
My Lords, I support the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and of course I welcome the new team to the Front Bench. The noble Lord, Lord Collins of Highbury, will recall that we had pretty much the same debate in 2016, albeit that we were facing in different directions.
The noble Lord, Lord Burns, referenced the debate on 23 July, which was day 4 of Report, about disclosure of payments made from a political fund. This is key, because if union members are going to have, in effect, an opt-in/opt-out arrangement changed, they need to know what the political fund is used for. When I pushed the Government on it, the then Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, said:
“My understanding is that the political funds will be required to continue to spell out how they are spending the money, but not for sums under £2,000”.
I challenged her, and said:
“I am sure the Minister would not like to have on record something that does not seem to be correct. I think she means that amounts under £2,000 need not be disclosed”.—[Official Report, 23/7/25; col. 281.]
The noble Baroness ignored my comment, and we carried on to a vote on whether payments made by the political fund should be disclosed to the certification officer and members of the union in respect of their own money, as has previously been the case.
On 29 August, over a month later, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, wrote to me with what was described as a corrections letter, which, while lacking in my opinion an appropriate apology, confirmed my assertion that this Bill removes the duty of unions to disclose the detail of expenditure from their members or anyone else. Accordingly, it allows the union bosses to spend their members’ money from the political fund exactly how they like, with no one able to see where the money is spent. The noble Lord, Lord Collins of Highbury, just said that political funds are controlled by their members; he then said that those funds are accountable to members. I take issue with that.
My concern is that the vote on this issue took place on the basis of information and assurances given to your Lordships’ House at the Dispatch Box which the then Minister—not the current Minister, I emphasise—has now admitted were factually incorrect. It may well have swayed some noble Peers. This seems a very unsatisfactory situation, as it allows a vote to have taken place on incorrect information and assurances.
In the end, my amendment was defeated by 18 votes out of 360 Peers’ votes cast. I ask the Minister to explain this situation from the Dispatch Box so that we have a clear record of what has happened and so that legislation may be revisited at a later date. I ask noble Peers to bear this in mind when considering whether to support the noble Lord, Lord Burns.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, I am going to advance a different argument from that which we have just heard from the noble Lord, Lord Leigh. It is rather more philosophical and was touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Burns. He mentioned “inertia”, and inertia sells.
Right across this House, your Lordships have worked on legislation that has sought to remove the perils for consumers trapped in deals and situations which are too difficult to get out of. We have made it easier for people to change their bank and to switch utilities. Those of your Lordships who lived through the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill will remember clearly a big debate about the automatic rolling over of subscriptions. Rather than the arguments that we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, I cleave to those that we heard from the proposer of this Motion. There is an element of liberalness and freedom about individuals choosing, rather than having to choose not to, which is what is asked by this change.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I shall be very brief, because I completely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and I found myself in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Fox, as well. If the noble Lord, Lord Burns, seeks to test the opinion of the House, he will have the support of the official Opposition.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, context is of course all-important in this debate. An arrangement was made that lasted from 1945 to 2016, and the important thing to keep stressing is that this is about the ability of unions to express their policies and concerns in a particular way, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Burns, highlighted, is highly regulated. But the decisions of a union involve all the members. The policy of a union is decided by the democratic structures that determine the outcome or objectives of those political funds.
There is no doubt that we were all very surprised and concerned about the sudden introduction in 2016 of something that changed a practice that had existed from 1945, and in 1945 the opt-out was introduced to replace what a Conservative Government had done in 1921. As the noble Lord, Lord Burns, said to me when we met, there had been a swing between two positions that could create uncertainty. But in 2016, everyone in this Chamber knew exactly what the impact of the original proposals in the 2016 Bill would result in, and that it would have a severe impact on the political activity of trade unions.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
Does the Minister accept, in talking about the impact on trade unions, that the position is now very different in terms of the historical context, given that union membership has shrunk to such a degree in the workplace that it is now more dominant in the public sector than in the productive private sector? Does he accept that, under the noble Lord’s proposed amendment, we are pivoting one section of the workforce to a position of dominance over all sections, and it is rather undemocratic?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I do not accept the noble Baroness’s position at all. In fact, historically, a lot of public sector unions did not have political funds, and if they did, they certainly did not affiliate to any political party. I mentioned in my introduction that when NUPE merged with NALGO, they had two separate arrangements to ensure that the culture and traditions of those two unions could be maintained.
I come back to the point that no one was expecting the arrangement that had existed since 1945—a highly regulated arrangement, let us not forget, around political funds—to suddenly change. I know that noble Lords on the Opposition Benches expressed concern about that. In fact, such concern was expressed across all parties that it resulted in the noble Lord, Lord Burns, organising a Select Committee that actually mitigated against that sudden change of opting into a political fund. The noble Lord proposed a sort of soft landing, so that the measure would not impact on unions immediately, and it was introduced for new members. He has given us the figures about the new members, and certain unions have a churn.
I repeat: political funds are the funds of the whole union policy decision-making process. Individual members, whether or not they contract out of the political fund, still have an absolute right to determine the policy through the democratic structures of that union and can determine whether the union expresses support for one political party or another.
I come back to a fundamental principle, which I urge noble Lords to consider: that a vital ingredient of a healthy democracy is a vibrant civil society, and that is where unions can have an important voice. On many occasions I do not agree with union policies, and on many occasions we may feel uncomfortable about those policies, but they are a vital part of our democracy. What was decided in 2016 was to stop or hinder that voice, and we are trying now to recognise trade unions as a collective voice. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Burns, that they are not like the National Trust or other such organisations. They are democratic organisations that are highly regulated through a whole host of legislation, and, of course, the political fund rules have to be submitted and approved by the certification officer.
I urge noble Lords to think back to the 2016 debate —to why all sides of this House were concerned about the impact of those proposals, and to focus on why trade unions need to have a political voice. I come back to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Burns, about new members applying online. The old idea was that the contracting-out provisions were in a rulebook, a magazine published once every so often. Now, the Bill will make it clear to members when they join what they can do. That is an important element of choice. I urge noble Lords to consider the position and to support the Government’s Motion.
Lord Hendy (Lab)
I think it was suggested that it might be difficult, if not impossible, for members to find out how their political fund was expended. Does the Minister agree that Section 30 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 gives every member the right to inspect not merely the accounts but all the accounting records of a union political fund or general fund? That means every receipt, bill and invoice. They can inspect those records, even accompanied by an accountant.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for that. I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, as I got carried away with the points I was making about contracting out and forgot to address his specific issue, which he raised with me previously. I have the letter that my noble friend Lady Jones wrote to him, and I am quite happy to be absolutely clear that we are removing the additional reporting requirement introduced by the 2016 Act for unions to provide additional information about their political expenditure in their annual returns to the certification officer. We are simply returning to the reporting requirements that existed pre 2016, with unions’ annual returns available for public inspection—an additional point my noble friend made—and they will continue to include information relating to governance and finance of the trade union, including management of their political funds, as they have done for many years. Repealing the 2016 Act is of course a manifesto commitment. But my noble friend is right that accountability on expenditure is very much through access to information that is provided for already in legislation.
Lord Burns (CB)
I thank the Minister for his response. I am disappointed but not entirely surprised. I can assure the Minister that I have no objection to how political funds are used. When the whole notion of political funds was established, it was clearly for the support of political parties—that was what the debate was back in 1910 and 1920 and that is not the issue at heart.
The issue is how people express their decision on whether they wish to join the political fund or not. I continue to hope I can persuade the Government there is merit in trying to find a settled resolution to this issue which all parties can support. I believe it can be done. The Minister already outlined the procedures that will be required under the Government’s proposals in terms of telling people what the political fund is for and explaining to them that they have the ability to opt out. I think all we require is to move that along so that people are presented at the time they join with a clear choice. They should know exactly what is in front of them and what the options are. That is the way in which we can move this issue on; it has gone on, as we discussed when we met, since 1921. It has gone backwards and forwards. I would like to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Collins of Highbury
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 62, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 62A.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion M. I beg to move.
Motion M1 (as an amendment to Motion M)
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
Leave out from “House” to end and insert “do insist on its Amendment 62.”
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Leong
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 121, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 121A.
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, I will confirm the policy in the letter sent by my noble friends Lady Smith and Lady Jones, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, referred.
The purpose of the SSSNB is to ensure that school support staff are entitled to at least a statutory minimum level of pay and conditions that has been negotiated by the school employer and employee representatives, and is appropriate for the roles that staff are undertaking in schools. The SSSNB’s remit will also allow for greater consistency in the relationship between roles, training and pay, and it will be for the SSSNB to agree how this is done and what the core offer looks like. Beyond this minimum offer, school support staff will be able to benefit from more favourable pay and conditions where these are offered by the employer.
Furthermore, the SSSNB will receive a remit from the Secretary of State setting out what the body will focus on in a given year. In the first few years, the SSSNB will focus on terms and conditions that will most benefit school support staff, while giving the sector time to adjust to the new process. Where regulations make no provision in relation to particular terms and conditions of employment, the existing terms and conditions in the employee’s contract will remain unchanged, and schools continue to have flexibility to agree terms in local negotiations; for example, if a ratified agreement relates to minimum pay levels only, existing contractual provisions in relation to annual leave or another school that staff work in will remain unchanged.
I have already spoken to Motion N. I beg to move.
Motion N1 (as an amendment to Motion N)
Baroness Barran
at end insert “, and do propose Amendment 121B in lieu—
“(3) The SSSNB must not restrict employers from introducing terms and conditions of employment beyond the national framework, provided that such terms in aggregate meet or exceed any minimum standards set by the SSSNB and are designed to—
(a) improve the skill levels of staff,
(b) ensure that staff can meet the needs of children,
(c) raise standards of support for children, or
(d) improve recruitment and retention of support staff.
(4) In determining whether the terms meet or exceed any minimum standards, none of the following conditions may be considered as breaching the minimum standards—
(a) CPD and professional development requirements;
(b) promotion dependent on securing particular qualifications;
(c) working patterns that have pay consequences;
(d) role-specific responsibilities including requirements to work with other employees in other schools or locations.
(5) The Secretary of State may, by regulations, add to the list in subsection (4).”
Baroness Barran (Con)
I thank the Minister for that clarification, but I take little reassurance from it, in particular the idea of what will happen in the next few years to the focus of the SSSNB. In this House, we make legislation beyond the next few years. With that, I would like to test the opinion of the House.
Employment Rights Bill
Wednesday 5th November 2025
(4 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Employment Rights Act 2025 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Commons Consideration of Lords Message as at 5 November 2025 - large print - (5 Nov 2025)
16:35 - The House divided: - Ayes: 310 / Noes: 155 - Question accordingly agreed to.
16:49 - The House divided: - Ayes: 308 / Noes: 153 - Question accordingly agreed to.
17:00 - The House divided: - Ayes: 310 / Noes: 150 - Question accordingly agreed to.
17:12 - The House divided: - Ayes: 312 / Noes: 151 - Question accordingly agreed to.
17:24 - The House divided: - Ayes: 311 / Noes: 152 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I can inform the House that nothing in the Lords message engages Commons financial privilege.
Clause 1
Right to Guaranteed Hours
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kate Dearden)
I beg to move,
That this House disagrees with the Lords in their amendment 1B.
Madam Deputy Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following Government motions:
That this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords in their amendment 23 and amendments 106 to 120, does not insist on Commons amendment 106A but proposes Government amendments (a) to (c) in lieu of Lords amendment 23 and Lords amendments 106 to 120.
That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 48B.
That this House disagrees with Lords amendments 60B and 60C but proposes Government amendments (a) and (b) in lieu.
That this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords in their amendments 61 and 72 but proposes Government amendment (a) in lieu.
That this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords in their amendment 62 but proposes Government amendment (a) in lieu.
Kate Dearden
I am pleased to speak on the Employment Rights Bill for our second consideration of Lords amendments, and I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) for her outstanding work on employment rights and her unwavering advocacy for working people. I know how close this Bill is to her heart, and I am grateful that she is here in support today. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders) for his work and dedication on this significant piece of legislation.
The Government’s top priority is to grow the economy and improve living standards. Essential to that is the recognition that greater productivity, security and dignity in work help to grow the economy. The stronger economic performance that our country needs cannot be built on the backs of people in insecure work. For too long employment law has failed to keep pace with the fundamental changes to how, when and where we work. It is time to build a modern industrial relations framework, fashioned on the principle of social partnership that consent and consensus must replace disputes and conflict in modern employment relations. That is good for workers and good for business. Both suffer when one employer is undercut by another, using reduced terms and conditions of service for their employees. Sustainable economic growth cannot be built on unfair competition and insecure employment.
The Employment Rights Bill extends the employment protections currently enjoyed by some employees in the best British companies to workers across the country. By doing so, work will become more secure and predictable while strengthening the foundations that underpin a modern economy. The Bill will back businesses that already do the right thing and give hard-working people the job security and opportunities they deserve. It is in tune with the times and in keeping with how the world of work is changing.
Industrial relations law in this country must move from the 20th century to the 21st. It has to recognise that certainty and security are essential for people at work, that the best relationship between employer and employee is best exemplified by fairness and trust within a framework for recruitment and retention that values both, and that dignity at work is as vital to the effective functioning of modern society as the dignity of work.
Some will seek to use this issue to entrench the idea that employers and employees have opposing interests that must always inevitably result in dispute and strife, and I reject that view. The very best trade unionists know, as do the best employers, that such a view only represents failure. For this Labour Government, success is to be measured not in division, but in the shared economic growth that we achieve, the opportunity and security we build and the prosperity we create, and that is at the heart of the Bill.
Today I ask the House to reaffirm its support for this important legislation as we move through the latest round of parliamentary ping-pong. We have listened carefully to the concerns that have been raised, and in response we are offering, where possible, amendments in lieu that we believe strike a fair and workable compromise with the proposed amendments. Although we appreciate the range of perspectives offered, we will be unable to support certain amendments that conflict with the fundamental principles of the Bill and may compromise its intended impact.
We acknowledge that Lords amendment 1B, which relates to zero-hours contracts, is an amendment in lieu, intended as a compromise. It proposes a shift from a full right-to-request model to one in which employers must notify workers of their right to a guaranteed hours offer, and make a guaranteed hours offer unless the worker declines or opts out. I appreciate the sentiment behind the amendment, but it would undermine the Bill’s core aim of ending exploitative contracts and providing security for the workers who need it most. We therefore cannot accept it.
The Government are committed to ending one-sided flexibility so that workers are not left guessing about their hours or pay. These reforms reward fair employers, modernise the system and come with clear guidance to help everyone prepare. For employers, clear expectations mean better staffing and lower recruitment costs through better retention. We also appreciate that some groups, including younger workers, value the flexibility of zero-hours contracts. That is why workers will be able to decline a guaranteed hours offer and remain on their existing arrangement if that works best for them.
The Government are also committed to supporting young people into work. The youth guarantee will include a targeted backstop under which every eligible and unemployed young person on universal credit for 18 months without earning or learning will be provided guaranteed paid work. The scheme forms part of the Government’s aim to provide targeted support for young people at risk of long-term unemployment. Further details will be confirmed at the autumn Budget, following further engagement, including with employers.
Let me turn to Lords amendment 48B on seasonal work. The Government recognise that work in certain sectors fluctuates seasonally, and that there are ways in which employers may account for that and remain compliant with the legislation. They may, for example, use annualised hours contracts, which offer variable numbers of hours at work at different times of the year. Additionally, the Bill already allows guaranteed hours offers to take the form of limited-term contracts where reasonable—for example, a fruit-picker could be engaged on a contract tied to the end of the picking season. In such cases, after the initial reference period, the employer would be required to guarantee hours only for the duration of that limited-term contract rather than on a permanent basis. The Bill also already provides powers to address seasonal work through regulations, ensuring flexibility as workforce needs evolve. Consultation with employers, trade unions and stakeholders will take place before such regulations are made. We therefore do not support the amendment.
Let me turn to unfair dismissal. Lords amendments 23 and 106 to 120 propose retaining a qualifying period of six months for unfair dismissal. These amendments have returned to this House as the Lords have insisted on them. We remain committed to delivering unfair dismissal protections from day one—not two years, not six months, but day one. That was a clear pledge in our manifesto and it will ensure that about 9 million employees who have worked for their employer for less than two years are protected from being arbitrarily fired. Crucially, day one protection from unfair dismissal will not remove the right of businesses to dismiss people who cannot do their job or do not pass probation, but it will tackle cases of unfair dismissal in which hard-working employees are sacked without good reason. A six-month qualifying threshold still leaves employees exposed to dismissal without good reason in the early months of a new job, which is why the Government cannot accept the Lords amendments on maintaining a qualifying period.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
Does the Minister not listen to the voices of business and business organisations? They say that what the Government propose will make young people—whom it is riskier to take on—less likely to get jobs in the first place. Why does she think she knows better than employers and the people who create jobs in this country?
Kate Dearden
Yesterday, I was with the Hospitality Sector Council. I heard about all the brilliant work it does to provide employment opportunities for young people across the country. Indeed, my first job was in a café. Such opportunities to get on the employment ladder are significant for young people. That is why the Bill will work in alignment with all the other crucial work that the Government are doing through the youth guarantee.
As I have outlined on unfair dismissal, it simply is not fair that hard-working employees who have worked somewhere for 18 months can be unfairly dismissed and have no stability and predictability in their jobs. Protection through day one rights gives financial security to people who do not have it. We are striking a balanced approach by introducing a statutory probation period. As we have mentioned, the Government’s preference is for that to be a period of nine months, but we are engaging in consultation on the next steps for those light-touch standards. The probation period will ensure that in the early months of employment, employers can dismiss employees who might not be performing or might not be suitable. The measures will tackle the causes of unfair dismissal.
Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)
Some 73% of employers support giving employees protection from unfair dismissal—the day one rights—according to the Institute for Public Policy Research and TUC research, and 83% of managers agree that improved workers’ rights can and do positively impact on workplace productivity. Does my hon. Friend agree that we should listen to that extremely important research?
Kate Dearden
My hon. Friend raises an excellent point about research. Providing employees with security at work results in a happier workforce, which increases productivity and helps businesses across the country, as well as our economy. The Bill will provide flexibility and security for people in workplaces across the country, which is vital for our productivity. That is our vision for our country and economy.
James Wild
The Minister referred to a nine-month probationary period as opposed to the six-month unfair dismissal period. A report from the Resolution Foundation—which is usually held in high regard on the Treasury Bench—says that this is a “messy compromise” that risks confusing employers and preventing them from taking people on. That is the point that I was making. Some 20% of jobs in my constituency are in the hospitality sector. The sector is not taking people on because of the jobs tax, and it will take on even fewer people because of these increased costs. Does she not realise the confusion that will come from this messy probation period, which is not on the face of the Bill?
Kate Dearden
As we have said from the start, the implementation of day one unfair dismissal rights will be done with a light touch. I am keen to work with employers across the country, including in the hospitality sector, which plays a key role in employing and providing opportunities for young people. I will work with all stakeholders on the next steps and implementation. As the hon. Gentleman knows, and as is the case for lots of employment rights legislation, we are setting the foundation here in this crucial Bill, but there are lots of details to work through in consultation, which I am absolutely committed to doing.
The framework will be founded on the principle of social partnership: consent and consensus must replace dispute and conflict in modern employment relations. That will ensure maximum flexibility, so that the new framework works effectively for employers and employees in each sector of the economy. We will minimise the cost of its implementation and operation.
The Government are committed to ensuring that employers can hire with confidence. As I have said, introducing the statutory probation period enables employers to fairly assess new hires’ performance and suitability for the role that they have been hired for. Most employers already use contractual probation periods of six months or less. The Government have been clear that our preference is for the probationary period to be nine months long. That would allow for a standard six-month term, with the option to extend supporting employee development without compromising operational needs.
We have heard the calls to ensure that the framework reflects real-world realities, and we have tabled an amendment in lieu to address that. Our amendment places a statutory duty on the Government to consult on key aspects of the framework. That would guarantee meaningful input from employers and employees, giving businesses a direct role in shaping the legislation to ensure a practical and fair approach. Additionally, we are tabling a further amendment in lieu, making technical changes to the words restored to the Bill by our rejection of the Lords amendments.
Naushabah Khan (Gillingham and Rainham) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the Bill not only provides vital protections to the workforce, but gives businesses the certainty they need to grow our economy?
Kate Dearden
I completely agree. We are creating security for people across the country. Crucially, we are ensuring that employers do the right thing for their employees and go above and beyond the proposals in the Bill. That ensures a level playing field, which is good for our economy and for businesses that might otherwise be undercut by others that do not play by the rules.
We have also heard concerns about the pressures on the employment tribunal system. We will set up a taskforce to support us in fixing the employment dispute system, so that it works better for workers and businesses. The taskforce will have balanced representation from unions, businesses and other experts, including community organisations.
I turn now to the Lords amendments on heritage rail. The Government agree with the principle of the amendment and have tabled an amendment in lieu that captures the intent, while refining the drafting to provide more clarity and ensure that the legislation works as intended. The Government’s amendment, which has been tabled with the support of sponsoring peers Lord Parkinson and Lord Faulkner, places a statutory duty on the Office of Rail and Road and the Health and Safety Executive to produce guidance supporting 14 to 16-year-olds who volunteer on heritage railways.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
I rise as co-chair, alongside Lord Faulkner, of the all-party parliamentary group on heritage rail. I express my thanks to the Government for bringing forward the amendment and recognising that volunteering with heritage railways is an immensely useful experience for young people aged 14 to 16. I am glad that we are now undertaking a 12-month assessment for guidance.
Kate Dearden
I thank the right hon. Member for working with us and for her support throughout the passage of the Bill. I understand her passion and work in this area. As she says, the guidance will offer a clear benchmark for reasonable activities and assist inspectors in important decisions. The Government are committed to the work, as she will know, with publication targeted by 31 March 2026. We believe that this collaborative effort will provide practical guidance that empowers children to engage safely and meaningfully in heritage railway volunteering.
Turning to the issue of political funds, Lords amendments 61 and 72 would remove clause 59 from the Bill. That clause reverses measures in the Trade Union Act 2016, which we have committed to repeal, that require members to opt in to political funds. This therefore reinstates longstanding arrangements where members are automatically included unless they choose to opt out. Removing clause 59 would break that commitment to restore balance and fairness in union operations. The opt-in system, introduced in 2016, added bureaucracy without improving transparency or strengthening members’ choice. To be clear, we are not removing that choice. At the point of joining, every new member will be clearly informed on the application form that they have the right to opt out of contributing to a political fund. The same form will make it plain that opt-out has no negative bearing whatsoever on any other aspect of union membership. That is why the Government cannot support Lords amendments 61 and 72.
We have heard reflections around how opt-out notices would take effect and have tabled an amendment in lieu to refine that process. Under the pre-2016 legislation, an opt-out notice was effective on 1 January following the year in which it was given. Under the Government’s amendment, opt-out notices will now have effect from either 1 January or the following year after it has been provided, or on a date specified or determined in the rules of the union, whichever of those dates comes first. This provides unions with flexibility in the legislation to act more quickly and process the member’s request to opt out, without having to wait until the subsequent 1 January to do so. In practice, unions already do this. We will also commit today to engage with unions directly, to continue to make clear our expectation that opt-out notices can be honoured as swiftly and practically as possible. Our amendment is simply about ensuring that legislation matches what has been the established practice.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I hope that the Minister has not referred to this already, but small businesses in my constituency that do not have human resources departments tell me that they will find it hard to navigate these legislative waters. Although we need strong employment rights and I support the Bill’s objectives, we need to ensure that there is support for employers, so that they know how to implement the measures and how to defend themselves, which they will sometimes need to do, without paying costly solicitors’ bills that are detrimental to their business. Will the Minister reassure me on that matter?
Kate Dearden
I come from a family that has a business in the hospitality sector, which is close to my heart. In the first eight weeks that I have been in this role, I have had the pleasure to meet small and large businesses, and I have made clear our determination to work closely with them on the implementation of this legislation and to ensure that they are prepared for the changes when they come. We published our road map earlier this year and have committed to stick to that, which has been welcomed by businesses small and large.
Finally, turning to the issue of industrial action ballot thresholds, Lords Amendment 62 would remove clause 65(2) from the Bill, which would retain the existing 50% turnout threshold for industrial action ballots. The Government do not support this amendment. Clause 65 removes an unnecessary bureaucratic hurdle and aligns union democracy with other democratic processes, such as parliamentary votes and local elections, which do not typically require turnout thresholds but are still accepted as legitimate. As the period of disruption under the Conservatives’ watch between 2022 and 2024 has shown, bureaucratic hurdles only make it harder for unions to engage in the bargaining and negotiation that settles disputes. This Government’s approach will foster a new partnership of co-operation between trade unions and employers.
James Wild
If this provision is introduced, does the Minister think that there will be more or fewer strikes?
Kate Dearden
Strikes were a failure of the Tory Government who had stopped listening and, to be frank, had stopped working, so I will not be taking any further interventions from the hon. Gentleman.
We want to create a modern and positive framework for trade union legislation that delivers productive and constructive engagement, respects the democratic mandate of unions and works to reset our industrial relations. Nonetheless, we recognise that this issue has generated debate, which is why the Government have tabled an amendment in lieu that will require the Secretary of State to have regard to any effects of the introduction of electronic balloting on the proportion of those entitled to vote in industrial action ballots who actually do so. We have previously committed to aligning the removal of the threshold with the establishment of e-balloting as an option for trade unions. This amendment gives statutory effect to that commitment and makes it explicit in the underlying legislation. In having regard to the effects of e-balloting, the Government will monitor and assess the practical impacts of e-balloting on participant rates and the 50% threshold.
To conclude, I urge hon. Members to support the Government’s motions before the House today, including our amendments in lieu, which are part of a package that strengthens rights and reflects the value we place on fair work. We have listened throughout the Bill’s passage and made meaningful changes where needed, and we will continue to listen to all relevant stakeholders as we move into implementation We are committed to full and comprehensive consultation with employers, workers, trade unions and civil society. As set out in our “Implementing the Employment Rights Bill” road map, we are taking a phased approach to engagement and consultation on these reforms. This will ensure that stakeholders have the time and space to work through the detail of each measure, and will help us to implement each in the interests of all. This is a win-win for employers, employees and a more competitive British economy.
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
Act in haste, repent at leisure: never has that been wiser advice than in respect of this Bill. It is a rushed Bill that was half-baked when it was introduced, and has got worse since. It has failed every test of scrutiny, from the Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee to the Constitution Committee, to its low-balled impact assessment.
On the day that the Mayfield report outlines the scale of the challenge that we face on worklessness, it will create generation jobless. Every family in the country will know a son, daughter, niece or nephew who cannot get work as a result. As my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith) reminds us, every Labour Government leaves unemployment higher than when they started, but only this Government have actually legislated for that.
The Minister asks us to disagree with all the main compromise amendments from the other place. If she wished to listen to stakeholders, now would be a fantastic moment to start. Her motions to disagree reject sensible compromises on qualifying periods, seasonal working, guaranteed hours, strike thresholds and opting in to political funds. Who will be the victims if the motions are carried today? Young people, the neurodiverse, those with a disability, female returners to work, the over 50s and former prisoners—some of the most vulnerable groups in society who deserve their chance in life, their shot at employment and a job.
Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)
Yesterday, the hon. Gentleman said the Conservatives
“will repeal those most damaging elements of the Employment Rights Bill”.—[Official Report, 4 November 2025; Vol. 774, c. 776.]
Could he inform us which elements of the Bill they will retain?
Andrew Griffith
We will have our work cut out, with its 330 pages and 122,000 words—[Interruption.] Labour Members seek to hide behind measures that we support, such as enhanced maternity rights. But will the hon. Member tell me how many times the word “maternity” appears in the Bill, and how many times the word “union”—his paymasters—appears in it?
Laurence Turner
I did not realise that was a genuine offer. I do not have the ctrl+F function in front of me to do a word count, but, again, I would be interested in hearing an answer to the question I posed to the hon. Gentleman. All I will say is that, as his colleague the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith) said in Committee, trade union-associated MPs have been assiduous at declaring donations. I think only one Member on the Conservative side has declared an interest throughout all these proceedings; I find that utterly incredible.
Andrew Griffith
I trust that you will want all Members this afternoon to declare any relevant interests, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I have none. To answer the question that the hon. Gentleman did not manage to answer, the word “maternity” appears in this Bill three times; the word “union” appears in this Bill 478 times. Follow the money, Madam Deputy Speaker.
With unemployment higher every month—[Interruption.] Listen and learn. This will be Labour’s legacy: with unemployment higher every month of this Government, it is a bleak time for those trying to find work. The independent Office for National Statistics estimates that vacancies are down by 115,000 since this Government came into office. Some 41% of those graduating in 2023 were not in full-time work 15 months later, and it is estimated that almost half the top 100 UK employers have reduced their graduate intake. In fact, graduates are competing for so few jobs that getting a job is as improbable as spotting a Labour Member who has not received a union donation.
But it is not just graduates: for many, seasonal work is the first opportunity to get a foot on the career ladder yet this Bill in its current form forces hospitality businesses or anyone who relies on seasonal workers into an impossible position. That is why we are supportive of the Lords’ compromise amendment that would allow employers who need flexibility across the calendar year to continue to have it; what could be so objectionable about that?
Liz Twist (Blaydon and Consett) (Lab)
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. The hon. Gentleman is talking about seasonal work but has he thought about the impact on young people of so-called zero-hours contracts and the pressure that puts on their being able to live a decent life and plan for the future? I was at a conference last week about mental health in the workplace, which Opposition Members are concerned about. Zero-hours contracts and flexible working are really difficult for young people, and we must address their concerns as well.
Andrew Griffith
Mental health is a huge issue; across the House we would agree on that and the Mayfield report this morning is just one of many contributions to the debate. But for so many—this goes to reform of our welfare system as well—the right answer will be to be in employment, and the Mayfield report talks about creating barriers to employers giving young people a chance. There will of course be some challenges with any form of contracted employment, including zero-hours, which many find a very flexible way of combining work with study and parental or other responsibilities.
The way to try to solve that challenge across this House is not the clunking fist of regulation dictating and providing perverse incentives and maybe unintended consequences, which mean that employers do not take a chance at all on young people and they do not get that first step on the employment ladder. I understand that the hon. Lady’s concerns and contributions are well meant, but that is why it would be so much better if we approached the Bill collectively, after so many hours of debate in Committee in this place and in the other place, and if the Government showed compromise to help mitigate—not shelve the Bill, as I might prefer—some of the worst damage that will manifest itself in fewer jobs, fewer opportunities and some of the most vulnerable finding it very hard to get into work.
Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)
The answer to that question is the Chartered Management Institute.
Andrew Griffith
Well, I am glad we have found one; I have not had any representations from it.
Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)
The shadow Secretary of State is showing how much he despises the trade union movement and ordinary working people—[Interruption.]
Ian Lavery
I must declare a financial interest with regard to my connection with the trade union movement: I am a very proud member of a trade union.
In response to what the shadow Secretary of State said about support for the Employment Rights Bill, it was a manifesto pledge and the British public voted in their millions to support the Labour party to put this manifesto pledge through in its entirety. And guess what? That is what we are doing.
Andrew Griffith
I ask the Member strongly to withdraw that: I do not despise trade unions; not a single word I have ever said at the Dispatch Box indicates anything of the sort, and I would ask you, Madam Deputy Speaker, to get the Member to withdraw that comment as it is not worthy of him. I would have hoped for better form in the conduct of this debate.
I support people’s rights to trade unions—well-regulated trade unions. For 30 years, the Labour party accepted a broad consensus on the balance between the rights of workers and the rights of employers. Tony Blair never sought at any point to reopen the consensus on that balance that has served this country well, and it does no one a service to render people unemployed.
Several hon. Members rose—
Andrew Griffith
I should give way to the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders), who did so much service on this Bill.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Bromborough) (Lab)
I am grateful to the shadow Secretary of State for giving way. I am pleased that he has learned to count now; he must have improved his skills since his time under Liz Truss in the Treasury. He talked about the consensus over 30 years, but was it not his Government who introduced the Trade Union Act 2016, which did so much to damage trade union relations?
Andrew Griffith
I am trying to be generous to the hon. Member, as this Bill was part of his legacy before he was so rudely fired by a bad boss without any notice.
It is not unreasonable to say that a strike must be supported by a mere quarter of workers in order to be valid. I do not think the Labour party would claim the mandate that the hon. Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery) was talking about on the votes of merely a quarter.
Antonia Bance (Tipton and Wednesbury) (Lab)
The hon. Member is not being very clear. Does he like the pre-2016 trade union regime, which is the one this Bill takes us back to, or does he like the post-2016 trade union regime, which is the one he seems to be advocating except when he talks about the 30 years of settled consensus? Which is it, because it cannot be both?
Andrew Griffith
We on the Conservative Benches seek to respect the role of trade unions, but in a flexible workplace where we see growth in the economy and—unlike what we see today—more people in jobs, rather than fewer people in jobs. That does not help anybody at all, least of all a Government who claim that their No. 1 obsession is growth. That is not an unreasonable position.
Not for the first time, I think Ministers have got themselves in a bind. The Secretary of State for Business and Trade is going around telling business groups that he is listening, but every one of them is against this Bill. From what the Health Secretary has been saying privately, it is clear that he is no fan of giving more power to militant unions to call low turnout strikes. The welfare Secretary has commissioned reports on getting people from welfare into work, and those reports talk about not disincentivising employers from hiring. Are Treasury Ministers really looking forward to the Office for Budget Responsibility next week scoring the impact of this Bill, given the independent estimates that it could shave up to 2.8% off GDP? The Chancellor likes to blame everyone from the dinosaurs onwards for her failure, but this one will definitely be on her.
The looming disaster of this Bill is the truth that dare not speak its name. It may be a triumph for the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), but it is a disaster for Britain. It is bad for business, bad for growth, and bad for jobs. Far from furthering workers’ rights, it punishes those who want a job. We do not protect workers by bankrupting their employers. Even the Government’s allies are warning them against this Bill.
Government Members have a choice. They can stand by and watch as their Government bring into law decades-worth of economic stagnation, or they can be on the side of the young, the vulnerable and the enterprising. History will remember this moment, because when unemployment skyrockets, businesses shut their doors, and young people stop believing and stop hoping, no one on the Government Benches will be able to say that they were not warned.
Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab)
I refer hon. Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am proud to declare an interest as a lifelong trade unionist in the labour movement, which has helped me to get where I am today. Let me start by placing on record my thanks to my right hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds), my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders) and all those colleagues in the other place who spent so many late nights working on this Bill.
I welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Kate Dearden) to the Front Bench. She was among the many trade union leaders who helped to develop this Bill before it came to this place. The shadow Secretary of State thinks that the Bill was cooked up on the back of a fag packet, but it took years and millions of union members and ordinary people in this country, who have faced decimation since the Conservatives’ Bill in 2016. I offer my support to my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax in finishing her job, because the House will know that this Bill is unfinished business.
I started my working life as a carer on casual terms, not knowing if there was going to be a pay cheque from month to month. It was because of a good, unionised job with decent conditions that my life and the lives of the workers I represented changed. As I toured the country in the election campaign, in every community I heard from so many who were in the same position—they wanted change, they wanted fairness and they wanted respect at work. That is why when we promised to deliver the biggest upgrade to workers’ rights in a generation, we meant it.
It is very clear from the shadow Secretary of State’s opening remarks, and from what he said as the Bill passed through the House, that the Conservatives do not want to improve working people’s lives. In fact, it is very clear from his submission today—let us face it—that he wants to water the Bill down. When he mentioned the state of tribunals, I nearly fell off my chair. I cannot believe he can say that with a straight face, after the state in which the Conservatives left our justice system. I won’t even talk about the economic mess they left us in.
Despite the fierce criticism from Opposition parties and the relentless lobbying from vested interests, I am proud to speak in this debate as we deliver nothing less than a new deal for working people. Every time we have made progress on employment rights over the last 45 years, it has been resisted. It is always easier to do nothing—to take the path of least resistance—but in each generation, it has been the Labour party that has had the courage and conviction to change lives. Maternity allowance; equal pay for women; health and safety rights; the minimum wage—Labour changed lives, and this generation is no different.
This Bill shows that Labour is on the side of working people. They will know that ordinary people are better off, and it will have an effect on their families—their children, their brothers and their sisters. They will have basic rights from day one, such as protection from unfair dismissal. I cannot believe the Conservative party thinks that in this day and age we should dismiss people unfairly. I do not understand it.
We are going to strengthen sick pay, family rights, bereavement leave and protections from sexual harassment at work. We will have a ban on zero-hours contracts, a historic fair pay agreement in social care, an end to fire and rehire, a genuine living wage and the single biggest boost to rights at work in a generation, creating an economy that works for working people. That was the promise we made to the British public, and I urge the Secretary of State to fight every step of the way to deliver it in full. The public have no patience for the Tory and Lib Dem lords who, cheered on by Reform, are standing in the way of better rights for workers and frustrating what was a clear manifesto promise. Tonight, this House will once again send the message that we will not back down.
I will not go through every Lords amendment, but I will pick out a couple of the most damaging. First, Lords amendment 23 and Lords amendments 106 to 120 would break the pledge that we made to the British people to give them day one rights. The last Conservative Government shamefully doubled the qualification period against unfair dismissal to two years and stripped workers of protections at the stroke of a pen, and now they are at it again. Government Members believe that workers deserve fairness, dignity and respect at work, and they deserve it from day one on the job. Opposition Members say that these rights against unfair dismissal will slow down hiring, so let me be clear that employers can absolutely still have probation periods for their new staff; they just will not be able to fire them unfairly at will, for no good reason.
Secondly, Lords amendment 1B would tear up protections for workers on zero-hours contracts. This Government made a commitment to provide workers with an offer of guaranteed hours, and the Lords amendment would water down that right. We promised to ban zero-hours contracts—no ifs, no buts—and that is exactly what we should do. This Bill is a promise we made to the British public. It is our duty to deliver it, and I say to my Front-Bench colleagues that I will be with them every step of the way as we do just that.
Make no mistake: the Bill is good for workers, and good for business. It is not just the right thing to do; it is the foundation for the high-growth, high-skill economy that the UK needs. Its key measures are backed by many of Britain’s best businesses, including the Co-op, Centrica and Richer Sounds. Those businesses prove that if you treat people well, you get the best out of them. They know that being pro-worker is not a barrier to success, but a launchpad to it. That is why the Bill takes the very best standards from the very best businesses and extends them to millions of workers. It is also why we say proudly that this is a pro-business and pro-worker Bill. Respected business voices, such as the Chartered Management Institute, have indicated their support for the key measures in the Bill. We will continue to consulting businesses and hear their voices, to make sure that we get the detail right.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
It is a real pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) and hear her passionate advocacy for this Bill.
The Liberal Democrats support many of the principles of this Bill. We have long advocated for strengthening employment rights in several ways, including by increasing support for carers, boosting statutory sick pay, and giving people on zero-hours contracts more certainty about their working patterns. There is a lot in the Bill that we support in principle and that moves us in the right direction, but we remain concerned about the specific way in which the Government plan to implement many of its measures. So much of the detail that should have been in the Bill has been left to secondary legislation or future consultations, making it impossible for businesses to plan ahead with certainty.
For that reason, we support amendments that provide clarity for businesses, for example by setting the qualifying period for unfair dismissal claims at six months. Training, hiring and retaining a skilled workforce are issues that affect businesses across the country, and we must ensure that this legislation strikes the right balance for both employees and businesses.
Antonia Bance
Does the hon. Member believe that, in the first six months of employment, it is appropriate for people to be dismissed for unfair reasons and without a fair process?
Sarah Olney
The point has been made on a number of occasions that it is always possible for employers to make mistakes in their hiring—for people to not be the right fit for the job. There should be a straightforward way for those employers to dismiss those people without being challenged on the basis that the dismissal was unfair. The key point is not that employers should be allowed to make unfair dismissals, but if a dismissal has been fair, they should not have to defend it.
Justin Madders
The Liberal Democrat spokesperson has just said that it is not right that employers should pay for a mistake they made in hiring someone. Why should the employee pay for that mistake, if it was not theirs?
Sarah Olney
There is a balance between the employer and the employee. If the fit is not right, it is better for both sides that the employment is brought to an end, and that the employee is free to seek more appropriate employment.
There are very significant concerns. The lack of clarity about probation periods, which the Minister mentioned, and exactly what they mean, risks piling undue worry on to business managers who are struggling to find the right skills. We can compare that with the provisions in the amendment tabled on unfair dismissal.
My Liberal Democrat colleagues and I, both here and in the other place, have been clear in our support for an amendment that would change the obligation to offer guaranteed hours to a right to request guaranteed hours. Amendment 1B would allow an employee to notify their employer if they no longer wished to receive guaranteed hours offers, but they would be able to opt back into receiving guaranteed hours offers at any time. That reasonable and balanced approach would relieve employers from having to issue guaranteed hours offers each reference period to workers who may simply not be interested in them, while ensuring that those who wished to receive such offers could continue to do so.
The Liberal Democrats strongly believe in giving zero-hours workers security about their working patterns, and we are deeply concerned that too many workers are struggling with unstable incomes, job insecurity and difficulties in planning for the future. However, we also recognise that many people value the flexibility that such arrangements provide. Adaptability in shift patterns is often hugely valuable for those balancing caring responsibilities or their studies alongside work. It is therefore important to strike a balance that ensures that workers can have both security and flexibility.
Specifically, small and medium-sized businesses have highlighted that having to offer employees fixed-hours contracts on a rolling basis could impose significant costs and administrative burdens on their limited resources, compounding other challenges, such as the recent increase in employer national insurance contributions and the fallout from the previous Government’s damaging Brexit deal. The Liberal Democrat amendment that was debated in the Lords is in line with our long-standing policy that zero-hours and agency workers should have the right to request fixed-hours contracts—a request that employers could not unreasonably refuse. We believe that measure would maintain valuable flexibility and benefit both parties when the obligation to keep offering guaranteed hours, even to workers who clearly are not interested in them, imposes a significant burden that does not benefit either side.
As with all workplace rights, employees should be supported to exercise a right to request guaranteed hours without fear of any negative consequences in their workplace. The unified fair work agency being set up by the Government, which we welcome, could help ensure that employees received that protection and support. This approach would still give workers the vital security that they deserve, while avoiding unnecessary burdens for employers.
Last time the Bill was debated in the Commons, I spoke in favour of measures that would improve the clarity of the legislation on seasonal work, so I will once again speak in favour of Lords amendment 48B. The sustainability of so many companies, such as farming businesses, depends on getting the right people into the right place at the right time. Any obstacles to actioning that can have a huge impact on company operations, potentially throwing the entire business into jeopardy. Hospitality firms such as pubs, cafés and restaurants also rely on seasonal workers and are particularly vulnerable.
Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)
Can the hon. Lady define what rights somebody working behind a desk in this place should have under amendment 48B that somebody working behind a bar in this place should not?
Sarah Olney
They are different kinds of work with different work patterns, requiring different skills and experience. I am not entirely certain what point the hon. Member wants me to respond to.
If a different regulatory framework is to apply to seasonal work, a clear definition of seasonal work must be created to prevent employers from avoiding their legitimate responsibilities by claiming employees as seasonal workers in inappropriate circumstances. We continue to call for businesses that are especially reliant on seasonal workers to be properly considered when secondary legislation is created, so I urge Members to support amendment 48B.
On trade unions, I again speak in favour of Lords amendment 62B to maintain the status quo, in which a 50% ballot threshold is required for industrial action. The Government’s proposal to remove the threshold entirely means that a trade union could take strike action with only a small minority of eligible members taking part in the vote. That is bound to raise questions among the public about whether the will of workers has been accurately represented, and it risks unnecessarily creating tensions between workers, employees and the general public. That would not be a good outcome for any of the parties involved. We should maintain a robust process for launching industrial action.
Ian Lavery
Will the hon. Lady inform the House of the statistics relating to her election at the general election? She was elected by a minority. If it is good enough for her—she is doing a great job, by the way—why is it not good enough for ordinary working people?
Sarah Olney
The hon. Gentleman will be happy to hear that 53.3% of Richmond Park voters voted for me to be their representative, so I was, in fact, elected by the majority of my constituents. I am delighted to hear that he thinks I am doing a good job for them. I think he was attempting to highlight that many of the people in the Chamber were elected on less than 50%. The first thing I would say to that is that on most ballot papers, there will have been a choice of more than two candidates.
Sarah Olney
May I finish the point? If people are choosing from a list of five people, it is likely, under the first-past-the-post system, that the winning candidate will receive less than 50% of the vote. In a strike ballot, the choice is between two options. That is why there should be more than 50% of all members voting for the option to strike. That is the important point here.
Secondly, the hon. Gentleman has given me an excellent opportunity to point out that the Liberal Democrats have long been advocates of voting reform. Last December, I introduced a ten-minute rule Bill advocating for proportional representation, which was passed. It remains the will of the House, as expressed on that occasion, that we should change the way in which we elect hon. Members.
Maintaining a robust process for launching industrial action is particularly important when we consider the scale of the disruption that the public face when strikes happen. The Liberal Democrats also continue to support measures that would retain the current opt-in system for contribution to trade union political funds. Amendment 72B maximises choice and transparency for individuals about the political funds to which they are contributing.
Most employers are responsible businesses that want to do the right thing by their staff, many of whom support the Bill’s aims, but they have significant concerns about the extent of the Bill, much of which is still undecided on and risks compounding other challenges that they face. Changes in employer national insurance, slow progress on reform of the apprenticeship levy and the absence of any meaningful action to bring down commercial energy prices continue to be extremely damaging to businesses, and to our economy as a whole. We must find a way to support small and medium-sized businesses in particular, and to provide clarity, so that they can plan ahead. If the Government were prepared to make meaningful improvements to the Bill that would make things easier for small businesses—for example, through the amendments suggested by the Liberal Democrats—they might find it easier to make progress with the legislation.
We support many of the aims of the Bill, and the spirit of the measures that strengthen employment rights, but I urge Members to support our amendments, which will help to ensure that this legislation strikes the right balance for both workers and business.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call Justin Madders. After his speech, there will be a five-minute speaking limit for Back Benchers.
Justin Madders
Let me first draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, which refers to an election donation from the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers, and to my membership of the Unite and GMB trade unions.
It is nearly nine months since the Bill completed its Commons stages and over a year since it was first introduced, so it is disappointing to see yet another delay. I know that many of my constituents would want these vital manifesto commitments to be enacted as soon as possible, but recent proceedings in the other place have demonstrated the intention of the Opposition parties to elongate the process and attempt to water down important protections that the Bill offers to workers. It is as simple as this: Labour Members were elected on a manifesto that committed us to making work pay, and the Employment Rights Bill is central to delivering that. It will be the biggest upgrade of workers’ rights in a generation. It is long overdue, and we will all be unashamed of our commitment to improving the lives of working people.
This Bill will have a transformative impact on the world of work, and particularly on people who lack job security and dignity. Make no mistake: at every single stage the Conservatives and Reform have voted to water the Bill down or weaken its protections, and now it seems that the Liberal Democrats have joined in. Our constituents will no doubt conclude that those on the Opposition Benches are siding with the bad bosses, and I urge them to reconsider and choose the side of working people. That is not an exaggeration, because the Lords amendments under consideration will gut the Bill of important protections for the millions of people currently in insecure work.
We do not have much time, so I will focus on Lords amendments 1B and 62 and Lords reason 120B, which I consider to be the most damaging amendments. Lords amendment 1B represents a continued attempt to undermine our commitment to banning exploitative zero-hours contracts. The Government, and Labour Members, have always been clear that the only way to tackle the most pernicious elements of such contracts is to make the right to guaranteed hours a right that people can genuinely exercise. Workers on zero-hours contracts are some of the least empowered in our economy, and the least able to actively assert their rights. Their working hours are inherently precarious and often depend on the vagaries of their bosses, and they are more likely to be younger and working in the lowest-paid sectors of the economy. Shifting this commitment to a “right to request” model, as the Liberal Democrat amendment suggests, would completely fail to recognise the power imbalance in the working relationship, and the real risk that assertion of rights would have negative consequences for those who just want some basic security and dignity at work. I am therefore pleased that we are rejecting those amendments.
Of course, that is not the only form of insecurity that those on the Opposition Benches want to keep on the table, as they support Lords reason 120B, which seeks to allow workers to be unfairly dismissed in the first six months of their employment. Maybe those in the other place, who have jobs for life, do not understand what it feels like to be tossed aside without any explanation. Maybe they do not appreciate how debilitating it can be for someone to go into work every day with the sword of Damocles hanging over their head, knowing that, if the chop comes, there will be absolutely nothing that they can do about it, but those bills will still need paying and their dependants will still depend on them. We need to drive out the insecurity that eats away at so many hard-working people in this country.
Laurence Turner
Is it not also the case that, within that graph, a number of the nations that the Resolution Foundation says have weaker protections actually have higher unemployment rates than our own? There is clearly not the relationship between the two that some in the Opposition have tried to suggest.
Justin Madders
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Indeed, that is something that the Resolution Foundation said when giving evidence to the Bill Committee. I will quote that directly:
“Internationally, we can draw scatter plots of the employment level in a country and the extent of employment regulation, and basically those lines come out flat. You have some countries with very high employment and very high levels of regulation, and some countries with lower employment and high regulation”––[Official Report, Employment Rights Public Bill Committee, 28 November 2024; c. 116, Q119.]
So there is no clear relationship with the employment levels across countries. That is confirmed by the OECD, which has done lots of detailed work. That is what the Resolution Foundation said in its evidence to the Bill Committee last year.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
Would the hon. Member like to put his money where his mouth is and tell us whether his faith in the Employment Rights Bill is such that he is prepared to make a commitment to his constituents in Ellesmere Port and Bromborough that if, having passed this Bill, unemployment goes up, he will resign his seat?
Justin Madders
I absolutely cannot believe that the Conservative party, which saw massive increases in unemployment in my constituency in the 1980s and 1990s when they were in power, have the cheek to start talking about the effects of unemployment on my constituents now.
The Resolution Foundation has said some things in recent weeks that I do not agree with, but it has said things in the past that are much more in line with what we believe the international evidence shows. So the kindest thing I can say about the Resolution Foundation is that I prefer its earlier work.
I turn to Government amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendment 62, on repeal of the last remnants of the Trade Union Act 2016 and the removal of thresholds for industrial action ballots. I have always held the view that the introduction of e-balloting, if done properly, will lead to much greater participation in ballots and render arguments about turnout obsolete. The implementation timetable that the Government published indicates that e-balloting will begin next April. I hope that the Minister, when she responds, can provide some reassurance that that is still on track, and that we can therefore expect the end of thresholds to come at the same time, or very shortly thereafter. I would be disappointed if the amendment was an attempt to kick this issue into the long grass. I am not particularly keen on the conditionality in the amendment, which talks about whether to repeal the thresholds. There should be no question of “whether”; it should be about “when”. After all, that is what we promised to do in our manifesto. I urge the Minister to resist any temptation to introduce any conditionality and to deliver the Make Work Pay agenda in full, as we said we would.
I will conclude, because I am conscious that a number of Members wish to speak. I am proud that the Government are continuing to commit to implementing this Bill in full. The policies in the Bill are overwhelmingly popular with the public. They formed a key part of our manifesto and remain central to the Government’s plan for change. We on the Labour Benches proudly stand against those who seek to water down this Bill and hamper its implementation. We are proud to back workers and to deliver meaningful change in their working lives. We stand against maintaining the status quo of low pay, low security and little dignity at work, and we stand for job security and for delivering on our promises.
Antonia Bance
I wish to draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, my proud 23 years in Unite, and the generous support from the millions of ordinary members of the GMB and ASLEF in paying into their political funds to put representatives of the working class here in Parliament.
I am here to deliver a simple but firm message: there will be no concessions on this Bill—not one. Opposition parties in the House of Lords are trying to water down the rights that working people voted for, but we will stand firm. The new deal for working people was a Labour manifesto commitment, and it will be delivered in full.
I want to talk about two sets of amendments, starting with Lords amendments 61 and 72, on political funds. The Lords want to keep the opt-in system, but it is abundantly clear that this is a deliberate attack on the political voice of working people. All this Bill does is restore the long-standing opt-out system that has lasted since 1946. Union members will still have robust rights, and they can opt out easily. Unions are tightly regulated—no other membership organisation has faced these rules. Unions’ political spending is transparent and accountable, with annual returns to the certification officer and the Electoral Commission regulating donations and campaigning. Of course, these political funds support wider campaigning, not just party donations, although I am proud to say that they support party donations too.
I also oppose Lords amendment 62, on keeping the unnecessary and unneeded ballot thresholds, which are designed to stop workers having a voice. The Tory and Lib Dem Lords want to reinstate the 50% turnout threshold that was introduced by the draconian Trade Union Act 2016. I remind Members from the Liberal Democrat party that they opposed that Act in 2016, including the ballot thresholds, and I wonder why they have now reversed their position. Ballot thresholds weaken unions and stall negotiations. Before 2016, ballots triggered talks and resolved disputes early. Now the thresholds delay dialogue and make resolution harder. No other organisations face turnout thresholds; this just singles out unions. Of course, anyone who is familiar with how the trade union movement works knows that no union would call members out on strike if they are not up for it.
With all due thanks and respect to the other place, we will still repeal the Trade Union Act 2016 in full, with no concessions. This Bill is the first step in delivering the new deal for working people—our promise to the working people of this country. This is the change that working people voted for. The Government will not give in to unelected Tory and Lib Dem Lords siding with bad bosses to weaken workers’ rights—not now, not today, not ever.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)
I draw hon. Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests in relation to support from trade unions, of which I am most proud.
The past four decades of structural decline in the share of the national income going to employees, decades marked by the erosion of trade union rights, has been exacerbated by 14 years of the Conservative Government forcing down real wages across the United Kingdom, leaving working families still struggling to recover. Against that backdrop, the most urgent task of this Labour Government is to raise living standards. Trade unions are critical to that mission and the Employment Rights Bill will help to deliver that.
The Bill represents a cornerstone of the Government’s new deal for working people, a vote-winning manifesto pledge. I very much welcome evidence of the popularity of these policies in the platform of Zohran Mamdani, New York’s newly elected Democrat mayor. Among other things, he pledged protection for delivery workers, including guaranteed hours. Yet the amendments to this Bill made in the other place would water down that commitment and deny working people the rights they were promised. I therefore must speak in strong opposition to the Lords amendments, which, taken together, would weaken the protections that this House has committed to deliver for working people across the United Kingdom.
Lords amendment 23 and Lords amendments 106 to 120, which concern day one rights, would remove the right not to be unfairly dismissed from the very start of employment. Instead, they would impose a six-month qualifying period and empower Ministers to introduce a further initial period in which only limited protections apply. That is contrary to both the letter and the spirit of the Government’s manifesto. It would leave new employees vulnerable to arbitrary dismissal and recreate the very insecurity that the Bill was designed to end.
James Wild
When the hon. Gentleman has spoken to employers in his constituency about this specific provision—I am sure that he has—what have they said?
Andy McDonald
The concept is pretty simple. Conservative Members are conflating different issues around unfair dismissal and probationary contracts. They are scaremongering. There is nothing in the Bill that prevents the continuation of probation periods. The only thing we are saying is that it would be unfair to dismiss somebody for an unlawful reason. I really wonder why it is so difficult to grasp that concept.
Andy McDonald
No, because I am conscious of time.
There is no impact on retaining probationary periods—they remain intact. Having day one rights against unfair dismissal does not prevent an employer vetting and doing recruitment properly, and using probationary periods legitimately.
Turning to Lords amendment 1B, the so-called guaranteed hours opt-out, this provision transforms a clear right into a conditional option. Instead of guaranteeing a contract that reflects the hours a person actually works, it allows employers to invite workers to opt out of that right altogether. Experience with the working time opt-out shows exactly where this leads: it becomes a standard clause, routinely signed away. That is not the end of exploitative zero-hours contracts; it is their re-badging.
Finally, Lords amendment 62, which reintroduces ballot thresholds for industrial action, seeks to restore one of the most restrictive elements of the Trade Union Act 2016. This House has already agreed that those provisions were excessive and undemocratic. No other organisation is bound by such turnout requirements before it may act. Reinstating them would frustrate meaningful negotiation and delay the resolution of disputes, not promote it. Let us drop the thresholds and quickly move to e-balloting, as we promised.
For those reasons, I urge hon. Members to resist the Lords amendments and to insist on the Bill as originally passed by this House. It must be delivered in full, for it represents the baseline of a fair work settlement. However, while defending the Bill, we must also recognise that it is only a starting point. The consultations now under way must ensure that secondary legislation goes further and fulfils the Government’s wider promise to make work pay. I hope we see a robust and enforceable right of access for trade unions to workplaces, both physical and digital, so that unions can reach and represent workers effectively, with penalties that deter obstruction. I hope we will create a process to expand fair pay agreements beyond adult social care and schools, embedding sectoral collective bargaining across the economy to raise pay and standards in every workplace. We must also make progress towards a single status of worker.
The Employment Rights Bill is a landmark measure, but its promise will be realised only if this House defends it against dilution and strengthens it in implementation. I therefore call on all Members to reject the Lords amendments and to stand by our commitment to working people: to deliver the new deal for working people in full and to build from it a fairer, more secure world of work.
Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)
Given that time is short, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will endeavour to keep my remarks brief. I intend to speak to specific amendments today, but I feel compelled to start with a general comment in respect of financial interests. Throughout the stages of the Bill, and again today, it has been suggested by the Opposition that a number of Government Members speak not from genuine and sincere belief, but because of arrangements involving donations to their constituency Labour parties. I say to those on the Opposition Benches that that argument and line of thought betrays a laziness towards this issue that is reflected in their lack of effective scrutiny of the Bill, with the Opposition resorting instead to hackneyed and ancestral stereotypes and lazy assumptions that reflect nothing about the world of unions and the world of work.
James Wild
Members of the public who are watching this debate will not necessarily have ready access to the records of the thousands of pounds that have been taken by each Member referring simply to their financial interests. In the interest of transparency, will the hon. Gentleman therefore say how many thousands of pounds he took from trade unions, if any, to support this Bill?
Laurence Turner
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for proving my point exactly. I will happily tell him that since becoming a Member of this House, I have not received a penny in political donations from trade unions. My constituency Labour party received a donation before the election, but that is an entirely different matter. I have only one matter to draw attention to in my entry on the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, which is my chairship of the GMB parliamentary group, which is an unpaid role.
We are asked today to consider a number of amendments that directly contradict our manifesto commitments. Lords amendments 61 and 72 on political funds are a case in point. In the other place, the noble Lord Burns gently questioned whether this was a manifesto issue, but the Make Work Pay document, which our manifesto said would be implemented in full, clearly said that the Trade Union Act 2016 would be repealed. That must include this provision.
The amendments before us seek to preserve the punitive restrictions that were originally imposed as retribution in 1927 and repealed in 1946, after which we had 70 years during which arrangements worked effectively. The actual impact of these amendments, were they passed, would be the same as any arrangement that moves from opt-out to opt-in, which is a reduction in the ability of working people to speak with a collective voice.
Let us not forget that trade union political funds do not exclusively fund donations to parties. Look at the campaigns that have been run and the cross-party support they have won, such as GMB and Unison’s “Protect the Protectors” and GMB’s campaigns on domestic defence manufacturing—two campaigns that the Conservatives came to support—as well as USDAW’s “Freedom from Fear”, and the Gangmasters (Licensing) Act 2004, the result of Unite’s campaign in the aftermath of the Morecambe Bay disaster, in which so many cockle pickers tragically and disgracefully lost their lives. Even today, in this place, trade union funding helps to address the abuse that has occurred within the confines of the estate, and which there is a risk will continue in the future.
Trade unions are democratic bodies. Any member of a trade union can demand to see the receipts of political expenditure, and decisions on party donations are taken on a collective basis. When that provision was originally repealed, the Attlee Government’s Attorney General of the day said—I think this bears repeating today—that the Conservatives relied on the
“old delusion that the Labour party was being built upon the hard-earned pennies of honest Conservatives who were too timid to declare their true political colours and were being bullied by horrid, nasty trade unionists into supporting the political funds of a party to which they were so much opposed.”
Anyone who has worked with trade union members will recognise that to be a delusion indeed, and we have heard much of that delusion from the Opposition through the passage of the Bill.
I was going to make similar comments to those my hon. Friend the Member for Tipton and Wednesbury (Antonia Bance)—who is both honourable and a friend—made in respect of Lords amendment 62, but she covered it expertly. I will finish by talking about Lords amendment 121B on the school support staff negotiating body, which has not been discussed so far today. I recognise that this amendment is substantially different from other amendments that have been sent to us on this matter, but I still believe that it is unnecessary.
First of all, the overwhelming majority of academy employers do subscribe to the National Joint Council terms and conditions for school support staff—terms and conditions which, as has been widely recognised for more than 20 years, are out of date in respect of school support staff. The effect of Lords amendment 121B would to be to create a two-tier arrangement between school support staff in local authority maintained schools and academies. It states that employers could introduce terms and conditions. I am concerned about the potential contradiction with the provisions in the Education (Schools) Act 1992, which that require such changes to be made on a collective and not a unilateral basis. Furthermore, it states that terms and conditions that could be changed should be “in aggregate” an improvement. That clearly leaves room for employers to introduce a weakening to some areas to the detriment of the 1,700 school support staff in my constituency.
I am proud to have had an association with this Bill, and I look forward to rejecting those specific amendments tonight.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
I proudly refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my involvement in the trade union movement throughout my professional career.
The Employment Rights Bill is long overdue, and although others continually seek to wreck it with worker-unfriendly amendments, we will not allow it. We on the Government Benches know that this Bill is about economic growth and security for all workers. It is about banning unfair dismissals, strengthening statutory sick pay, outlawing fire and rehire, and gaining new maternity and paternity leave rights and rights to bereavement leave.
There are so many fantastic measures in this Bill, and as the Minister noted, we are today again presented with a number of amendments that we do not support. I want to speak to just one. Lords amendment 1B is about the Employment Rights Bill’s most vital protection—a manifesto commitment on which I proudly stood in my city to deliver: the statutory entitlement to fixed hours. This is not an abstract legal reform; it is a common-sense protection for people who are often invisible in our labour market and for whom insecurity is the norm, not the exception.
Naushabah Khan
My hon. Friend is making a powerful point. Does she agree that exploitative zero-hours contracts are a huge problem for workers and that banning them is a big step, so we should oppose any steps to try to water down the legislation?
Amanda Martin
I absolutely agree; I think the key word there is “exploitative”.
People in Portsmouth North and across the country deserve fairness, dignity and the ability to plan their daily lives and future. In sectors such as retail, hospitality, construction, social care and logistics, many workers are on unpredictable, variable hours,, with shifts cancelled at short notice or only a minimal work week offered in order for employers to control their labour costs. This makes budgeting, second jobs, childcare, healthcare planning and indeed everything in life almost impossible.
Let me give the House a local example. One of my constituents, “Sara”, has worked in a Portsmouth café on a zero-hours contract for four years. She is told at the beginning of each week what hours she might get. One week she might have 25 hours, and the next week she might get eight—and the next she might get nothing. Because she cannot predict her hours, she ends up in debt, skipping medical visits and having to rely on emergency credit to pay her bills. Under the Bill’s intended protection, Sara could request fixed hours and have far greater stability for herself and her family.
Michael Wheeler (Worsley and Eccles) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an incredibly powerful point. Does she agree that for Sara and for my constituents who are on short or zero-hours contracts, the meat of the amendment, which would introduce the bureaucratic farce of an offering of an offer, instead of a right, would ruin the meaningful change in the Bill and that the introduction of an ability for workers to opt out would open up a loophole with detrimental effects in the real world, where people could be rewarded with overtime if they agreed to opt out?
Amanda Martin
Absolutely. It would leave workers unable to reject overtime, even if they were knackered, having already done 60 or 70 hours that week.
That brings me to Dave, a plasterer working on one of my local building sites. He is technically self-employed, but in reality he is also on a rolling zero-hours contract. Some weeks he earns enough to keep his mortgage, and some weeks he earns enough to put aside a little bit of money for Christmas; other weeks, he earns nothing at all. He is told to stand down when winter hits and work slows, with no pay, no notice and no safety net. That insecurity is corrosive and affects not just finances, but families, health and morale on jobs.
Let us be clear, the public are firmly with us. According to the TUC’s 2025 mega-poll, support for guaranteed-hours contracts sits at over 70% across the regions and nations of the UK. This is not about denigrating businesses and business owners—many are fantastic and provide great opportunities—but without the bill, unscrupulous employers will continue to sidestep responsibility and run a race to the bottom.
Arguments are made that these measures would impose burdens on business, discourage hiring and risk flooding employment tribunals. Those concerns should not be a pretext for hollowing out protections and should instead ensure that workers know how much they will earn each month so that they can plan and live their lives. Sara and Dave, who I referred to earlier, are just two names; behind them are thousands of lives blighted by unfair employment practices. Sara and Dave will not mind me saying that they are not young. Despite what the Opposition want us to believe, zero-hours contracts are not just exploitative for the young; they are exploitative for many other people in our society.
People deserve the right to security. I urge colleagues to reject these Lords amendments, which would weaken the Bill, because fixed-hours entitlement is not a radical idea but a basic standard of decency in the modern world of work. If we really mean it when we say in this House that we respect working people, we must deliver laws that protect them.
Euan Stainbank
I refer hon. Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a proud, experienced hospitality worker of six years. I have proportionate respect for the work of the other place on the Bill, and am once again bemused and frustrated on behalf of my constituents that this generational, fundamental and basic common sense bit of legislation is once again before us, along with the hill that many in other place seem to want to make a stand on.
It is apparent that after years of stagnating living standards, job No. 1 for the Government was to make work pay again, tipping the scales in favour of working people and, especially for the younger generation who have been discussed today, recapture a work ethic and value of work that I worry had been lost during the years of Tory Government. Why, then, does the other place insist on Lords amendments 23 and 106 to 120, which would remove the day one right on unfair dismissal? That is once again telling young, predominantly lower paid and insecure British workers in hospitality, in factories and on work sites across our constituencies that their continued employment and income is precariously balanced on the benevolence of their employer, not on the value of their labour.
That feeling is real every day that this measure is not on the statute book. Young men and women are being bullied, prodded and pushed out of their jobs by the small minority of bad employers that do exist across our constituencies. I have had kids in their first jobs straight out of school, further education or higher education—this was their first chance—tell me that they were sacked in the weeks prior to two years of service. Looking at Lords amendment 106 from my perspective, I see no reason why that same circumstance would not then occur a few weeks before six months of service.
Tracy Gilbert (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that good employers have nothing to fear from anything in the Bill and that many good employers will embrace these measures, as indeed many do?
Euan Stainbank
When I listen to businesses in my constituency I find, as I am sure every Member of this House does, that they are worried across the piece for a number of reasons and have been for a number of years. Yet many good employers do not rank this in their top five concerns coming forward, and especially not the employers that I worked for in the hospitality and retail sector. Actually, they see the benefits in keeping workers for longer and having more security in knowing who their workforce is. That was a major concern for the hospitality and retail sectors that I worked in, especially on coming out of the pandemic, and not being able to keep staff was also a major cost.
On unfair dismissal, if we accept the amendment, we will leave people without a legal right of action when they are unfairly dismissed. We must reject it; it is an unfair proposal.
Lincoln Jopp
I am grateful to the hon. Member, who I like very much, for giving way on that point. He is clearly a massive fan of the Employment Rights Bill. The people of Falkirk are watching him, so would he like to commit to them that if, having passed the Employment Rights Bill, unemployment goes up and therefore we have fewer workers with fewer rights, he will resign from his seat?
Euan Stainbank
I make the commitment to the people of Falkirk that the quality of their work, especially for younger people, will go massively through the roof. Younger people in my constituency who have been subject to insecure work, low pay and zero hours contracts have seen the quality of their work diminished, so my guarantee to the people of Falkirk is that the quality of work will go up. I think other Members referred to this, but it is a cheek for Tory Members to talk to post-industrial communities such as Falkirk, which were savaged by the Thatcherite Government. They will get absolutely no credence in my constituency.
I say to those on the Opposition Benches that they have time to change their mind. They can back the Government today, get the Bill passed without it being watered down and stop the attempts that are perceived, at least in my constituency, as an attempt to betray young British workers who are doing the right thing, going out and earning their way. For too long under the Tories, those workers have lost the belief in the quality and opportunity that work provided. They will see massive benefits from the Bill. Make work pay and get this done.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
For the final Back-Bench contribution, I call Anneliese Midgley.
Anneliese Midgley (Knowsley) (Lab)
I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests regarding my membership of and financial support from the trade union movement.
I stand here as a proud trade unionist, with a couple of decades of work behind me standing up for the working class. I pay the truest of tributes to my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders).
Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is absolutely right about some hon. and right hon. Friends and the work that lots of people have done to bring this transformational Bill to the Commons. We also need to mention my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald) for his tremendous work at the very beginning of this process. It is transformational and everybody deserves lots of credit.
Anneliese Midgley
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention and I absolutely agree with him about the work that my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East has done on this for over a decade.
This Bill brings changes that tip the scale in favour of working people and, taken together with the rest of the new deal for working people, it amounts to the greatest uplift in workers’ rights in our generation. That is down to the friends that I have just mentioned here today. It is their legacy and it is one that will change the lives of millions of working-class people for the better. I know that the Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade, my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Kate Dearden), will do a great job of completing the process.
This is personal for me, because it was my dad’s secure, well-paid, unionised job on the production line in Ford’s Halewood plant that gave me a better life than my mum and dad had. It lifted us out of poverty and provided us with enough money and stability for a decent home, and enough to live a life of dignity on. Everyone should have that, and that is why I will fight for work where people can flourish and thrive and for jobs to take pride in that can provide a good life. No way would I be here in this place, representing the place where I was born and raised, if it was not for my dad’s job.
The Tories, backed by the Lib Dems in the other place, are trying to water down the Bill. They are aided and abetted by Reform, who are never in this place to debate this and have consistently voted against the Bill. Some of the Lords amendments would rip out the heart of the Bill. I am going to speak briefly to amendments 23 and 106 to 120, which would delay protections from unfair dismissal until a worker had been in their job for six months. This would mean that a worker could be dismissed at whim, for no reason. How is this okay? How is it defensible? A day one right not to be unfairly dismissed is good for workers and good for businesses.
My hon. Friend the Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery) spoke about the research from the IPPR and the TUC, which found that 73% of employers supported giving employees protection from unfair dismissal from day one of employment. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith), dismissed the TUC’s research from the Dispatch Box, but it represents 5 million workers and everyone else at work. Are they not stakeholders who should be listened to as well? We know that good employers up and down the country already live up to the standards that we are setting out in this Bill. Today, we need to stop these attempts to water down the Employment Rights Bill, deliver the protections from unfair dismissal that our constituents voted for and make sure we deliver the new deal for working people in full.
Kate Dearden
I thank all Members for their brilliant contributions today and for their engagement with the Bill throughout the many months we have been debating it. That is incredibly appreciated and valued.
I start by reiterating a quote from Professor Simon Deakin at the Cambridge University centre for business:
“strengthening employment laws in this country in the last 50 years has had pro-employment effects. The consensus on the economic impacts of labour laws is that, far from being harmful to growth, they contribute positively to productivity.”
I remind the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith), who made a number of contributions, of my opening remarks. UK employment laws are mostly a product of the 20th century. They have not kept pace with how businesses employ people or with how people experience their working lives today: when, how and where they work. The world of work has fundamentally changed in recent years. It is regrettable that the hon. Gentleman’s party spent 14 years impotently watching the rise of the gig economy and the many changes in our employment landscape but now pretends that the status quo still works for everyone. It simply does not. That is why the Bill is so important: it raises those standards and levels the playing field for businesses, so that they are not undercut by people who do not play by the rules, which negatively impacts their businesses and productivity. The Bill is important for working people so that they get that security and those rights at work, as well as for businesses, including those good businesses that already go above and beyond and do brilliant work supporting our workforce and different economies across the country.
The shadow Minister mentioned seasonal work. The initial reference period will be set out in regulations, as I have already spoken to. I reiterate that we believe that 12 weeks is the right length, balancing the need for qualifying workers to be offered those guaranteed hours reasonably soon after they start a role and the need for a reference period long enough to establish the hours that they regularly work.
I was surprised to hear the remarks from the shadow Minister on employment tribunals. On their watch, average wait times for an employment claimant increased by 60% between 2010 and 2022 due to funding cuts. The previous Government’s introduction of fees had a disproportionate impact on woman and the low-paid. Yet again, we are fixing messes that they left behind. The taskforce I mentioned in my introductory speech for how we can fix our employment tribunal system, and our work under the Fair Work Agency, which will be up and running next year, are incredibly important as part of that wider package.
Amanda Martin
It is good to hear about the taskforce. Could the Minister give us more information about what other things it will look at and investigate that will support employees?
Kate Dearden
The taskforce will bring together different stakeholders so that we can assess the problems within the system and work out the best way to fix them, because at the moment it is not working for employers or workers, who want access to justice and want it quickly.
Andy McDonald
Would the Minister agree that the introduction of these rights and protections is absolutely critical, but equally important is the ability to enforce those rights? The Fair Work Agency has the potential to bring that to fruition and ensure that when people are in those circumstances and are the beneficiaries of an award, they will ultimately receive it, because far too many people take on these cases and do not get any redress.
Kate Dearden
We met Matthew Taylor, the new chair of the Fair Work Agency, this week to discuss the agency’s progress to ensure that it is up and running at speed. As my hon. Friend rightly points out, enforcement is vital, and it is crucial that workers are aware of their rights. That is why the agency is so transformational in our approach and important for our wider agenda.
To respond to the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), I urge her to support the Government as we seek to update and upgrade our employment rights to be fit for the 21st century. She mentioned lots around detail. As I mentioned earlier, as is standard for lots of employment rights legislation, we want to consult extensively with businesses, unions and employers to ensure that we get this right, and I am sure that she agrees with that approach.
The hon. Member mentioned turnout thresholds. As I have mentioned, we want to create an industrial relations framework fit for a modern economy and workforce and that works for everybody. We have been clear that we intend to ensure that trade union legislation is proportionate and effective and does not create unnecessary bureaucratic hurdles. We remain committed to removing the 50% turnout threshold for industrial action ballots through the repeal of the Trade Union Act 2016. We support a strong mandate for strike action, but a threshold set in legislation is not the best way to achieve that.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) talked about our proud Labour legacy of the courage and conviction to change lives, and she is a powerful and inspiring demonstration and testament to that. That is why this legislation is so important, reshaping the world of work and delivering security and dignity that people can feel, as she rightly mentioned. We cannot build a strong economy through employment insecurity. The legal loopholes that exist have contributed to the erosion of living standards and allowed a race to the bottom. I am always grateful for her support and thank her for her offer of support as we proceed to Royal Assent and the implementation stages to ensure that everybody across the country can benefit, workers and business alike, and that is why the Bill is pro-worker, pro-business and pro-growth.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders) made a powerful speech and responded eloquently to lots of points raised by Opposition Members, and I thank him for that. I reassure him that we remain committed to the repeal of the 50% turnout threshold, and we have been clear that it is our intention to align the removal of thresholds with the establishment of e-balloting as an option for unions. The amendment does not change that commitment. We are working at pace to permit electronic balloting by April 2026. He will be pleased to know that we will shortly launch a consultation on an electronic and workplace balloting code of practice, and I encourage all stakeholders to respond to that consultation.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Tipton and Wednesbury (Antonia Bance) for her excellent points on the importance and use of political funds. I reiterate my remarks on the 50% threshold and hope that she is reassured by them. She will have heard the Government’s commitment to delivering the Bill in full from the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State at Labour conference. I hope to have reiterated that commitment at the Dispatch Box today.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald) for all his work on this legislation. It has been a pleasure to work with him over a number of years. He mentioned fair pay agreements, which we are introducing for social care, as he rightly said. We will learn from that process before considering their introduction in other sectors, but I appreciate his passion for this area. I am sure that we will be in touch with him to speak about that progress.
Laurence Turner
May I invite the Minister to respond to two things? First, I was asked earlier how many times the word “maternity” appears in the Bill. The word “pregnancy” appears 16 times, “parental” 27 times, and “bereavement” 34 times, but we cannot restrict the debate to individual phrases. Secondly, this is not some abacus exercise; the real impact of the Bill is the change and improvement it will make for millions of working families thanks to day one rights.
Kate Dearden
I thank my hon. Friend for that excellent and well-made point. I am glad that he has managed to find the ctrl+F function with such speed. I always rely on him to provide such efficiency and clarity. The Bill will benefit more than 15 million workers. That is an incredibly powerful statistic to give at the Dispatch Box. More than 2 million people on zero-hours contracts could benefit, as well as the many workers he mentions who will benefit from further protections and rights at work.
Michael Wheeler
I thank my good and hon. Friend for giving way. Millions of workers, including those on zero-hours contracts, stand to benefit from the measures in the Bill. Does she agree that the amendments tabled by Liberal Democrat peers on the right to guaranteed hours are an unworkable bureaucratic mess that opens up scope for abusive practices in the workplace and removes the Bill’s meaningful protections from far too many workers?
Kate Dearden
I thank my good and hon. Friend for his important contribution. Like him, I meet many people in my constituency who do not know day to day whether they will have enough money for food and rent because they do not know how many hours they will work that week. That is why it is so important that we give people basic security by banning exploitative zero-hours contracts. We know that people value the flexibility that those contracts offer, which is why we are tackling the exploitative ones, as he rightly outlines. Those amendments might look for a different route to tackle exploitative zero-hours contracts, but we want to protect working people, because it is so important that they have certainty, week by week, on what they will be paid—that is what they deserve. I thank him for all his work in this area over a number of years. He brings a wealth of experience to this part of the Bill.
The Government are clear that we cannot build a strong economy while people are in insecure work. Employment law has not kept pace with modern working patterns, and that has allowed some employers to exploit gaps in the law, undercut responsible businesses and fuel a race to the bottom. Backed by our new industrial and trade strategies, the Bill will drive productivity, foster innovation and lay the foundations for long-term secure growth. It will level the playing field for good employers and put the UK economy in step with competitors in other advanced economies.
As we have heard today, I stand on the shoulders and build on the incredible hard work of many right hon. and hon. Friends. I pay tribute to them, and put on record my thanks and gratitude for all their work in getting us to where we are today. I hope that all hon. Members support the Government in our determination to get the Bill over the line and update our employment rights legislation in this country, for businesses and for employers, for the future and for growth. I thank hon. Members for their contributions.
Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1B.
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, at Prime Minister’s questions earlier today, the Justice Secretary and Deputy Prime Minister was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) no fewer than five times whether he was aware of any prisoner being released early, having claimed asylum. We now know that he had in his possession at that time a folder containing details of the accidental release of Brahim Kaddour-Cherif from Wandsworth prison last week—a man previously convicted of sex offences and who is, as we speak, at large and posing a risk to the public. It has emerged since then that another man, William Smith, was accidentally released on Monday.
The Deputy Prime Minister failed to disclose that relevant information to this House. The House and the public are entitled to be told about such things, but the Deputy Prime Minister withheld that information. The police have subsequently confirmed that they have no objection to that information being released, contrary to briefings from the Government. Will the Justice Secretary come to this House before the close of business and make a statement so that Members can question him? We cannot wait until the House returns on Tuesday for a proper account.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I thank the right hon. Member for his point of order. Whether the Government choose to make a statement is not a matter for the Chair; however, the Treasury Bench will have heard the right hon. Member’s concerns.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, I understand that the Deputy Prime Minister has made it clear that he was held back for operational reasons by the Metropolitan police from answering that question at Prime Minister’s questions. Mr Swinford of The Times has published right now that far from that being the case, there is
“significant frustration in the Met Police”,
as they said that there was clearly “no operational issue” at all with the release of that information. I wonder if you will take that into consideration, Madam Deputy Speaker, because surely this is a process of misleading the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I refer him to my answer to the previous point of order. It is not a point of order and not a matter for the Chair, but it is a matter of debate.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Can you confirm that it is a point of order?
Graham Stuart
It is, Madam Deputy Speaker. You will be aware that a Bill was presented to Parliament only this week that provides for a duty of candour for public servants. It is not enough simply to tell the truth; there has to be a duty of candour. Can you, Madam Deputy Speaker, share with the House whether the sponsoring Minister, the Justice Secretary, has decided to remove himself as the sponsor of that Bill?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order; it is not a point of order, but a point of argument.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I do hope that this is a point of order.
Dr Murrison
It very much is, Madam Deputy Speaker. We have this week had the publication of a very important Bill—so important that the Prime Minister himself came to this House to present it on Second Reading. The sponsor of that Bill is the Justice Secretary. While I have no doubt that the Justice Secretary was being truthful today, there is a question over whether he was being candid, which is a higher test. Can you advise me on how the Justice Secretary might be requested to come to this House to clarify his position?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order. However, I repeat that this is not a matter for the Chair. It is not a point of order.
Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill: Programme (No. 2)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7))
That the following provisions shall apply to the Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 3 February 2025 (Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery): Programme):
Consideration of Lords Amendments
Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion two hours after their commencement. The Lords Amendments shall be considered in the following order: 1, 75, 30 and 31, 43, 84, 97, 2 to 29, 32 to 42, 44 to 74, 76 to 83, 85 to 96 and 98 to 121.
Subsequent stages
Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put. Proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—(Christian Wakeford.)
Question agreed to.
Employment Rights Bill
Monday 17th November 2025
(4 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Employment Rights Act 2025 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 144-I Marshalled list for Consideration of Commons Reasons and Amendments - (14 Nov 2025)
15:58 - Division on Motion A1 (as an amendment to Motion A) - Ayes: 296 / Noes: 147 - Motion A1 agreed.
17:03 - Division on Motion B1 (as an amendment to Motion B). - Ayes: 309 / Noes: 150 - Motion B1 agreed.
17:16 - Division on Motion C1 (as an amendment to Motion C) - Ayes: 298 / Noes: 157 - Motion C1 agreed.
17:35 - Division on Motion E1 (as an amendment to Motion E). - Ayes: 302 / Noes: 135 - Motion E1 agreed.
17:49 - Division on Motion F1 (as an amendment to Motion F) - Ayes: 295 / Noes: 150 - Motion F1 agreed.
Baroness Lloyd of Effra
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 1B to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 1C.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Information and Technology (Baroness Lloyd of Effra) (Lab)
My Lords, in moving Motion A, I will speak also to Motions C and C1. In this group, we will be debating the amendments relating to zero-hours contracts and seasonal work.
Amendment 1B, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, would require employers to write to workers at the end of each reference period, explaining their right to receive the guaranteed-hours offer and giving them the option to accept or decline. I take this opportunity once again to thank the noble Lord for his contribution throughout the Bill. We agree on many of the fundamentals relating to the security of work, and we have commonality in wanting to protect workers from precarious employment.
I recognise that the intent and sentiment behind the amendment is to ensure a balanced and practical approach, and I share the noble Lord’s desire for the Bill to work for businesses and workers alike. I look forward to further conversations with him on this matter and beyond, when we will continue our programme of consultation to ensure that the Bill’s measures are delivered effectively and proportionately for business.
However, the amendment as drafted would alter fundamental aspects of the Bill. We are building an economy based on fair competition between businesses, greater productivity in the workplace, job security for workers and a fair reward for hard work. We need to tackle exploitative zero-hours contracts that leave some staff unable to plan their working lives or manage their family finances, and the provisions in the Bill do that. We appreciate that some groups value the flexibility that zero-hour contracts can provide. Those workers will be able to decline a guaranteed-hours offer and remain on their existing arrangements if that works best for them. I hope noble Lords agree that ending exploitative zero-hours contracts and providing security for the workers who need it most is imperative.
Motion C relates to Amendment 48B, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom. The Government are fully aware that work in certain sectors fluctuates throughout the year, and we recognise the importance of those sectors. That is why consideration of seasonal work is built into the right to guaranteed-hours provisions. There are several ways in which an employer could approach seasonal demand. One approach would be to use annualised-hours contracts, which allow employers to vary the number of hours worked at different times of the year. Some businesses already use these contracts, ensuring that they can account for fluctuating demands in work when planning, while enabling workers to plan for household budgeting. Additionally, the Bill already allows guaranteed-hours offers to take the form of limited-term contracts where reasonable. The Bill also provides powers to address seasonal work through regulations, ensuring flexibility as needs evolve.
We will consult with employers, trade unions and stakeholders before making regulations. It is paramount that stakeholders are engaged with before we make these necessary decisions. Through the introduction of the new right to guaranteed hours, work will become more secure and predictable. It will leave workers in some of the most deprived areas less exposed to the hidden costs of insecure work, which can add up to as much as £50 a month for some, while strengthening the foundations that underpin a modern economy. I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Geddes) (Con)
The Minister’s enthusiasm got the better of her but I had not actually put the Question that the amendments and reasons be now considered. I hope the House will take it that we did so do, even though we did not say it.
Motion A1 (as an amendment to Motion A)
Lord Fox
Leave out from “House” to end and insert “do insist on its Amendment 1B.”
Lord Fox (LD)
I thank the Deputy Speaker for his expert guidance. Your Lordships could be excused for a sense of déjà vu, perhaps because we are back in your Lordships’ House with the same issues we discussed on 28 October. They remain unresolved and, indeed, not addressed in any meaningful way.
Since the last very similar session of ping-pong, I have had an engaging meeting with the Lords Ministers and their officials, and I thank them for that meeting. The prospect of that meeting gave me a sense of anticipation. I expected some sort of legislative rabbit to be pulled out of the Government’s hat at that point, but no—there was nothing. At first, I thought something substantive was being concealed for tactical reasons, perhaps ready to be flourished in some dramatic prestige at the moment that pleased the Ministers. But it has become increasingly clear that not only is there no rabbit in the care of the Benches opposite but there is actually no hat. If there is a hat, it exists elsewhere, and for that I have some sympathy for the Ministers opposite, because they sit bare-headed at the moment, with nothing to offer.
Time has passed, however, and, if the Government’s position has not changed, what has? Well, the business environment has got worse. September saw negative growth in GDP, per capita productivity fell in the last quarter and unemployment rose to 5% as recruitment cooled. Yet this ping-pong represents a doubling down—but for what? The Government’s manifesto vowed to “make work pay”, and we agree with that. None of these amendments confound this. My Motion A1 does not in any way dent the worker’s right to convert zero hours to guaranteed hours. What it does is streamline the administration of that right. I explained last time that Motion A1 merely avoids unnecessary work, helping SMEs that have limited administrative capacity to get on with focusing on growing their business and, hopefully, creating more jobs. But, in the absence of an amendment in lieu today, I will insist on this.
Moving on to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe—Motion C1—we have consistently raised concerns about seasonal work. I welcome the Minister’s careful description of the issues in the current legislation—the problem being, of course, that there is outstanding consultation and outstanding details that make it difficult. We are not 100% happy with the noble Lord’s drafting, but we feel that it is a starting point for further conversations of the nature the Minister just brought up. We will support Motion C1 if it is voted on. Sorting the impasse on these Motions and those in subsequent groups requires political gumption. In the end, I suppose it will be up to No. 10—I understand that it might be preoccupied with other issues at the moment.
I close with one last statistic, this time from the Work Foundation at Lancaster University. There are now 1.79 million people out of work and looking for a job. With economic inactivity stable at a staggering 21%, the number out of work appears to be rising not due to increasing inflow but rather due to limited outflow caused by difficulties in finding work. That is 1.79 million people. The Government did not address the arguments we put two weeks ago, and therefore they deserve the same response as last time. I beg to move Motion A1.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Fox, said, here we are, back again.
In the ping-pong debate last time, the noble Baroness, Lady Lloyd of Effra, stated:
“The Government have engaged extensively with stakeholders on their make work pay reform since August 2024. A major part of this engagement has been to seek the varied views of SMEs. As of 15 October, we had engaged directly with more than 250 stakeholders. This included 139 businesses, of which 75 were SMEs. This approach to engagement will remain throughout the various consultations”.—[Official Report, 28/10/25; col. 1246.]
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to Motion C1—but before I do so, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Fox, that I am in complete agreement with the speech that he made on Motion A1. To recall the words that he used before, the Government were put on notice that they needed to come forward with a solution, but solution there is none. Requiring all businesses to offer guaranteed hours to every worker, including those who do not want them, imposes an unnecessary administrative burden, and one that falls, as my noble friend Lord Leigh of Hurley has just pointed out, particularly heavily on small businesses. It also sits uneasily with the Government’s stated intention to reduce the regulatory load on businesses by 25%. Should the noble Lord, Lord Fox, choose to test the opinion of the House, he will have our support.
On Motion C1, the Government have to recognise that seasonal work is fundamentally different in nature from permanent or year-round employment, and defining it clearly in statute will ensure that this Bill, as well as any future legislation, properly reflects the realities faced by seasonal industries. Seasonal businesses operate within narrow windows of opportunity; their labour needs rise sharply and predictably at various times of the year, then fall away again. Without a clear and credible definition, there is a risk of uncertainty both for employers trying to comply with the law and for workers trying to understand their rights.
We on these Benches have spoken to many seasonal businesses, large and small, and they remain concerned about the potential impact of the Bill and the absence of a framework that recognises the specific characteristics of seasonal labour. If the Government are not prepared to accept this amendment, we will test the opinion of the House.
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have contributed to the debate today. Let me start by recapping the reason for this measure.
There is a moral case to press ahead with ending exploitative zero-hour contracts. We aim to rebalance the scales so that all the risk associated with insecure work is not placed on workers. By our doing so, work will become more secure and predictable, saving workers in some of the most deprived areas up to £600 in lost income, strengthening the foundations that underpin a modern economy and increasing productivity, rather than the obverse.
On business engagement, we have indeed engaged with businesses and consulted them, both directly and through federations that represent a large number— hundreds and thousands—of small businesses. We will continue to do so as we implement all the measures in the Bill. We are committed to full and comprehensive consultation with businesses big and small and will arrange focus sessions with SMEs specifically to look at the practical implementation, understand any challenges and make sure that we give the right guidance.
I want to reflect on the point about business regulation and the 25% target. We have established a baseline for the administrative burden; the 25% target is about ensuring that regulation is proportionate and efficient and works for business. It is not about blocking regulation that is needed to deliver the Government’s priorities. We want to implement the Bill in a way that delivers the intent as efficiently as possible. For example, the fair work agency will consolidate the functions of the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority, the Employment Agency Standards Inspectorate and the Director of Labour Market Enforcement into a single body, so we are reforming as we go ahead with all these measures, and we believe that, fundamentally, this is about balance.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, raised the issue of seasonality. Let me reassure noble Lords that the Government are fully conscious of the need to take account of fluctuations in seasonal demand, while ensuring that workers are not left holding all the risk. Under the Bill, there are several ways that an employer could approach seasonal demand while upholding the new rights, depending on circumstances. I set out some of those in my opening speech, but they could be limited-term contracts or guaranteed hours in various ways, such as an annualised hours contract. We think it is important to continue to consult on seasonality.
On growth, we have seen huge progress in foreign direct investment and trade agreements. We are very keen to continue to promote the economic prospects of the country, which is fundamental to improving the productivity of the labour market. In conclusion, I thank noble Lords for their contributions today and I look forward to further discussions on these issues.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
Before the Minister sits down, she said that she had consulted representative bodies of industry and commerce, by which I assume she means the FSB, the IoD and the CBI. Can she give us a flavour of those conversations, and identify any organisation that has given wholehearted support to the Bill?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
Of course, we have had many discussions and there have been amendments during the passage of the Bill as a result of some of the consultation we have had with all social partners. We made amendments to the Bill on Report in respect of fire and rehire and the school support staff negotiating body—all sorts of changes or amendments have been made through the consultation process. We have also set out a clear plan for implementation, so that each milestone is there and there is a consultation before that, so that all businesses, large and small, can have the right amount of time to prepare and to get the guidance they need to implement these measures.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response. I very much welcome the objective that she set out of reducing red tape. I remind her that the Bill contains 170 statutory instruments. In my experience, every statutory instrument leads to at least one regulation, so perhaps when next she stands up, she can commit to retiring at least one regulation, if not two, for each one that the statutory instruments bring in on the tail of the Bill, if indeed it ever becomes an Act.
The Minister also talked about a moral duty in respect of zero hours. I share that moral duty. Nothing in Motion A1 resiles from that moral duty, and on that basis, I would like to test the will of the House.
Lord Collins of Highbury
That this House do not insist on its Amendments 23 and 106 to 120, to which the Commons have disagreed; and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 120C, 120D and 120E in lieu of Lords Amendments 23 and 106 to 120.
“(6) Before making—
(a) the first regulations to be made under subsection (4), and
(b) the first regulations to be made in reliance on subsection (5)(b),
the Secretary of State must consult such persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.””
“(5C) Before making the first regulations to be made in reliance on subsection (5A), the Secretary of State must consult such persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.””
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Collins of Highbury) (Lab)
My Lords, I beg to move Motion B and I will also speak to Motions E, E1, F and F1. In this group, we are debating amendments relating to unfair dismissal, trade union industrial action, ballots and political funds. These are areas clearly linked to our manifesto commitments, which the Government have an electoral mandate to deliver. I thank all Members of the House for their engagement on these areas throughout the passage of the Bill. We have listened carefully to the concerns raised and in response, wherever possible, we are offering amendments in lieu that we believe strike a fair and workable compromise to the amendments made to the Bill. It may not be the rabbit that the noble Lord, Lord Fox, expected, but I would like to make it clear to the House that none of the amendments tabled by the Government will compromise the fundamental principles of the Bill, nor their intended impact, which is, I repeat, a commitment made in our manifesto.
On Motion B, relating to Amendments 120C, 120D and 120E tabled by the Government in the other place, we remain committed to delivering unfair dismissal protections, ensuring that around 9 million employees who have worked for their employer for less than two years are protected from being arbitrarily fired—that is the principle we are addressing. The Government have listened to stakeholders and tabled an amendment in lieu in the other place which ensures that the Government consult on key aspects of the framework. This will ensure that there is direct input from both employers and employees, enabling businesses to shape the legislation and ensure that it is practical and proportional.
To reiterate what was said in the other place, day-one protection from unfair dismissal will not remove the ability of businesses to dismiss people who cannot do their job or pass a probation period, but it will tackle cases of unfair dismissal in which hard-working employees are sacked without good reason. That is what this Bill is about. A six-month qualifying period threshold still leaves employees exposed to arbitrarily being fired during the early months of their new job.
As we have said from the start, the implementation of day-one unfair dismissal rights will be done with a light touch. There is a power in the Bill to modify the test when employers can fairly dismiss employees during the statutory probationary period for specific reasons related to performance and suitability. The Government will consult on our approach to ensure it has maximum flexibility so that the new framework works effectively for employers and employees in terms of the cost of its implementation and operation.
Motion F and Amendment 62C, tabled by the Government in the other place, relate to the 50% turnout threshold for industrial action ballots. As the period of disruption between 2022 and 2024 has shown, unnecessary red tape on union activity works against the core negotiation and dispute resolution that we all seek. Bureaucratic hurdles do not prevent strike action; they only make it harder for unions to engage in the bargaining that settles disputes—and that is our commitment in this Bill in terms of ensuring the promotion of growth. The repeal of the 50% turnout threshold also aligns union democracy with other democratic processes, such as parliamentary votes and local elections, and we should not forget that.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
Leave out from “House” to end and insert “do insist on its Amendments 23 and 106 to 120, and do disagree with the Commons in their Amendments 120C, 120D and 120E.”
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for outlining the government amendments and for the noble Lords opposite’s willingness to meet. But to say that the amendments that have been offered are inadequate would be something of an understatement. In essence, they oblige the Secretary of State, before making regulations, to
“consult such persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate”.
Who might those persons be? That really is the extent of the amendment. We already know that, so far, government consultations with business on this Bill have been desultory at best. I do not believe that the amendment even qualifies as a bunny, never mind a rabbit.
The chorus of disapproval for this proposed legislation has now been joined by Labour’s most successful ever Prime Minister, Sir Tony Blair. As my noble friend Lord Leigh of Hurley pointed out—and to expand on my noble friend’s remarks—in its report Tony Blair’s institute said:
“At present, employees gain protection from unfair dismissal only after two years—one of the longest qualifying periods in the OECD. The bill would move to the opposite extreme, granting such rights immediately. This would raise employment costs by increasing the legal and procedural risks attached to every new hire and discourage firms from recruiting—a concern already raised by some of the UK’s largest business groups, which have urged the government to amend the bill”.
Addressing the Government’s intention to introduce regulations allowing an initial probationary period, during which an employee could be dismissed under a light-touch process, the institute said that
“uncertainty over what rights apply during probation will do little to reassure employers nervous about taking on staff. Introducing a six-month qualifying period for unfair-dismissal protection, which is more typical among advanced economies including across much of Northern Europe and Australia, is more likely to balance fairness with flexibility”.
Meanwhile, billionaire Labour backer John Caudwell put it rather more succinctly. He said this will make Britain “less investable”. He continued:
“It’s not good for Britain, it’s not good for workers”.
Spot on.
To summarise, we have multiple business groups against this, and perhaps we should recap who they are: the Federation of Small Businesses, the CBI, the Institute of Directors, Make UK, the ADS Group, the British Retail Consortium, Care England, the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, Family Business UK, the Recruitment and Employment Confederation and UKHospitality. The British Chambers of Commerce contacted me after the last debate to explain that it would have signed the letter but had been too late.
Academia has added its voice to the chorus of disapproval. Professor Jonathan Haskel of Imperial College, and a former member of the Bank of England’s Monetary Policy Committee, said:
“Using the OECD index of employment regulation, there’s a negative relationship which is that more employment regulation means less intangible investment. My best prediction is that the employment rights bill is a rise in uncertainty for firms. The reason is that these employment rights are set out in broad outline in the bill but will then end up being interpreted by the courts”.
Those are all joined by the Government’s favourite think tank, as we discussed last time: the Resolution Foundation. Lest we forget, its former chief executive now sits in the Treasury. I have to say, looking at the Benches opposite, that they are also joined by quite a lot of Labour Peers, whose facial expressions the Minister cannot see.
The Government will of course say, “Business would say that, wouldn’t they?”, but that is to miss the point. These are the people who make hiring decisions, who decide whether to offshore because it is cheaper and causes them fewer HR headaches, whether to downsize, and whether to just close down completely, as we just heard so powerfully on the last group from my noble friend Lord Leigh of Hurley and his correspondent—I think it was Mr Dunham.
Remember that the impact assessment says the measure is likely to have a disproportionate impact on small and micro-businesses. Additionally, following the decision by the Government to double the conciliating period to 12 weeks for ACAS to resolve disputes, the Employment Lawyers Association has said:
“We are apolitical but the fact is that Parliament can pass all the reforming legislation it wants, but unless those laws can be enforced, with cases heard within a reasonable time, its laws are placed over the horizon, de facto out of sight to both workers and employers alike”.
These are the people who might be expected to benefit from the 10,500 increase in claims forecast to go before ACAS in the Government’s own impact assessment. Instead, they are expressing despair at the broken employment tribunal system.
As we saw last week, unemployment is rising and stands at almost 2 million, and it was reported yesterday that half the 170,000 jobs shed since Labour came to power are from the under-25s. Everyone who knows anything at all about wealth creation, about private sector hiring and about employment law says that the Bill will make it worse.
I need to refer back to the Tony Blair Institute, because it was very explicit about discouraging from hiring and I noticed that the Minister did not engage with that particular point in his introduction. This debate is about the people the party opposite claim to want to help. It is about a young person trying to find a job, a long-term unemployed person trying to rejoin the workforce, a woman wanting to return to work after having children, and somebody recovering from a long-term health issue getting back on their feet. The Bill should be about helping them; it is doing the complete opposite.
The last time we debated this, the Minister constructed a tortuous analogy and said that I and my party were on some sort of journey. If we are, our destination is common sense, and the Government need to listen to the wise voices on their own side and to join us.
On Motion F1, all I will do is quote what the Health Secretary said last week, that
“to be out on strike, setting back the NHS, because you don’t think we’re going fast enough, and because the leadership of your union are not honest enough that some of this change takes time, is extremely irresponsible. It is extremely unnecessary”.
He said that the BMA
“is no longer a professional association, and it is engaged in cartel-like behaviour”,
and that:
“The BMA’s leadership appear more interested in grandstanding and causing pain to patients than improving the lives of frontline resident doctors”.
Those are fairly damning words.
According to the Government’s own analysis, the full-time basic pay of resident doctors is expected to reach £54,300. This is where the farce becomes almost theatrical, because recently we heard that the Treasury considers that anyone earning above £45,000 a year is not a working person.
It appears that the Government have achieved something truly novel. They are actively creating a category of “non-working people”—not my phrase but the Chancellor’s own definition—and then showering them with no-strings-attached pay rises. Meanwhile, the BMA, emboldened by these spineless handouts, continues to abuse its influence, holding our NHS hostage while the Government wave through concessions without so much as a performance requirement or reform condition attached. The 50% threshold is not some sort of draconian barrier but a bare minimum, a line of defence against precisely this kind of chaos. Removing it will only accelerate the downward spiral that the Government have set in motion with their desperate, unconditional giveaways. The union bosses, entirely predictably, have now turned on them the moment it suited their agenda. I beg to move.
Lord Burns (CB)
My Lords, I support Motion B1. As the Minister has set out, the Government wish to go back to an arrangement where all new members automatically pay the contribution to the union’s political fund unless they take the initiative of opting out.
My own view is that it should be equally easy for a person to choose to contribute or not to contribute to the political fund at the point of applying to join the union. That is what my amendment seeks to do. The alternative approach supported by the Government is to have arrangements designed to minimise the number of new members who will exercise their legal right not to contribute to political funds. They want to do this by requiring action to opt out but not requiring any action to opt in, but, surely, an equal choice can be given only by respecting people’s personal preference.
Clearly, the Government wish to reduce the number of people exercising their right not to contribute. As one Labour Member in the House of Commons stated when opposing my amendment, they aim to avoid
“a reduction in the ability of working people to speak with a collective voice”.—[Official Report, Commons, 5/11/25; col. 975.]
That is a wonderful euphemism for putting barriers in the way of people exercising their true preference.
I accept that opting out has been the dominant arrangement for political funds since 1945. However, as I said last time, the rest of the world has moved on. Technology and widespread use of online applications and communications have made it much easier and less burdensome for members of an organisation to make a clear and convenient choice. Additionally, the standards that are now accepted for dealing fairly with people exercising their choice have changed significantly. Active, explicit consent has become the accepted standard.
I have examined the existing application forms for five unions which have political funds and whose application forms are easy to access without having to initiate the online application process myself—which I thought would be a rather risky thing to do. Two forms stand out. The version of the UNISON form, which I have seen, already provides a clear choice. There are two parts to the fund, one for the benefit of the Labour Party and another for general campaigning. Applicants are asked to tick their preference between the campaign funds, Labour Link, and “no thank you”. The GMB form, which I have also seen, offers a clear choice in response to the question:
“Do you want to opt-in to the political fund?”
There are two boxes. Applicants are asked to select the “yes” or “no” box. The other three application forms simply ask whether new members wish to contribute to the political fund. However, importantly, all of them have clearly decided that it is in their own interests to ask applicants to opt in at the point that they apply to be members—I will come back to this in a moment.
My goal remains to find a solution that provides genuine freedom of choice, avoiding the need for repeated arguments with each change of government. My amendment requires all unions to adopt the approach taken by the GMB and UNISON unions under the present law. It would give members a clear and transparent choice when joining a union that gets away from a focus on opt-in or opt-out. Under the amendment, all applicants to join a union with a political fund would be required to answer a simple question: do they wish to contribute to the political fund or not? It is an equal choice with no bias. That question will be on the application form.
I worry that this amendment, as it is set down on the amendment paper, may seem rather lengthy and complicated, but the essence lies in Amendment 72D—the remaining amendments are all subsidiary to the key provision of that amendment.
In rejecting my previous amendment, the Minister in the House of Commons stated, and we have heard it from the Minister in this place again this afternoon, that reinstating automatic contributions to the political fund, unless members choose to opt out, would
“restore balance and fairness in union operations”.—[Official Report, Commons, 5/11/25; col. 958.]
But what could be more balanced and fairer than the present UNISON and GMB forms, where applicants have a clear choice which they exercise at the time that they apply to join?
The Minister further claimed in the other House that the current opt-in system did not improve transparency or strengthen members’ choice, but how can that possibly be true of the amendment I put forward today? What could be more transparent or strengthen choice more than presenting two options side by side, along with the case for having a political fund, and allowing members to choose between them?
The Minister in the House of Commons, and the Minister this afternoon, have emphasised that under the proposed arrangements in the Bill, members will be informed on the application form of their right to opt out of contributing to the political fund and that opting out will have no impact on other aspects of their membership. However, I notice that there has been no commitment to being able to exercise a choice to opt out by ticking a box on the application form. Perhaps the Minister could explain why this simple option was not mentioned and apparently will not be required. Even under the opt-out system proposed by the Government, it would improve transparency and strengthen choice if members could exercise their choice not to contribute on the application form. If they are required to apply subsequently for an opt-out form to complete, does this improve transparency? Does it strengthen choice? Of course not.
I have had very helpful conversations with the Minister, and I must say I am very sorry to find myself in dispute with the Government on this. I have no political interest in this debate but continue to press the issue because this is not the way we expect organisations to operate today. It is a step backwards from the hard-fought cross-party compromise of 2016, and it is a stark reversal of everything we have learned in recent years about making choice more transparent and ensuring that decisions better reflect people’s true preferences.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
My Lords, I want to speak to Motion B1. Like, I think, many noble Lords, I start to become a bit uncomfortable when we have multiple rounds of ping-pong; and I generally hesitate to vote against the Government in more than one round, but I am expecting to make an exception in this case, for four main reasons.
First, I firmly believe that introducing day-one unfair dismissal rights will cause real and permanent harm to young people and others who are seen as higher-risk hires, such as those who have been on benefits for a long period, ex-offenders and people who have had long career breaks, perhaps because of parental or other caring obligations. When I say permanent, I mean that; if you are unemployed for a year, it becomes considerably more difficult to get on to that ladder and to make a success of your career. This is really important.
I am supported in that belief by every business group. The noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, has listed many such groups; I would add another: the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, of which I am a member. There is the Resolution Foundation, the Tony Blair Institute, and perhaps most importantly, the Government’s own impact assessment, which is very clear on this. I would love to hear the Minister’s views on his own impact assessment—he has never actually addressed that point. None of the several Ministers in this place or the other place has made any coherent argument to the contrary. So I put the question very simply to the Minister: will restricting the reasons that may be used to dismiss someone during a probation period, and thereby opening up the risk of an employment tribunal from day one, make it more or less likely that an employer, especially a smaller employer, will take a risk on, or give a chance to, a young person with no experience? Is it more or less likely? It is very simple. I think most of us know the answer to that. Is he going to argue that his own impact assessment is wrong?
Secondly, this measure directly contradicts other government policy. The Government’s youth guarantee, something I am strongly in favour of, will offer every eligible young person who has been on universal credit for 18 months guaranteed paid work. To do that, you need employers who are willing to give them a job and to take that risk. Why would an employer do that if they can be taken to the employment tribunal from day one if the employment does not work out? It does not make sense.
Thirdly, despite, frankly, the clear harm that this will do, the Government have not provided any evidence that the change will create any material tangible benefits for workers. No evidence has been provided to show that the qualifying period is being abused or is causing actual harm. There is no evidence provided in the impact assessment; there is evidence that doing this will cause harm, but none about the harm we are trying to solve. No evidence has been provided in this or the other place.
The Resolution Foundation is also very clear: if we are going to harm the life chances of young people, which is what the Government confirm in their impact assessment, we must have real evidence that there is a genuine greater benefit, not just the usual statement that it cannot be right that someone can ever be dismissed for no reason.
Fourthly and finally, I want to look more closely at the claim that this is a manifesto commitment. It is in the manifesto, but it is part of a wider commitment that includes the explicit commitment:
“We will consult fully with businesses, workers, and civil society on how to put our plans into practice before legislation is passed”.
We have heard several times today that the Government will consult afterwards. They might argue that that is because the rules for the probationary period will be in a statutory instrument.
Let us unpick this light-touch probationary period the Government are talking about. The problem is that the Bill expressly and specifically sets out the reasons why someone can be dismissed from day one during that probationary period, meaning that it is not genuinely a probationary period. Under the Bill, it cannot become a light-touch probationary period; that is simply impossible, given the way the Bill is drafted. I would love to understand more about the light-touch probationary period because we have had no detail about what it really means. However, the employer is obligated by the Bill—the Act, should that come to pass—to give specific reasons which are limited by the Bill. It cannot be light-touch, so I would like to understand better what the Government mean by that.
There is a possible way forward, however, which is where I start, perhaps, to part company with the Opposition. It is because the Bill sets out that there have to be specific reasons for dismissal that is the problem—that is what allows the employment tribunal to get involved during a probationary period and all the rest of it. I wonder—I am thinking aloud—whether there is a solution to the problem by taking that element out.
For those reasons, I am inclined to support the Opposition on Motion B1. I urge the Minister to take this seriously. As the Resolution Foundation put it so well, let us not
“needlessly put employers off hiring”.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, we have heard four very good speeches, and I do not intend to repeat them. I listened very carefully to the Minister and, unusually, I will read what he said in Hansard rather than just saying I will, because there was some interesting stuff there. I picked out the phrase, “We will not compromise on the fundamental principles of the Bill”. It would help if those could be set out because they are currently in the eye of the beholder.
The Minister also raised the notion that someone who had worked just less than two years should not be unfairly dismissed. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, recognises that point fundamentally but there are 730 days between day one and two years. We do not have to go from 730 to one; there are stages. We may disagree on that.
The noble Lord, Lord Vaux, pulled out the issue of light-touch rules and the criteria for fair dismissal in the Bill. I have some problems with the noble Lord’s suggestion, because if it is not in primary legislation, it will come as secondary legislation. We all know that His Majesty’s loyal Opposition never kill secondary legislation—I am looking at them. We would like to from time to time because it should happen; there should be a sense of jeopardy in secondary legislation, which currently there is not. Without that sense of jeopardy, I am not happy with taking things out. However, if it is in primary legislation, the consultation is not worth anything because it is already there, so we might as well forget about that.
Lord Sentamu (CB)
My Lords, I apologise: I wanted to speak before the noble Lord, Lord Fox, spoke, but he went far too quickly and never looked in my direction.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Phillips, a former Lord Chief Justice and the first President of the Supreme Court, asked a question: would you employ somebody with a criminal record without the qualifying period? He was never answered. Like a gramophone where the needle has stuck, I am stuck in that groove, so I will ask a second time: would you employ somebody without any qualifying period if they have a criminal record? I will add another category. Say somebody graduated from university and could have worked because they are not unwell, but they have not worked for 30 years and they want to go back to work: would you employ them without any probationary period? The serious issue here is like the noble Lord, Lord Fox, said: going from two years to just one day—24 hours and you are in.
There is another thing that worries me. We tend to describe employers as if they are all rogues. There are some bad employers, but the majority abide by the law. Today, they go before a tribunal if there is an unfair dismissal, so most people do not do it, but they want to have the security of knowing, when someone comes in, that there is a period of six months, say, during which they find out how that person plays in the firm and whether they are going to be loyal and faithful.
This probationary period is not a bad thing; most of us have been through it. I was a deacon for one year, and if they had discovered that I was no good, that would have been the end. The bishop would not have made me a priest; he would have said, “I will leave you as a deacon, and somebody, one day, may use you”. That sort of thing is discussed in relation to people in the Army. For example, a gentleman might want to become a commanding officer, and his trainer puts on his report, “Men will follow this gentleman, out of nothing”—or, in other words, “Do not take him”. Those reports are still being written.
Let us not deny employers who like to take on young people who have done some kind of mentoring work. I took on some, and that period was very useful. Quite a number ended up being ordained. We are discussing one day—24 hours—in which someone cannot be dismissed. I reckon that that is not how the world works. We want to protect workers’ rights but let us do it properly.
Finally, although this is a manifesto commitment, there is always a hurdle to turning a manifesto commitment into legislation. For me, the law is a public statement of policy; it is not just a manifesto commitment. Will this country go awry because we are so keen to protect workers’ rights—which we all want to do—without any qualifying period? I support Motion B1.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, I cannot resist telling the House the following. Immediately after secretarial college, I had a job for a fortnight. On the last day, my employer said to me, “What are you really wanting to do?”, and I said, “Be a barrister”. He replied, “Thank goodness. You would never make a career as a secretary”.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
We have had many days of debate in Committee and on Report, so I want to bring matters to a conclusion. Our changes will not prevent fair dismissal. The Government will ensure that employers can operate a statutory probationary period to assess new hires. That is exactly what will be in the Bill and what we will consult on. We are committed to consulting on the light-touch approach to the probationary period, and we have made that clear at each stage of the Bill.
Our reforms to the labour market are critical for growth, because low productivity is our biggest problem in this country. How do we ensure that we motivate good employers? I have correspondence from think tanks, such as the Tony Blair Institute, on protecting workers from unfair dismissal from day one of employment. They say that employers could respond to this by improving their people management—a vital ingredient to productivity—which could boost labour productivity. This must be one of the benefits that comes from job mobility. These are issues that we discussed in Committee, so I do not want to go on.
The noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu, raised the issue of convictions. I have repeatedly said that, currently, having a spent conviction is not a proper ground on which someone can be dismissed, unless it is from one of the roles listed in the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974. The two-year qualifying period applies, making it an unfair dismissal claim in those circumstances, which is what the Conservatives have put.
I appreciate, as I said to the noble Lord opposite before, that the Conservatives have been on a journey from day-one rights to six months, 12 months and two years—and they are now back to six months. I urge them to think about going that one step further. Most employment law has been subject to those statutory instruments and codes of practice, because we do need to respond to them. It is incredibly complicated, and we cannot simply put it in the Bill.
The impact assessment is there. If nothing else happens then of course there will be a danger, but the point I am making is that this is about creating a fairer and better workforce, where we encourage employers to set the best practice so that we have a situation where productivity is increased. What are we afraid of? I believe that no one in this Chamber supports unfair dismissal. We are talking about is ensuring that everyone who is employed can have that basic human right. Therefore, it is absolutely important.
The whole point—I will repeat what I said to the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe—is that, as we have said from the start, the implementation will be done with a light touch. There will be a power in the Bill to modify the test for when employers can fairly dismiss employees during the statutory probationary period. In response to all the issues that noble Lords raised in Committee and on Report—such as whether we are getting rid of the probationary period or, as the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, asked, whether we are inhibiting employers—the answer is no; we just want it done properly and fairly. That is not an unreasonable demand in this modern age.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, that there has indeed been a burden on the tribunal system because of unfair dismissals, as we have seen the cost of that. We recognise the volume of cases going to both ACAS and the employment tribunal, and the Government will extend the ACAS early conciliation time from six weeks to 12 weeks from 1 December, to allow it to manage and deal with the demand for early conciliation services. DPT is also providing additional financing immediately to recruit 29 additional conciliators, ensuring that ACAS can deal with that. Therefore, we are responding to those issues.
The BMA strike ballot was under the conditions that the noble Lord talked about, but that has not stopped the dispute. What will stop it is having proper negotiations, and that is what the Health Minister is focused on ensuring happens. Legislating to somehow undermine ballots is not the answer. We want to ensure that unions are representative and that their ballots are too. We want to ensure that they have a modern way of balloting, to ensure that we increase participation. That will be the key to future fair and open collective bargaining.
I turn to the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Burns, on political funds. He knows—I have incredibly strongly made this point to him—that a trade union is not a company and is not offering services. It is a democratic body. There are collective decisions. If a trade union makes a resolution at its conference to support X or Y policy, that is the collective decision. People can opt out of that collective decision by leaving the trade union—and many do. If a union starts spouting things that are not representative of its members, then the members will walk. It is not compulsory to be a member of a trade union. However, it is a collective body making collective decisions.
The noble Lord said, “We want to avoid pendulum swings”. I admire the work that he did on his committee, which ensured that there was a soft landing for a decision made by the then Government in 2016 to break a consensus that had been in existence from 1945. We are trying to return to that consensus, in order to recognise that trade unions are an important part of our democracy. I have said before that the most important ingredient of a healthy democracy is a vibrant civil society. We all need to be challenged, and that is what this is about—collective decisions.
Whether the noble Lord thinks so or not, the fact is that his current amendment basically maintains the processes of 2016. I have engaged in discussions with him. I think most trade union leaders recognise that the world has changed. When I first joined a trade union, in the early 1970s, it required us to write a letter. The only information about contracting out was contained in the rulebook. Not many people read the rulebook. We now have online facilities—email—and the possibility of someone exercising their right to opt out. Of course, the reasons for opting out are not just political; they can be religious. That has been part of the consensus since 1945.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his response, but he has yet again failed to answer the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu. We know that you cannot use a spent conviction as a reason for a dismissal, and that is entirely appropriate. The point is that there will not be anybody with a spent conviction in work, because no one will employ them. That is what the noble and right reverend Lord was asking, and yet again the Government have failed to answer what is a very straightforward question. They also failed entirely to address the excellent speech of the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, highlighting the difficulties young people are likely to face, and indeed are facing in the current workplace, because of this Bill.
I am afraid that the answers have not alleviated our concerns on these Benches. We entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Burns. It is not just the noble Lord who is obsessed with this; I think the whole House is. If he wishes to press his Motion, we will support him, but, in the meantime, I commend Motion B1 to the House.
Baroness Lloyd of Effra
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 48B to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 48C.
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion C. I beg to move.
Motion C1 (as an amendment to Motion C)
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
Leave out from “House” to end and insert “do insist on its Amendment 48B.”
Lord Leong
That this House do not insist on its Amendments 60B and 60C, to which the Commons have disagreed; and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 60D and 60E in lieu of Lords Amendments 60B and 60C.
“Guidance about the employment of children on heritage railways
(1) The Office of Rail and Road and the Health and Safety Executive, acting jointly, must, before the end of the relevant 12-month period, prepare and publish guidance setting out circumstances in which a child carrying out activities for the purposes of a heritage railway in Great Britain is, or is not, to be regarded as employed in an industrial undertaking for the purposes of section 1 of the Employment of Women, Young Persons and Children Act 1920 (restrictions on the employment of children in industrial undertakings).
(2) The Office of Rail and Road and the Health and Safety Executive, acting jointly—
(a) may from time to time revise guidance published under this section;
(b) must publish any revisions of that guidance.
(3) In this section—
“heritage railway” means a railway which—
(a) is operated for the purposes of—
(i) preserving, recreating or simulating railways of the past, or
(ii) demonstrating or operating historical or special types of motive power or rolling stock, and
(b) is exclusively or primarily used for recreational or educational purposes;
“railway” includes a tramway;
“the relevant 12-month period” means the period of 12 months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.”
“( ) section (Guidance about the employment of children on heritage railways) (guidance about the employment of children on heritage railways);”
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Leong) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, and my noble friend Lord Faulkner of Worcester for their engagement on this issue.
The Government’s amendments, which were tabled in the other place, build on the previous amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, placing a statutory duty on the Office of Rail and Road and the Health and Safety Executive to produce guidance supporting 14 to 16 year-olds volunteering on heritage railways. This guidance will offer a clear benchmark for reasonable activities and assist inspectors in enforcement decisions. The Government are committed to this work, with publication targeted for 31 March 2026.
By working with the regulators, as well as heritage railways that are already operating successful volunteering programmes for children, there can be clear and practical guidance to protect the health, safety and well-being of young people interested in volunteering on heritage railways. This collaborative approach will provide practical guidance that empowers children to engage safely and meaningfully in heritage railway volunteering. In turn, it should provide the necessary bodies with reassurance.
It is of utmost importance that young people get the opportunity to learn new skills and gain confidence, as well as to help their community—all while ensuring that high-risk activities are not carried out and only appropriate activities are undertaken. I beg to move the Motion.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)
My Lords, I will be very brief. The House has heard me speak on this subject a number of times over the past 10 years, ever since the counsel’s opinion came through that the engagement of young people on heritage railways and tramways was illegal under the 1920 Act. The government amendment, which bears a remarkable resemblance to the one that the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, and I discussed with Ministers during the process of the Bill’s consideration, removes that threat from heritage railways provided that they follow the guidance which the ORR and the Health and Safety Executive lay down for them. I am grateful to them for their willingness to undertake the consultation which will produce that guidance, we hope by 31 March. Meanwhile, heritage railways are now able to recruit youngsters legally and, I believe, successfully to be involved in the running of the railway, and thereby provide some certainty that the heritage railway movement will continue. I will of course support the Motion that my noble friend has moved.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I will be briefer still. I renew my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Leong, and the Government for listening on this issue and my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, who has campaigned on this issue for many years. This compromise from the Government, which the noble Lord very kindly outlined to us before the tabling of the Motion in another place, puts beyond the uncertainty of recent years an issue that has prevented young people from gaining skills and opportunities in volunteering on heritage railways, which are often considerable employers in their local areas and the linchpin of the visitor economy. This is a measure which will help growth and employment, as well as extending opportunity.
As it happens, when the Government were inserting these new words into the Bill in another place, the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, and I were both at the Heritage Railway Association’s annual conference in Southampton where the Government were rightly getting the plaudits that they deserve for moving on this issue, so I am very grateful that they have done so.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, I add my support and thanks to the Government for this amendment.
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their very kind words. I thank my noble friend Lord Faulkner and the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, for their engagement with the Government, myself and my colleagues. This amendment is good news to the thousands of volunteers working in heritage railways up and down the country, who will not have to worry about breaching any legislation. That said, let us choo-choo along and I beg to move.
Lord Collins of Highbury
That this House do not insist on its Amendments 61 and 72, to which the Commons have disagreed; and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 72C in lieu of Lords Amendments 61 and 72.
(i) a day specified in, or determined in accordance with, the rules of the union, and
(ii)”
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion E, and I beg to move.
Motion E1 (as an amendment to Motion E)
Lord Burns
Leave out from “disagreed” to end and insert “do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment 72C in lieu of Lords Amendments 61 and 72; and do propose Amendments 72D to 72H in lieu—
“84 Contributions to political fund from union members
(1) It is unlawful to require a member of a trade union to make a contribution to the political fund of a trade union if the member has not chosen to become a contributor.
(2) For the purposes of this Act, a member of a trade union is deemed to have chosen to become a contributor to the political fund of the union if they—
(a) are an existing contributor to the political fund immediately before the date on which section 59 of the Employment Rights Act 2025 comes into force,
(b) have chosen to be a contributor under the provisions of section 82(1)(ca)(i) or subsection (5), or
(c) have chosen to become a contributor at a later date by submitting a political fund contribution change form under subsection (8).
(3) A trade union must give a political fund contribution consent form to each member of the union within the period of eight weeks beginning with the day after the day on which a political resolution is passed by the members of the union under section 73.
(4) A “political fund contribution consent form” is a form which requires the person to make a choice between being a contributor to the fund or not being a contributor to the fund.
(5) Any member who is issued with a political fund contribution consent form under subsection (3) shall only be deemed to be a contributor if they have returned the form indicating that they wish to be a contributor.
(6) A member of a trade union may change their choice about whether to contribute to the political fund at any time.
(7) A member of a trade union may change their choice about whether to contribute to the political fund by completing a political fund contribution change form provided by their union and—
(a) delivering it (either personally or by an authorised agent or by post) at the head office or a branch office of the union;
(b) sending it by email to an address that the union has told its members can be used for sending such notices;
(c) completing an electronic form provided by the union, and sending it to the union by electronic means in accordance with instructions given by the union;
(d) by such other electronic means as may be prescribed.
(8) A political fund contribution change form takes effect at the end of the period of one month beginning with the day on which it is given.
84A Information to members about changing their choice on contributing to political fund
(1) A trade union must give a political fund contribution change notice to each member of the union within the period of eight weeks beginning with the end of—
(a) the period of one year beginning with the day on which a political resolution is passed, and
(b) each successive year,
unless during that previous year the political resolution is rescinded or otherwise ceases to have effect.
(2) A “political fund contribution change notice” is a notice stating that—
(a) each member of the union has the right to change whether they are a contributor to the political fund of the union, and
(b) a member may exercise that right by completing a political fund contribution change form under section 84.
(3) A political fund contribution change notice must be given in accordance with rules of the union approved for the purpose by the Certification Officer.
(4) In deciding whether to approve those rules, the Certification Officer must have regard in each case to the existing practice and character of the union.”
“(4) The amendments made by subsection (3) apply only after the end of the transition period.
(5) In subsection (4) “the transition period” means a period of not less than 12 months, starting on the day on which this section comes into force, specified by the Secretary of State in regulations made by statutory instrument.
(5A) Before making regulations under subsection (5) the Secretary of State must consult—
(a) the Certification Officer, and
(b) all trade unions that have a political fund.
(5B) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (5) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.”
Lord Collins of Highbury
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 62, to which the Commons have disagreed; and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 62C in lieu of Lords Amendment 62.
“(5) In deciding whether and when to make regulations under subsection (3) bringing section 65 (industrial action ballots: turnout threshold) into force for any purpose, the Secretary of State must have regard to what effect any provision made after this Act is passed for industrial action ballots to be conducted otherwise than by post has had, or is expected to have, on the proportion of those eligible to vote voting in such ballots.
(6) In subsection (5) “industrial action ballot” means a ballot for the purposes of section 226 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (ballots on industrial action).”
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion F. I beg to move.
Motion F1 (as an amendment to Motion F)
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
Leave out from “House” to end and insert “do insist on its Amendment 62, and do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment 62C.”
Employment Rights Bill
Monday 8th December 2025
(3 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Employment Rights Act 2025 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Commons Consideration of Lords Message as at 8 December 2025 - large print - (8 Dec 2025)
19:55 - The House divided: - Ayes: 327 / Noes: 96 - Question accordingly agreed to.
20:09 - The House divided: - Ayes: 300 / Noes: 96 - Question accordingly agreed to.
20:21 - The House divided: - Ayes: 395 / Noes: 98 - Question accordingly agreed to.
20:34 - The House divided: - Ayes: 326 / Noes: 162 - Question accordingly agreed to.
20:46 - The House divided: - Ayes: 327 / Noes: 162 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Before we move to consideration of the Lords message, I can confirm that nothing in the Lords message engages Commons financial privilege.
Clause 1
Right to guaranteed hours
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kate Dearden)
I beg to move,
That this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords in their amendment 1B but proposes amendments (a) and (b) to the Bill in lieu of that amendment.
Madam Deputy Speaker
With this it will be convenient to consider the following:
That this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords in their amendments 23 and 106 to 120, does not insist on its amendments 120C, 120D and 120E, and proposes amendments (a) to (f) to the Bill in lieu of Lords amendments 23 and 106 to 120.
That this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords in their amendments 23 and 106 to 120.
That this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords in their amendment 48B but proposes amendments (a) and (b) to the Bill in lieu of that amendment.
That this House does not insist on its amendment 72C in lieu of Lords amendments 61 and 72, but disagrees with the Lords in their amendments 72D to 72H in lieu and proposes further amendments (a) and (b) in lieu of the Lords amendments.
That this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords in their amendment 62, but does not insist on its amendment 62C in lieu and proposes further amendment (a) to the Bill in lieu of the Lords amendment.
Kate Dearden
I am pleased to return to the Employment Rights Bill for the consideration of Lords amendments for a third time.
The Government’s plan to make work pay, on which we were elected and in which we committed to deliver the Employment Rights Bill, will bring employment rights legislation into the 21st century, extending the protections that many British companies already offer to their staff to all. By doing so, we will endeavour to end the unfair market competition in which some firms seek to beat their competitors not by better quality or increased value, but by cutting the pay and conditions of their workforce. That is why this Bill is truly pro-business and pro-worker, pro-growth and pro-competition, and contributes to the creation of a fair and flexible labour market.
This Bill is a win-win for employers, employees and a more competitive British economy. By delivering this change together, we will back businesses that do the right thing while giving hard-working people the job security and opportunities that they deserve. That is why we must press ahead with delivery. Too many workers are waiting too long to feel the benefits of these reforms, and too many businesses face the uncertainty of when this Bill will become law and want clarity on its implementation. The Government are seeking the support of this House so that we can secure Royal Assent and finally be able to move towards implementing change.
First, I will speak to the Government amendments in lieu, which relate to unfair dismissal. In late November, I convened a series of constructive conversations between trade unions and business representatives, and I am extremely grateful for the positive and productive contribution of both sides of industry to that dialogue. It is a testimony to their leadership, and I thank them for it.
I am pleased to report that we have come to a workable agreement with trade unions and business representatives on the unfair dismissal provisions. The Government’s amendments in lieu will reduce the qualifying period for unfair dismissal from 24 months to six months, while maintaining existing day one protections against discrimination and automatically unfair grounds for dismissal. The implementation road map sets out that the changes related to unfair dismissal will come into force in 2027. That is the timeline that businesses have been working towards.
It is also important to limit the time that employees must wait for their rights to be strengthened while implementing changes in a way that is manageable for business. That is why I am pleased to tell the House that the six-month qualifying period for unfair dismissal protections will be brought in from 1 January 2027.
Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)
My hon. Friend has done a remarkable job with this Employment Rights Bill. However, it would be remiss of me not to ask her a question. The new deal for working people stipulated quite clearly that employment rights from day one were sacrosanct, then a manifesto pledge in 2024 said categorically to the British people that we would have day one rights for working people. Why has that changed?
Kate Dearden
My hon. Friend will know that this Bill is extremely close to my heart, as it is close to the hearts of many Members in the Chamber today. It is something I have worked on for many years alongside trade union colleagues and, of course, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner). Achieving the best possible deal for working people is the reason I am in this job, and it is why I wanted to ensure that trade unions were consulted at every step of the way, along with the excellent business leaders who are crucial to delivering the growth our country desperately needs. Our amendments in lieu will deliver on our promises for working people up and down this country, while ensuring that the Bill is not stuck in parliamentary limbo for another year.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Minister for the work she has personally done on the Bill. I think we would all agree that it has been stuck in limbo for some time, and we very much want to get it through. I met representatives of the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers last week—not people at the top of the ladder, but the shop stewards who are literally on the shop floor. They are really keen for the Bill to get through as soon as possible and they feel that these measures provide the right compromise. Does the Minister agree?
Kate Dearden
We reached this agreement with the unions in the room, and no one knows better than them what their members need. This is a significant step forward to put the Bill into practice.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Under Lords amendment 1, the duty would be shifted to the employee to request guaranteed hours, as opposed to it being down to the employer to offer hours. That means that the employee can request hours, and then the employer can cancel them at the last minute. Can the Minister reassure me that provision will be made to protect workers, ensuring that if they are given hours, they are compensated in the right way?
Kate Dearden
I will speak to zero-hours contracts later in my contribution. This is about rebalancing power —giving workers access to guaranteed hours if they need and want them.
Let me return to the unfair dismissal protections that we will bring in from 1 January 2027. Our intention is to adopt a commencement approach that would extend protections immediately from that date to employees who already have six months’ service or more. For example, under this proposal, someone employed from today will gain protection against unfair dismissal on 1 January 2027. That is almost a full year earlier than under the current law. Other employees will gain protection once they reach six months’ service; for example, someone who starts work on 1 November 2026 will qualify for protection from unfair dismissal on 1 May 2027—International Workers’ Day—which is 20 months earlier than under the current law. This approach was taken in 1999, when the qualifying period was reduced from two years to one. This approach will prevent a two-tier system, in which some people would remain on a two-year qualifying period while newly hired employees were subject to a six-month qualifying period.
The commencement of the unfair dismissal provisions will be set out in commencement regulations, as is standard practice. I am happy to commit to making those regulations early next year, implementing our commitment to commencement on 1 January 2027. This change will benefit millions of working people, who will gain greater security at work, and it will offer businesses and employers the flexibility to ensure new hires can do the job, get the skills to match, contribute to business success, and build a stable and secure working life.
To further strengthen these protections, the Government amendments will also ensure that the unfair dismissal qualifying period can only be varied by a future Government through primary legislation, and will remove the compensation cap. I know that some businesses have expressed concern about the agreement to lift the compensation cap; I can tell the House that we want to remove the scope for employment tribunal cases to be more complex and convoluted than they need to be. We need a tribunal system that works for employees and employers alike—one that is not gummed up by process and unnecessary delay nor bedevilled by bogus claims. Our aim is to make the tribunal system work more effectively and efficiently for all, so that those judged to have been unfairly dismissed get the compensation they deserve, the system works to resolve cases more speedily and unfounded claims are dismissed more urgently.
As we review the tribunal system, in the spirit of partnership, we will work with businesses and trade unions to create a tribunal process that is fairer and faster. No committed employee should lack the protection they deserve, nor should any reasonable employer fear the consequences of an unsubstantiated claim. For several other employment rights, the amount of compensation that can be awarded by a tribunal is limited by cross-referring to the unfair dismissal cap, so our amendments will ensure that these consequential issues can be considered and dealt with effectively through secondary legislation.
We know that security of work is critical for working families, and we are also acutely aware of the challenges businesses face. That is why we are committed to open and constructive dialogue with all stakeholders. If these changes are to create the conditions for lasting, fair and flexible labour laws, dialogue and co-operation must be our watchwords. I hope the other place can attach similar importance to that co-operation, and that it will let this Bill—the product of a general election mandate and the good will of both business and trade unions—proceed to Royal Assent. These discussions and the workable compromise highlight the importance of participation, and I urge those listening to today’s debate to engage with the consultations set out in the implementation road map.
I will now speak to the Government amendments in lieu that relate to zero-hours contracts and the right to guaranteed hours. We have tabled amendments that will create a statutory duty to consult on the length of the initial reference period and the length and timings of subsequent reference periods before exercising the relevant powers. These amendments will ensure that vital stakeholders can have the opportunity to contribute before the lengths of the reference periods are determined by regulations that work for worker and employer alike. By delivering this change with the input of stakeholders, we will provide a fair and balanced approach.
Let me turn to the Government amendments in lieu of Lords amendment 48B, which relate to seasonal work. In order to help address fluctuating demand, the Bill allows guaranteed hours offers to take the form of limited-term contracts where reasonable. The Government have tabled amendments that place a statutory duty on the Government to consult before making any regulations to specify what counts as a temporary need. This means that before any such regulations are introduced, employers, trade unions, and other parts of civil society with an interest in seasonal work, will be fully consulted.
I will now address the issue of political funds and the related Government amendments in lieu of Lords amendments 72D to 72H. The Government remain committed to the repeal of the Trade Union Act 2016. That includes reinstating the long-standing practice that existed for 70 years before that Act, whereby new union members are automatically included as contributors to a political fund unless they choose to opt out. This will return us to arrangements that worked well for decades, removing bureaucratic red tape on trade unions that works against their core role of negotiation and dispute resolution in the interests of working people. We have heard the concerns about how opt-out notices would take effect, and we believe our amendments will refine that process.
Under the pre-2016 legislation, an opt-out notice could only take effect on 1 January of the year after it was given. Under the Government’s amendment, opt-out notices will now take effect on either 1 January of the following year or on a day specified or determined by the rules of the union, whichever comes first. We are aware that in practice, prior to 2016, unions generally gave effect to opt-out notices before the subsequent 1 January date anyway; amendment (a) in lieu affirms that flexibility in the legislation. We have also tabled amendment (b) in lieu, which places a statutory duty on the Government to issue guidance within three months of the clause coming into effect. That guidance will set out the kind of provision that unions should include in their rules about the timing of giving effect to opt-out notices.
Finally, I will address the issue of industrial action ballot thresholds and related Government amendments in lieu of Lords amendment 62. As I have said, this Government want to end disputes and conflict in the labour market; we also want more trade union members to have a say in decisions about escalating disputes where they arise. We will repeal the 50% threshold and—as we have previously stated—align this with the establishment of non-postal balloting, including e-balloting, so that decisions about industrial action keep pace with the communication channels of modern life.
Our amendment (a) in lieu cements that intention by requiring the Secretary of State to have regard to any effects of the introduction of non-postal balloting, including e-balloting, on the proportion of those entitled to vote in industrial action ballots who actually do so. In having regard to the effects of e-balloting, the Government will monitor and assess the practical impact of non-postal balloting on rates of participation in industrial action ballots, so that we will be confident that modernising the means of balloting increases member participation. In addition, we have tabled amendment (b) in lieu, which will place a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to lay a statement before Parliament that demonstrates how the Government have had regard to non-postal balloting before making regulations to repeal the 50% threshold.
I urge hon. Members to support the Government motions before the House today, including our amendments in lieu. Together, they form a package that strengthens workplace rights, reflects the value we place on fair and flexible labour markets, and demonstrates the Government’s willingness to listen to concerns and act on them. We place a premium on dialogue and compromise as key components in modern labour relations; we want to consign the narrow, partisan, party political prejudice of previous decades to the dustbin of history, and build instead a modern industrial relations framework that values partnership, dialogue, flexibility and fairness for all sides. Our amendments in lieu fully reflect that approach, and in that light, I commend them to the House.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Colleagues should note that the debate will have to conclude by 7.55 pm, so only a couple of Back-Bench Members will get in. A speaking limit of eight minutes will apply to Back Benchers. I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
Two weeks ago, the Chancellor stood at the Dispatch Box and delivered a Budget that contained not a single measure to support growth. Today, in moving the motion to disagree, the Minister has signed the warrant for a war on jobs. She is at the Dispatch Box representing the Government, but everyone knows that it is the former Deputy Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), who is calling the shots. We discovered this morning that Labour Together is already auditioning for the Prime Minister’s replacement. Perhaps the Minister has an outside chance at the job, but my money is probably more on the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne. Perhaps the Labour party could have its first female Prime Minister just before the Conservatives have our fourth. Given all that job insecurity, it is no wonder that Labour Members seem so keen on employment rights.
This is not a Bill for employment rights; it is a charter for a jobless generation. Thanks to measures in the Bill, thousands of young people will struggle for opportunities because the rungs of the ladder have been sawn off. Since Labour entered office, 144,000 payrolled jobs have been wiped out. Manufacturing, the oil and gas sector, construction and hospitality are all unable to make ends meet due to high energy and employment costs. The unemployment rate has been higher every month of this Government. Half the jobs lost belong to the under-25s.
Andrew Griffith
I will happily give way if the hon. Member wants to talk about the jobs lost in his own constituency.
David Pinto-Duschinsky
Will the hon. Member acknowledge that employment under this Labour Government is higher than it was under the last Conservative Government, with an average of 75%? Will he therefore apologise for his comments?
Andrew Griffith
Under the Conservative Government, we improved the number of people in work and unemployment fell to a record level. Since the current Government have taken office, unemployment has been higher every single month. Half the jobs lost belong to the under-25s. Does anyone want to talk about the youth unemployment rate under this Government? It is now 15%, and the number of young people not in education, employment or training has gone up by 25,000 on their watch—before the impact of this disastrous Bill.
The Government claim to support workers, but their first legislative achievement will be to make more young people unemployed. How could any Member of the House possibly support that? So, who is the Bill really for? As I have said before, the clue is in the text: it mentions maternity rights just three times, but it mentions the word “union”—no Labour Members have declared their interests—478 times. It includes: the union right to roam; scrapping the turnout threshold on union strike ballots; more paid time off for union reps; and automatic deductions of union political funds. It also orders businesses to hand out Government-written pro-union propaganda.
Strikes will become far more common. But don’t take do not take my word for it—[Interruption.] The Secretary of State is chuntering from a sedentary position, but perhaps he would like to listen to his colleague the Health Secretary, who just last week said that he had “had it” with the unions and that
“the last thing patients need this winter is strike action”.
Back in July, the Health Secretary was citing the silent majority of doctors who did not vote for strike action. My colleagues in the other place merely request that a strike ballot requires a turnout of 50% of the workforce. By rejecting Lords amendment 62, the Minister is allowing minorities to shut down hospitals, educational establishments and public transport while the silent majority of members are ignored.
We should take a moment to welcome the fact that the Government have U-turned on day one rights. After months of relentless campaigning, and a complete clear-out of departmental Ministers, the Government finally listened. There is no shame in that—I told them it was unworkable, and business told them it was unworkable—it is just a shame that it took so long. Just hours before the U-turn, the Prime Minister’s official spokesman was telling journalists that the Government would overturn all attempts to water down day one rights. A Prime Minister without a backbone who does not know his own mind has caused a year of uncertainty for employers and workers alike.
Mr Connor Rand (Altrincham and Sale West) (Lab)
On that point, will the hon. Member give way?
Andrew Griffith
I will happily talk about the Prime Minister’s lack of backbone.
Mr Rand
The shadow Secretary of State speaks of uncertainty for workers. I gently point out that Conservative Ministers promised more than 20 times to deliver an employment Bill, and having broken their promise to working people, perhaps he would like to talk a bit more about that and about the constituents in insecure work he speaks to, for whom his Government did nothing, while this Government act.
Andrew Griffith
I say respectfully to the hon. Member that if acting is to raise unemployment, to cost young people their jobs, to ensure that employers are not hiring and to have the worst graduate market for a generation, then bring that on. If that is what he came here to do, I would be surprised at that.
Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab)
To the shadow Secretary of State’s point, of course I declare an interest as a trade union member. Like millions of people who have been wanting this Bill for many years—as my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Rand) said, the Conservatives failed to deliver following promise after promise—I am really pleased that we have got to this point. I am frustrated by the delay we have had, so I welcome what my hon. Friend the Minister said in her contribution, and I welcome her and the Secretary of State getting us this far. Hopefully, Conservative Members will no longer frustrate what was a key manifesto pledge for us.
We have seen the decline, and we can tell which side the shadow Secretary of State is on—it is clear. We have been really clear that we are pro-business and pro-worker, and there are many good businesses here in the UK who welcome the Bill and recognise the importance of giving people job security and fairness at work. If someone is on a zero-hours contract, they cannot plan for the future and do not know what is going to happen from one week to the next. That is not fair or reasonable for many workers in the UK. I say to the shadow Secretary of State that I met more businesses that absolutely understand that there has to be a fair balance. I think we have struck the right deal.
I welcome the changes that have been brought forward, especially to timescales. Of course, because of the complexities, the original deadline was October 2027. With the changes, which have been welcomed by trade unions and business, we can now bring that forward, so that, instead of the measures being frustrated, people can have the rights that they absolutely deserve and need.
In that context, on Lords reason 120F, Government amendments (a) and (b) in lieu, which reduce the qualifying period for workers to gain protection from unfair dismissal for six months, I know that Ministers faced difficult decisions and difficult discussions with employers and worker representatives, but I strongly believe that the work that has been done has been necessary and that we should now be able to move forward. I thank the Minister for her work on that.
To those in the other place, I say that there is now no more time to waste. Vested interests worked with the Tories and the Lib Dems—cheered on by Reform and backed by the Greens—to resist the manifesto on which we were elected. Now there can be no excuses. We have a mandate for a new deal for working people, and we must and will deliver it. That includes replacing exploitative zero-hour contracts with an offer of guaranteed hours. For low-paid workers, the security of knowing what they will earn is not just a “nice to have”; it is the basis on which they can plan their lives. I know that the Minister will have them foremost in her mind when considering the low-hours threshold and definition of regular work.
Those rights will operate not just on paper, but in practice. That is why we need robust fines for employers who illegally deny unions the opportunity to meet with workers or lawfully seek recognition. We must ensure that they cannot simply defy the law and shrug off a paltry fine.
It has been a battle to pass this Bill, but progress is always a struggle that we fight for. Its passage will be a historic achievement for this Labour Government. It will benefit working people now and in the future. Now is not the time to blink or buckle. Let us not waste a minute more. It is time to deliver.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner).
As this Bill has progressed through Parliament, the Liberal Democrats have welcomed many of the principles underpinning it, and we are keen to see it progress. We welcome the fact that the Bill increases support for carers, boosts statutory sick pay and gives workers on zero-hours contracts more certainty. There is a lot in the Bill that we support in principle and that moves us in the right direction. However, we are also clear that the changes must happen in a fair and practical way that truly benefits workers, small businesses and our economy as a whole. That is very much how we are approaching the amendments in today’s debate.
First and foremost, we are glad to see that the Government have finally agreed to set the qualifying period for unfair dismissal claims at six months. That is a fair and sensible shift that will equally benefit workers and business. Employers have finally been given the necessary clarity to make hiring decisions with confidence, and we have avoided the danger of unnecessarily slowing down the labour market even further, which would have deprived so many people of vital employment opportunities. We are proud that Liberal Democrats in the House of Lords were instrumental in securing that crucial improvement to the Bill.
However, it is disappointing that the Government have effectively hijacked that breakthrough to abolish the cap on compensation for unfair dismissal at the last minute. The Minister will be well aware that abolishing the cap was not agreed in recent negotiations between employer groups, trade unions and the Government. Most businesses would have been happy for the cap to have been increased, but completely scrapping it, without any consultation or negotiation, has understandably left employers feeling deeply worried and facing yet another nasty surprise. There is real worry among businesses that doing away with the cap, which currently stands at £118,000, risks undoing much of the progress achieved by the six-month compromise, creating open-ended liabilities and encouraging litigious behaviour. I expect the Minister would agree that no one wants to see failed water company bosses jamming up the already-strained tribunal system, seeking eye-watering payouts.
More broadly, one has to reflect on how the Government’s approach to this last-minute change affects the relationship between Government, businesses and workers. Does the Minister not understand that springing the change on us at the 11th hour undermines business confidence and unnecessarily strains labour relations? The Liberal Democrats had hoped that today we could support the Government in setting the qualifying period at six months, but in the light of this abrupt change, it simply is not possible to support the motion in its current form. At the very least, will the Minister listen to concerned businesses and commit to setting a new, higher cap through secondary legislation following consultation with all relevant stakeholders?
Michael Wheeler (Worsley and Eccles) (Lab)
I am perplexed and confused by what I am hearing. Does the hon. Member appreciate that by moving the goalposts once again, and delaying this crucial Bill once again, she is leaving an open goal for unscrupulous employers?
Sarah Olney
Nobody is keener to see the Bill pass than the Liberal Democrats, and we have repeatedly worked with the Government to try to express our concerns. We would support the motion were it not for the lifting of the compensation cap being snuck in at the last minute. This last-minute change has not been part of any conversation that we have had with Ministers in the other place. That is why we will abstain on the motion.
Antonia Bance (Tipton and Wednesbury) (Lab)
The hon. Member seems to be under the misapprehension that the lifting of the cap was not agreed as part of the negotiation on the compromise. It was. Perhaps she would like to revise her remarks.
Sarah Olney
I will not revise my remarks. We have been speaking to many business groups that were in the room with the Minister, and they have told us that it was not part of the agreement. That is why the fact that it is in this motion has taken everyone by surprise, and why we will not be supporting it today.
Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)
The hon. Lady just said that she has been informed by business groups that were in the negotiations that this measure was not agreed. Will she name them?
Sarah Olney
I will not name them, but the Minister will know who was in the room with her. That is what they have told us, and that is what I am reflecting in my comments today.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
Does the hon. Lady agree that it would have been helpful if an impact assessment had been carried out, so that everyone could see exactly what the impact of removing the cap would be?
Sarah Olney
I would agree, but my point is that this last-minute change has been sprung on us and the business groups that engaged in good faith with the Government on these measures. This is a last-minute change that we and the business groups were not expecting, and that is why we will not be supporting it.
Kate Dearden
With respect, I was in the room as part of the negotiations with business representatives and trade unions, and I thank them again for the constructive dialogue and leadership that they showed throughout the numerous days of conversation. I can confirm that the compensation cap was discussed and agreed in the room, so I ask the Liberal Democrat spokesperson to reflect on her comments. I was in the room; with due respect, she was not. That is a true reflection of what was discussed and agreed.
Sarah Olney
I take the Minister’s comments. What I would say is that we were not expecting to see this measure in the motion, and that is why we will not support it.
Turning to zero-hours contracts, Liberal Democrats strongly believe in giving all workers security over their working patterns, and we are deeply concerned that too many struggle with unstable incomes, job insecurity and difficulties in planning for the future. However, we have repeatedly reminded the Government that adaptability in shift patterns is often hugely valuable, for example to those balancing caring responsibilities or their studies alongside work. It is therefore important to strike a balance that ensures workers can have both security and flexibility.
Since the Bill’s introduction, many small businesses have highlighted that having to offer employees fixed-hours contracts on a rolling basis could impose significant costs and administrative burdens on their limited resources, compounding other challenges, such as the increase in employer national insurance contributions, charging national insurance on salary sacrifice schemes and the fallout from the previous Government’s damaging Brexit deal. While we advocated for what we think would have been a fairer and less onerous system based on giving workers a right to request fixed hours, the Liberal Democrats are pleased that the Government have at least moved in the right direction through amendment (b). Requiring the Secretary of State to consult businesses and relevant stakeholders on the length of the initial guaranteed hours reference period will at least give affected businesses and workers a stronger voice in designing the new system.
Mr Rand
The hon. Member has talked about the potential for an added burden on employers by scrapping exploitative zero-hours contracts, which Liberal Democrat peers in the other place also made reference to in debates there. Will she reflect on the huge burden on workers from exploitative zero-hours contracts and the financial uncertainty and insecurity that such contracts bring to their lives, including the lives of some of her constituents?
Sarah Olney
I agree with the hon. Gentleman, but that is why we need the balance. We need to ensure that workers have the right to request a permanent contract if that is what works for them, but it may be onerous for businesses to have to track hours over a period of time, when the employee themselves may value the opportunity that the zero-hours contract offers. That is precisely what we would tackle with this amendment.
Andrew Pakes (Peterborough) (Lab)
I represent a seat with one of the highest levels of zero-hours contracts and insecure work in the country. I am not sure how that compares to the hon. Member’s constituency, but if someone in my constituency requested a full-time contract, but that was turned down because they have only a right to request, how would that deliver them justice?
Sarah Olney
We are trying to create a balance, managing the burdens on employers in creating jobs. We have to ensure there is employment in the first place before we can ensure people’s rights. I entirely accept the point that the hon. Gentleman is making, but placing these burdens on employers to track the hours that numerous employees are working will add to the costs that employers incur in taking people on. That is precisely the sort of thing that discourages employers from creating jobs.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. I assume the intervention will be short. We have we only got 30 minutes left in the debate, so I assume that Ms Olney is coming to a conclusion soon.
Chris Bloore
I thank the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) for letting me intervene. She must realise that it is macroeconomic conditions, not improving employment rights, that affect a company. What is certain is that when people have zero-hours contracts, they cannot pay their mortgages when downturns and recessions happen, because they cannot get in the money that they need. She talks about the burdens on businesses, but what about the people who cannot even pay their basic bills because of the exploitative contracts they are on?
Sarah Olney
The goal of the Employment Rights Bill should be to strengthen the economy for all so that we can get better employment conditions for everybody. I strongly believe that we need to strike the right balance so that we can support the economy as a whole.
Sarah Olney
I will make some progress, bearing in mind what Madam Deputy Speaker just said.
Zero-hours workers and businesses need far more clarity. Can the Minister at least clarify on the Floor of the House what the Government’s intended duration is for subsequent reference periods? I hope that after scrapping compensation caps, the Government will be a bit more transparent with stakeholders when it comes to flexible work.
One amendment that I am happy to welcome is on seasonal work. Many businesses, such as in the farming and agricultural sector, depend on recruiting the right people at the right time. Any obstacles to hiring seasonal workers can have a significant impact, exacerbating the long list of challenges they already face. Hospitality firms such as pubs, cafes and restaurants also often rely on seasonal workers and are particularly vulnerable to any regulatory changes that make it harder or more expensive to access the talent they need. All those employed as seasonal workers, whether in farming, hospitality or elsewhere, deserve reassurance that their work will not dry up. Last time the Bill was debated in the Commons, I spoke in favour of measures that would improve the clarity of the legislation on seasonal work, and I am glad that the Government have made progress. We are glad to support Lords amendment 48B, which would ensure that businesses relying on seasonal work and bodies representing seasonal workers will be properly consulted when secondary legislation is drawn up.
Businesses across the country, especially our SMEs, are struggling with unprecedentedly high costs, such as the Government’s unfair national insurance rise, sky-high energy bills and a broken business rates system. Struggling businesses means fewer jobs and lower pay, so it is clear that we must look for ways to support local businesses and all who rely on them.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
The speaking limit is now five minutes.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Bromborough) (Lab)
May I first declare my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and the donation from USDAW trade union, as well as my membership of the GMB and Unite trade unions? I declare an interest as someone who represented working people before I came into this place and as someone who wants to see this Bill come into law. I also declare an interest of someone who wants to see my constituents get some decent protections at work after so long.
This has to be it. This has to be the line in the sand. This Bill was introduced more than a year ago, and the delays have been so long—it was in the Lords for nine months—that even our modest statutory sick pay proposals are at risk of being delayed. The message to the Lords has to be, “This is enough.” This Bill was a clear manifesto commitment, and it pains me that we have had to jettison part of it to get it over the line. I understand why that had to happen, and I commend the Minister for finding a way through, because this legislation matters to my constituents. What she said about employment tribunals is important, too. We need to do an awful lot more work to ensure that people enjoy real justice.
The Lords cannot keep coming back because they do not like what is in this Bill. It is a promise we made to the British people, and we have to deliver on it. We have to let democracy win. If the Lords block the Bill again, let them explain to the 7 million people who still have to go into work when they are ill that they cannot get the day one SSP rights because the Bill has been delayed. Let the Lords explain it to the father whom they have denied day one rights to paternity leave, if he has a child after April, by blocking the Bill again. Let the Lords explain why we cannot have a fair work agency, which is something even the Tories used to promise they needed to deliver. Let us meet every day until Christmas, if the Lords block this Bill again. Let us keep going back. Let us show some steel. Let us show that we will not let this Bill lie in the sand for too much longer. If the Lords complain about having to work extra hours, let us advise them to join a trade union.
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that this Bill is the foundation for good industrial relations in this country and the best uplift to workers’ rights in a generation? Does he therefore agree that it is surprising that not a single Scottish National party Member is in the Chamber to debate workers’ rights in this country?
Justin Madders
We can always have a dig at the SNP, but the real enemies have been the Greens, the Liberal Democrats, the Tories and the Reform Members who have voted against this Bill consistently. They are the ones who have brought us to this point.
Justin Madders
I will not give way anymore, because we have not got much time. I will pick up on what the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) said about compensation. I accept what the Minister said at the Dispatch Box. I hope that when the Lib Dem spokesperson checks back, she will be able to instruct her Lords that this measure was part of the deal and they should not block the Bill any longer. It is also telling that she has only spoken to businesses, not trade unions, about what was agreed. That shows which side the Liberal Democrats are on.
It has to be pointed out that unfair dismissal compensation limits are not operated that often. Most people’s claims are much lower than that. Most people who have been unfairly dismissed who would benefit from the measure tend to be much older workers who sadly do have not any employability in the job market. They are the ones who will benefit from the uplift in compensation, not bad water bosses, because to qualify people have to be unfairly dismissed. I suspect many water bosses would struggle to show that they had been treated unfairly.
Let us ensure that we get this legislation delivered and maintain vigilance across the whole agenda. That means proper meaningful access, not people being stuck in a shed somewhere far away from where the workers are, and serious fines linked to turnover for those who do not play by the rules. It means no loopholes and proper deterrents on fire and rehire so that companies do not think it is even worth going there. We do not want to see those P&O scenes repeated anywhere. It also means holding firm on some of the nonsense that we are still hearing today about zero-hours contracts. People seem to have a problem with fixed-term contracts and zero-hours contracts being completely different things. There has been a lot of conflation there, I am sad to say.
What comes next is important, because the Make Work Pay agenda is not just about this Bill. Let us get this Bill over the line and delivered, and let us get all the important regulations implemented, but there are so many other important things that we need to tackle in our workplaces in this country, particularly, bogus self-employment. That is going well beyond the gig economy; in fact, it is an epidemic, and it is important that we tackle it. The Bill will level the playing field, allowing good employers to compete fairly, and create more security at work. Employing people with proper terms and conditions may even lead to a greater tax take.
Further down the line, we must tackle unfair dismissal law, which is half a century old and desperately needs updating, but that is for another day. We have debated the Bill for over a year, and it is about time the Lords accepted the democratic mandate and accepted that we must deliver it. Let us get it over the line, and let us start delivering for working people in this country.
Antonia Bance (Tipton and Wednesbury) (Lab)
I wish to draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, my membership of Unite, and the kind support of ASLEF and the GMB for my election campaign.
This Employment Rights Bill is our promise to working people on its way to being fulfilled, thanks in no small part to my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders). I am glad to see that Ministers have tabled amendments that reflect the constructive negotiations between themselves, unions—including my former employers at the TUC—and business associations, because that is how we roll in the labour movement. We get round a table, we talk, we come to a deal and we move forward. That is the right way to do things when people do not agree.
To be clear, unions negotiated this deal with the Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade, my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Kate Dearden), and it has my support. Today I will not let the best be the enemy of the good. Cutting the qualifying period for unfair dismissal from two years to six months will benefit 6.35 million workers—disproportionately, young workers, ethnic minority workers, and an astonishing 36% of hospitality workers. New figures based on Government data have been produced today to tell us about the impact that the Bill is going to have. Removing the cap on unfair dismissal compensation means that workers will be able to get what they deserve, and bad bosses cannot price in the cost of ignoring the law.
I was also glad to hear my hon. Friend’s clarity about the timing. Our opinions have not changed, and our opinions on the principle have not changed. What is needed now is practicality to ensure that the Bill moves forward—and as we take it forward, Members should be sure to notice who opposes it. I would expect nothing less of the Tories. I would expect the Lib Dems to remember their total opposition to the Trade Union Act 2016, including their opposition to changes in the political fund rules and their opposition—at that time, but apparently no longer—to the undemocratic ballot thresholds that create a higher bar for trade unions than for anyone else in society. I would gently remind their spokesperson, the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), that the right to request worked so well for flexible working that flexible working does not work—we are having to fix it with this Bill—and yet she proposes to bring in an unworkable right to request, instead of a guaranteed right to a decent hours contract. I will take no lectures from the Greens—what a shame that they are not here—who are letting their peers vote whichever way they want on something as important as this. As for Reform UK, they pretend to be the representatives of working-class people, but vote against their interests at every turn.
I say to those in the other place: it is time to pass this Bill to make work pay and to deliver the rights that were promised in our manifesto and voted for—the rights that millions have waited far too long to see.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)
I draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests in relation to support from trade unions, of which I am proud.
I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) that this is a transformational piece of legislation, but it has been weakened. My motion would restore day one rights on unfair dismissal. I tabled a motion to reject the Lords amendments, since when the Government have tabled a motion to adopt a six- month qualification period. I commend the remarks of Lord Collins about issues relating to unfair dismissal. He said:
“These are areas clearly linked to our manifesto commitments, which the Government have an electoral mandate to deliver… we remain committed to delivering unfair dismissal protections… day-one protection from unfair dismissal will not remove the ability of businesses to dismiss people who cannot do their job or pass a probation period, but it will tackle cases of unfair dismissal in which hard-working employees are sacked without good reason.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 17 November 2025; Vol. 850, c. 561-62.]
That was a very good speech, made just a short time ago.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
We have worked on this legislation for more than 20 years. I just want to put it on the record for my constituents that I wish to abide by the manifesto commitment of day one rights, and I believe it is breaking a promise not to do so. However, other matters will be consulted on now. Some in the House of Lords may take confidence from the Government’s acceptance of this; can we send them the message that we will not in any way compromise any further on this legislation, that we will dig in, and that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders) has said, we will sit for as long as possible, if necessary, to see it through?
Andy McDonald
I wholeheartedly agree with my right hon. Friend. I think that this episode highlights, again, flaws in the upper House, but even with the convention of double insistence, the concession goes too far.
Ian Lavery
My hon. Friend was one of the authors of the new deal for working people, which insisted that the most critical part of this Employment Rights Bill would be employment rights from day one. Does my hon. Friend agree with me on that point?
Andy McDonald
Absolutely, and no decent employer should fear any of these measures. Rogue employers were warned that exploitation and arbitrary dismissal would end, but under the compromise, a bad employer may still dismiss someone without reason or justification.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The point that my hon. Friend is making is that this is not about fair dismissal, but about unfair dismissal. Does he agree that the people who will experience the most discrimination will be disabled workers, young workers and ethnic minority workers?
Andy McDonald
That is absolutely right, but under this compromise, a bad employer may still dismiss someone without reason or justification. A worker could leave secure employment in good faith, only to be summarily dismissed with no protection or explanation, months into a new role.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
On that point, will my hon. Friend give way?
Andy McDonald
No, I will carry on.
This debate has been muddied by talk of probation. We never proposed abolishing probation periods—they are proper and necessary—but no system should allow dismissal without cause for blatantly unfair reasons. At present, workers can still be dismissed without cause nearly two years into a job. Under this compromise, they can be dismissed almost half a year in, when they might have a mortgage to pay and a family to support. This climbdown casts doubt on the Government’s resolve and determination to deliver all the elements of the new deal for working people in full.
Worse still, emboldened opponents of the workers’ rights reforms will return for more. They will undoubtedly attempt to weaken the Bill through secondary legislation. Major businesses are already signalling that they will use consultations to soften, delay or carve out core protections. Their language of “burdens”, “balance” and “flexibility” is not commentary, but a co-ordinated push to reshape the settlement.
I say to my colleagues on the Government Front Bench that they should be bold and take heart. The thing that was missing from this Bill was the status of workers’ rights reforms. If we were to take courage in our hands and deal with that issue, we would resolve matters by collecting uncollected tax and national insurance to the tune of £10 billion per annum, as well as giving people security in employment. Think about the lack of a pull factor for people to go into the black economy.
If this legislation is to deliver a new deal for working people, this House must ensure that the back door is not opened to dismantling it. I urge Ministers, even now, to reconsider, because they are making a profound mistake.
Kate Dearden
I only have a few minutes, so I will try to respond as quickly as I can to comments from colleagues across the House. I thank everybody for their reflections today.
To respond to the shadow Minister, I do not recognise the figures he mentions, and I urge hon. Members to reflect carefully on the figures that he mentioned in the debate. I would have thought that he had learned the terrible lessons from his former boss, Liz Truss, and I know my constituents are still paying the price for the impacts of her mini-Budget. He is now quoting the Growth Commission, which has Liz Truss as an adviser. I will leave it at that.
The Tories had 14 years to adapt to the way the world of work has changed, but they did nothing to tackle exploitative zero-hours contracts and barely acknowledged the existence of the gig economy. They saw the impacts of covid on our key workers and the limits of statutory sick pay, and decided to do nothing. The world of work has changed an enormous amount in the last 20 years, and the Conservative party seems to be telling us that the system is working as intended, but I say that it is not. I say it needs change, and it needs this Bill.
I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) for her leadership, and for all her work on the Bill and on our wider package for working people. I know she is keen to see the time that employees must wait for fair rights to be shortened, and we share her desire for employees to benefit as soon as possible from this Bill, which is why it is so important that we get it on to the statute book and implemented as soon as possible. I thank her for her remarks and reflections today.
The Government amendments in lieu are a result of dialogue and compromise. Business and unions have preferred to go the extra mile to find solutions, rather than insisting on their own positions and disregarding all other perspectives. I thank my colleagues for their reflections, and I am pleased that we have been able to provide a workable agreement with trade unions and business representatives on the unfair dismissal provisions.
Kate Dearden
I have two minutes left, so I need to proceed.
I have talked in detail about our intentions behind this legislation. I know that my hon. Friends’ suggestions are well intentioned, but I stress that, as a package, our amendments reflect the agreement reached between business representatives and trade unions in a collaborative and constructive process. We want to bring this Bill to a conclusion so that it benefits millions of British workers, who will benefit from the new rights that it will deliver from April next year. We are extending statutory sick pay and parental leave and setting up the fair work agency, so that it has the enforcement rights that it needs and businesses can start preparing for implementation with certainty.
I thank again all Members for their contributions today. Sadly, despite the persuasive arguments from my colleagues, I know that some Members from across the House will continue to oppose better rights for working people. However, after 14 years of the Conservatives letting workers’ rights rot, the economy stagnate and living standards fall, I am proud to be showing what Labour in power looks like: the biggest upgrade to workers’ rights in a generation; a relentless focus on growing our economy and making working people better off; and rising living standards in every corner of the country. Whereas Reform—its Members are not here— and the Conservatives show themselves to be two sides of the same anti-worker, anti-growth coin, Labour is fixing the foundations of our economy.
The Government are making work pay again in a way that suits the 21st century. This Bill restores the rights that have been lost in a manner that is fit for the future. It will create security and opportunity for everyone, no matter their background. It is of paramount importance that we get this Bill on to the statute book, so that it can start delivering for businesses and workers as soon as possible. I urge all Members on both sides of the House to carefully consider the amendments we have proposed, and I hope they feel able to support our position.
Ian Lavery
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. When I intervened on the Minister earlier, I should have declared an interest with regards to my support from the trade union movement, of which I am extremely proud. For that, I humbly apologise.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I thank the hon. Member for having corrected the record and for putting his interests on the record.
Employment Rights Bill
Wednesday 10th December 2025
(3 months, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Employment Rights Act 2025 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 154-I Marshalled list for Consideration of Commons Amendments - (9 Dec 2025)
18:04 - Division on Motion B1 (as an amendment to Motion B) - Ayes: 244 / Noes: 220 - Motion B1 agreed.
18:22 - Division on Motion E1 (as an amendment to Motion E) - Ayes: 219 / Noes: 223 - Motion E1 disagreed.
Baroness Lloyd of Effra
That this House do not insist on its insistence on Lords Amendment 1B in respect of which the Commons have insisted on their disagreement; and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 1E and 1F in lieu of Lords Amendment 1B.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (Baroness Lloyd of Effra) (Lab)
My Lords, I shall speak also to Motions A1 to E1. Given the developments that have taken place since the Bill was last debated by the House, I would like to take some time to set out the context of those changes. I therefore must ask for the indulgence of the House with regards to the length of my speech.
Before to turning to the specifics of the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Fox, I want to provide a general update. Throughout the passage of this important Bill, which delivers on multiple manifesto commitments, we have gone through careful deliberation, scrutiny and debate. Noble Lords will have seen my statement given to your Lordships’ House last week where I outlined how the Government had convened tripartite discussions with trade unions and business representative organisations. Those discussions were focused on finding a way forward on unfair dismissal. This is an issue which business and many in your Lordships’ House, including His Majesty’s loyal Opposition, told us was their number one priority. Solving it was the only means of breaking the current impasse between this House and the other place.
I am glad to report that we have secured an agreement between trade unions and business representative organisations on that issue which has unlocked a path to get this much-needed Bill on to the statute book without further delay. This is acknowledged in the joint statement made by business representative organisations involved in the negotiations, which accepts that any remaining concerns with the Bill can be dealt with in the regulations to come, which will be informed by open and transparent consultation. This negotiated outcome has now been debated and agreed by the elected House. We will, of course, debate it in detail this afternoon, but I ask your Lordships’ House to endorse the agreement reached by worker and employer representatives.
The success of these discussions sets a clear example of the benefits of working together in a tripartite manner. This commitment was front and centre of the Labour Party’s plan to make work pay, and I am pleased to see it in action as part of these discussions. We must not stand in the way of, and further delay, these long-promised improvements to workers’ rights.
As the recent agreement centres on unfair dismal, I shall speak first to Motion B and Amendments 120G to 120M tabled by the Government in the other place, and Motion B1 and the amendments to the Commons amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, relating to unfair dismissal.
The Government’s amendments in lieu will reduce the qualifying period for unfair dismissal protections from 24 months to six months, all while maintaining existing day-one protections against discrimination and automatically unfair grounds for dismissal. To further strengthen these protections, the Government have also tabled amendments which will ensure that the qualifying period for unfair dismissal protections can be varied only by primary legislation and that the compensation cap for claims will be removed. That will remove both the 52 weeks’ pay and the £118,223 cap. In practice, few awards get anywhere close to these caps, with the median average award for unfair dismissal being £6,746 in 2023-24. Removing the cap would not impact the methodology for how an employment tribunal calculates these awards.
The amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, would change the Government’s amendments and go against the negotiated outcome of discussions between the trade unions and business representatives in November. My colleague, Minister Dearden, confirmed the outcomes of these negotiations in the Commons when debating this element of the Bill on Monday. She said
“I was in the room as part of the negotiations with business representatives and trade unions … I can confirm that the compensation cap was discussed and agreed in the room”.— [Official Report, Commons, 8/12/25; col. 94.]
The Government believe that the current compensatory award caps incentivise claimants to construct complex cases which allege discrimination to access uncapped compensation. These types of claims are more complex and take longer for the tribunal to handle. Therefore, by our removing the compensation cap for ordinary unfair dismissal claims, this incentive will be lessened, making it easier for tribunals to reach a judgment more quickly and decreasing burdens on the system.
Following a helpful meeting with the noble Lord, Lord Vaux of Harrowden, I can confirm that we will publish an enactment impact assessment for the Bill as soon as possible once the Bill secures Royal Assent and prior to commencement regulations for the entire unfair dismissal package being presented to Parliament. The new impact assessment will be publicly available and include an assessment of the impact of the removal of the compensation cap. We are aware of representations made by organisations, including the British Retail Consortium and UKHospitality. The Government stand ready to engage with those and similar organisations to hear their concerns and answer their questions.
Our impact assessments will set out how we will review the Bill and any secondary legislation that follows. Implementing the Bill will take several years, and its full effects will not be realised until long after Royal Assent. That is why our monitoring and evaluation framework will ensure that the real-world impacts are tracked and used to inform future policy decisions.
We will also publish post-implementation reviews to assess the impact of the implemented policies. These will typically occur five years after the legislation comes into force. Additionally, the dispute resolution stakeholder taskforce, which includes business representative organisations and trade unions, is looking at the likely impact of the full suite of measures in the Employment Rights Bill on employment tribunals, including the removal of the compensation cap. I can assure noble Lords that findings from the impact assessment on the removal of the compensation cap will be taken into consideration by the taskforce. This taskforce will help the Government to develop reform measures to ensure that the current system, including ACAS, is more efficient and resilient so it is better equipped to respond to future changes.
I now turn to Motion A and the government Amendments 1E and 1F, and to Motion A1 and Amendments 1G and 1H, which were tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, relating to zero-hours contracts. I take this opportunity to thank the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for his contributions throughout the passage of the Bill. Our conversations have been constructive and productive. While others have sought to oppose measures in the Bill outright, we have appreciated his efforts to understand and accommodate our chosen policy approach while ensuring that the Bill is deliverable in a manner that works for employers and employees alike.
We agree that security of work is of the utmost importance, and it is clear that we align on needing to protect workers from precarious employment. We also agree that future arrangements must not place excessive burdens on employers. We will do this by working with businesses and other stakeholders on the detail of the zero-hours measures, which will be set out in future regulations.
We have tabled an amendment in lieu in the other place which will place a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to consult before exercising powers to set the length of the initial and subsequent reference periods. This consultation will conform to best practice and ensure that all stakeholders can contribute and shape how reference periods are set in regulations. The amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Fox, seek to set the subsequent reference period at no less than 26 weeks. I can reassure him that our amendment places a statutory duty to consult on this detail. As part of the consultation, there will be adequate opportunity for him and others to feed in their representations on the length of subsequent reference periods before the detail is set in regulations.
We recognise that there is a strong business interest in this issue, given the new responsibilities that businesses will have under this part of the Bill, and we are committed to working with them, unions and stakeholders ahead of the necessary secondary legislation. It is important we get the detail right, and we cannot do that without consultation. It would not be appropriate for us to pre-empt that exercise and, therefore, I cannot support the noble Lord’s amendment. However, I look forward to hearing what he says on the matter, and I hope he will agree that our proposed approach is fair, workable and balanced, ensuring that the Government can implement their manifesto commitment with the input of key stakeholders.
Motion C and Amendments 48E and 48F, tabled by the Government in the other place, relate to seasonal work. The Government are fully aware that for some employers, work fluctuates throughout the year. The consideration of seasonal work is built into the right to guaranteed hours provisions and embedded in the Bill. There are several ways in which the employer can approach seasonal demand. In the other place, we tabled a further amendment in lieu, placing a statutory duty on the Government to consult before making these relevant regulations, including with representatives of seasonal workers and representative bodies of employers with seasonal workers.
Therefore, before any such regulations are introduced, employers, trade unions and other parts of civil society with interests in seasonal work will be consulted. This will ensure that they have their say and can directly influence the policies set out in the regulations, enabling the flexibility and security that are needed for the seasonal work sector. I thank the noble Lords on the Front Bench opposite and the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for their engagement on this issue. In our engagement, we provided indicative examples of how the relevant provisions would apply to different types of seasonal worker. I have shared these in an all-Peers letter to noble Lords which we hope will further contextualise these points.
Lord Fox
Leave out from “disagreement;” to end and insert “do disagree with the Commons in their Amendments 1E and 1F in lieu of Lords Amendment 1B; and do propose Amendments 1G and 1H in lieu of Commons Amendments 1E and 1F—
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, similarly to the Minister, I beg the House’s indulgence because, if this speech is longer than a speech would normally be for round three of ping-pong, it is because, as she pointed out, there have been developments since we last debated the Bill.
My Motion A1 addresses a major issue that has caused us concern. As I have said repeatedly, we support the principle that workers should have a right to guaranteed hours after completing a period of zero-hours work. Our concern has always lain in the cumbersome administration of that right. After several attempts to make what I think were meaningful improvements without undermining that principle, I must admit I have felt quite frustrated on this issue.
However, as we heard just now from the Minister, it is reassuring that the Government have taken these concerns on board. As she partially explained, the reference period is crucial in setting how often the employer must make a new offer of guaranteed hours to an employee. I point out that the employee does not necessarily have to want that offer; there is merely an obligation on the employer to make it. Clearly, if this offer has to be made every month, it is much more burdensome than if it has to be made once or twice a year. That is the nature of the amendment that I have tabled.
I understand that this is subject to consultation, and I am reassured by the description of the consultation that the Minister has just given. My choice of 26 weeks was, first of all, in a sense, to emphasise the point between a month, 26 weeks or 12 months, but also to spark the sort of response that I have just had from the Minister. In that respect, I am satisfied.
A joint press release issued after the negotiations by the business organisations noted:
“We remain committed to working with government and unions to dealing with this in the necessary secondary legislation to implement the Bill. We must ensure that it supports opportunity for workers while avoiding damage to economic growth”.
We subscribe to that view, and I think the Minister gave her support to the nature of the consultation that will follow.
I will now move on to the unfair dismissal issue. As we heard, the government amendment in lieu creates a six-month qualifying period for workers’ rights. It also, crucially, removes the section that would have enabled secondary legislation to alter that qualifying period. That was good news. It will therefore come as no surprise that we welcome this compromise. It represents success for the tripartite discussions that led to its breakthrough, and all three parties should be commended for the good faith that they brought to that meeting.
The Bill’s previous position on day-one rights would have significantly held back the employment prospects of anyone who would have represented the slightest risk to an employer. This avoids that risk. As the British Chambers of Commerce, the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, the Confederation of British Industry, the Federation of Small Businesses, the Recruitment & Employment Confederation and Small Business Britain put it in their press release that heralded this deal:
“This agreement keeps a qualifying period that is simple, meaningful, and understood within existing legislation. It is crucial for business confidence to hire and to support employment, at the same time as protecting workers”.
That is a strong endorsement from the employment side for this part of the deal.
I feel sure that one factor that helped concentrate minds during negotiations was the need to meet a deadline. If the Bill does not gain Royal Assent by the end of the year, key benefits that we have discussed, and that many of us support, to be created by the Bill will not be enacted for workers across the country for a further year. I feel proud of those on our Benches who helped create the pressure and who held firm while that decision was in the making. I thank my Liberal Democrat colleagues for turning up, every time, to help the Government, alongside the other two parties, come to the compromise that we now have. It is a credit to this side of the House and the rest of the House.
I move to Motion B1, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe. As well as containing good news on day-one rights, the government amendment in lieu contained a surprise, or a surprise to us. It is clear that removing the compensation cap for unfair dismissal has generated unease since the amendment was tabled. This is not something your Lordships have discussed. As we heard, it was discussed during the tripartite negotiations, but there has been some confusion. I suggest that the ambiguity of the word “lift” has contributed to this in no small measure: “lift” can mean both remove and increase, and I suspect there may have been some confusion.
Some employers, while welcoming the shift from day-one rights to a six-month qualifying period, have expressed concern about the possible implications of potentially unlimited financial exposure. Your Lordships should note that, as the Minister said, the average unfair dismissal award for the year 2023-24 was under £7,000, with a ceiling of more than £118,000. Clearly, the cap did not influence the awards being made. I asked the Minister to confirm—and she has—that the criteria that are used to set the award are not changed by the contents of this Bill. This being the case, it seems that the main beneficiaries of this change will be those who earn considerably more than the average wage in this country. It will be those who are paid more, but, in my anecdotal experience, the very highest paid rarely use employment tribunals; their deals are set in boardrooms, usually with NDAs. I genuinely do not believe that SMEs will be disadvantaged by this. However, I think we can all agree that the process was poor.
In my discussions with the Government, I pressed for a meaningful impact assessment. We have just heard the Minister confirm that there will be consultation and a meaningful impact assessment that will be published. This will be completed and published before the clause that lifts the cap is enacted, so if something really bad comes out of that IA then there will be time to act on it. After that, as the Minister noted, ongoing monitoring of the effects of these changes will be essential, and corrective action should and must be taken if negative trends emerge. In any case, I remain unconvinced that Motion B1 would provide the analytic value that we would get from a proper impact assessment. Even in the event that I was supporting the noble Lord, I do not think the route that he seeks to take is one that would be of benefit. It seems more symbolic than meaningful.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I will speak principally to Motion B1 in my name. The Government’s introduction of a six-month qualifying period, one that can be amended only through primary legislation, was, I am happy to acknowledge, a very welcome concession and we thank the Government Benches opposite for it. Angela Rayner spoke of disruption, but the truth is that this House was simply doing what it is supposed to do and what it does best—scrutinising legislation diligently and ensuring that our small businesses and our young people retain at least some chance of building a bright future. Those are our vested interests.
However, what followed was the very opposite of proper scrutiny. Without consultation, assessment or, as far as we can tell, any precedent—and without even the courtesy of signalling the change to either House—the Government brought forward at the 11th hour a wholly new measure to abolish entirely the compensation caps for unfair dismissal. These issues had not been discussed at any earlier stage in the Bill’s passage. The constitutional implications of introducing major new policy at ping-pong are profound. This is not responsible government; it is unnecessary, inappropriate and constitutionally troubling.
Motion B1 in my name accepts almost all of the Government’s amendment. It seeks only a modest and responsible safeguard that the Government conduct a review of the compensation limits before abolishing them. I acknowledge that an impact assessment has been promised after this becomes law, but what use would that be? It would already, by definition, be somewhat redundant.
This is not obstruction. It is the bare minimum that a competent Administration should undertake. When Tony Blair increased the cap in 1999, there was consultation. When the coalition Government introduced the 52-week cap in 2015, there was consultation. Why should this Government be exempt from the same cross-party accepted standards of good practice? The Government claim that this change reflects an agreement between business groups and trade unions but I wonder whether this is true.
Neil Carberry, chief executive of the Recruitment and Employment Confederation, was explicit. He said:
“For the employer side of the table last week ‘lifted’ did not mean ‘abolished, right now’. We agreed that the 52 week cap should go—protects ordinary workers better—as part of the deal that retained the qualifying period. We anticipated a further discussion about the future of the cash cap, too. But the decision to go for abolition, now is political”.
The Federation of Small Businesses said on Times Radio this week: “In the agreement between us as business groups and the unions, we agreed that there would be a lifting of the cap. We didn’t suggest it would be both caps abolished. So that’s broader than the agreement, and it helps a very small number of very, very rich people working for corporates”.
When those alleged to have agreed to this package say plainly that they did not agree to abolish both caps, the government rationale collapses. It is rumoured that there are minutes of these various meetings and, to clear all this up, perhaps, I ask the Minister whether that is the case and, if it is, will they place a copy of the minutes in the Library?
Let us also have a look at the possible practical consequences of this. The Government appear not to have considered even the most basic scenarios. For example, what happens when a board is faced with an underperforming CEO on £1 million or more? Today, many boards reach a clean exit. Notice is given, a payment to cover the maximum unfair dismissal award is made and a swift settlement is agreed. It allows the organisation to move on. But under an uncapped regime, the entire risk changes. Will a board now be expected to conduct a full six-month performance improvement plan, offer formal warnings, objectives, documented support and staged reviews, simply to reduce the risk of defending a seven-figure tribunal sum? In answer to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Fox, the incentives have now changed, so we would expect behaviour to change. They will now be incentivised to use the tribunal system, even if they were not in the past.
Let us consider a particular bête noire of your Lordships’ House: the water company executives, those who have overseen sewage being pumped into our rivers and seas. Are these individuals really now to be entitled to multimillion-pound payouts for so-called unfair dismissal? Is that the policy intention? Are noble Lords opposite truly comfortable becoming the party defending corrupt water bosses, while ordinary claimants are pushed further back in the queue? This policy is a recipe for the rich and a wrecking of justice for working people.
On Motion C, we are glad that it has taken the persistence of the Official Opposition to ensure that the Government now concede the need to consult our farmers and our other seasonal businesses. After the jobs tax, the tax on family farms and the business rates increase that are crushing the hospitality and retail sectors, and with the construction sector shrinking at the fastest rate since the pandemic, it is rather vital that such industry concerns are taken seriously.
On Motion D1, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Burns. He has been entirely reasonable and constructive throughout these discussions. The noble Lord has engaged with the Government in good faith, seeking sensible middle ground rather than conflict. It is precisely because his approach is so measured that the position taken by the noble Lord, Lord Collins, opposite is so remarkable, because it was the Collins review of 2014 that argued that the old model of automatic political fund enrolment was no longer acceptable. It was the Collins review that insisted that workers must give explicit individual opt-in consent before contributing to political activity, and which championed transparency, choice and the principle that democratic legitimacy cannot rest on inertia. We agree with the noble Lord, Lord Collins; dare I say that he is U-turning, and is possibly not the first on those Benches to do so?
In our previous debate, the Minister suggested that the recent wave of industrial action somehow demonstrates that the existing legislative framework is inadequate. The rise in strikes in 2022 and 2023 occurred against a backdrop of the sharpest inflation shock in 40 years, global economic turbulence during and after the pandemic, and the profound wage erosion that followed the peak of the Russia-Ukraine conflict. These are extraordinary economic circumstances, not failures of the Trade Union Act 2016. In 2017, 2018 and 2019—the first full years after the Act was implemented—working days lost to strike action fell to historic lows. In 2018, the 273,000 working days lost represented the sixth-lowest annual total since records began in 1891, according to the ONS. Industrial action in the public sector was at its lowest sustained level for decades.
I turn to recent events. Just over a week ago the BMA announced yet another round of industrial action. These strikes will undoubtedly put patients at risk and place even greater strain on our already overstretched National Health Service. Let us also recall that it was the Government’s own Health Secretary who accused the BMA of behaving like a cartel—and you cannot negotiate with a cartel. We have all heard, purely through the most reputable Westminster whispers, of course, that there may be a measure of tension within the Government on this—a hint of disagreement between the Health Secretary and other Ministers, perhaps even the Prime Minister himself. I would never suggest that Ministers are briefing against one another or that competing ambitions are shaping policy, but the murmurings grow louder by the day.
The Government have a splendid opportunity this afternoon to dispel all such unhelpful chatter. They can prove to the House, and perhaps even to themselves, that they are a united operation. They can put all doubts to rest with one simple gesture, by accepting what we are calling the Wes Streeting amendment before your Lordships today. His Majesty’s Official Opposition remain firmly and unapologetically on the side of Britain’s businesses, large and small.
Lord Burns (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to Motion D1. In recent years, there has been an extraordinary and significant interest in what has become known as choice architecture. This was popularised by the book Nudge and by one of its authors, Richard Thaler, who received the Nobel Prize for Economics in 2017, partly for his work on it. One key point which is so relevant to the issues I have been raising is that he highlighted that when individuals are presented with a choice, any default option has a very important influence on their decision and should be taken into account in designing the process of choice.
My previous amendment aimed to eliminate the impact of the default option, in one direction or another, when members wish to take advantage of the right not to pay the political contribution. It proposed that new members should be required to make an active choice between two options displayed on the application form: to pay or not to pay. This would eliminate the need for a default option, and potentially reflect more closely the true preferences of members. This proposal has not found favour in the House of Commons: clearly, the Government and the trade unions with political funds want to influence the decision of members in favour of paying the political contribution. They want as many members as possible to pay the contribution, and of course I understand the motivation.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Collins, for meeting with me earlier today. It allowed us to sort out some misunderstandings, for which I am very grateful.
I will speak only to Motions B and B1. I somewhat regret that this is not the speech that I had originally intended to make—in fact, I had written it. I had intended to make a very short speech thanking the Minister and the Government for listening to the House, almost every business group, the Resolution Foundation, the Tony Blair Institute and their own impact assessment, and reaching a sensible compromise based on what this House proposed.
I was very pleased that the Government held talks between the business groups and the unions, and that all had agreed that the compromise was workable. Contrary to some of the more irresponsible comments that we have seen in the press—some coming from the other place, sadly—this was not a case of out-of-touch Peers blocking a government Bill. It was a good example of this House doing its job of scrutinising legislation and asking the other place to think again. We do not block legislation; we seek to improve it. I do not underestimate how difficult it was for the Government to make the important concession on day-one unfair dismissal rights that they have made.
Sadly, though, I cannot end my speech there. The Government set out the compromise they reached in an announcement on 27 November. It said that agreement had been reached on a six-month qualifying period, which would be changeable only by primary legislation —so far, so good. It also very briefly mentioned the lifting of the compensation cap, something that has never been discussed during the passage of the Bill. Then I saw the actual amendment, which goes somewhat beyond lifting the compensation cap. The amendment abolishes it altogether so that compensation for unfair dismissal will be unlimited, which I suggest is different from lifting.
As we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Fox, it is at best ambiguous. I note that the Minister is now referring to removing the cap, which I think is more accurate. As we have heard, this does not appear to have been equally understood by every party to the agreement between the employer organisations and trade unions. A number of employer organisations are still expressing concerns about it.
Does this late change matter? The amendment removes the current cap on what can be claimed in an unfair dismissal claim. Currently, it is the lower of 52 weeks’ pay or £118,223. While it might be true that few claims go over that, that may well be because higher-paid people will generally reach agreement, knowing that the cap exists, rather than taking the matter to the tribunal. This change may incentivise more higher-paid people to turn to the already overburdened tribunal system. There is no downside to them doing so with the hope of a higher payout, or at least a strengthening of their negotiating position. As we have heard, the irony of this is that the main beneficiaries are likely to be senior employees on high salaries who are moving towards the end of their careers, not the workers the Government claim to be helping.
The noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, gave the example of the water industry. I was trying to think of an example and one rather closer to this House occurred to me. When the noble Lord, Lord Mandelson, was fired from his position as ambassador to the United States, there was a lot of speculation in the press that he might be able to claim for unfair dismissal due to the summary nature of his dismissal. Obviously I do not know the details of his contract, what has been agreed or anything else—it would be interesting to know what was agreed—but is this really the sort of situation the Government want to give the possibility of unlimited compensation to? It would certainly strengthen the negotiating hand of the employee in any such situation.
The truth is that we do not know what the effect will be or whether this matters. It has been introduced without warning at the last possible moment in the Bill, with no consultation, no impact assessment and no scrutiny. Whatever one thinks about the merit of removing the cap on compensation, this is not the right way to do it. I would go as far as suggesting that it is testing our constitutional processes to the limit. Legislation should not be decided in—I do not think I am allowed to say “smoke-filled” any more—darkened rooms as a deal between a limited number of interested parties. It is not the way we do things. This is a material change, and it deserves to be properly consulted on, impact-assessed and debated. It should have been introduced much earlier.
The amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, is admirably constructive; I thought it would go further. Rather than remove this new clause altogether, it proposes a review of unfair dismissal compensation to take place within three months, and sets out that the review
“must include a consultation with … employers’ organisations … trade unions … employment law practitioners, and … such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate”.
That is a fair and constructive approach.
However, we must be pragmatic. This is the third stage of ping-pong. Whatever we do at this stage is unlikely to move in the other place, and I am conscious that I do not want to see the key concession of a six-month qualifying period being unpicked as a result of our actions. As I said, I accept that that was a big step for the Government to make.
I thank the Minister for her confirmation that there will now be an impact assessment, which will be published as soon as possible. I did not hear clearly that there will be a full consultation with other parties. Currently, this has been consulted on by six organisations and I do not know how many unions. That is not a wide consultation on such a big change. Will there be a proper consultation process on this before it comes into effect?
Assuming the answer to that question is to the positive, reluctantly, and while protesting in the strongest possible terms that introducing such a significant change at such a late stage runs a coach and horses through the proper process of scrutiny of legislation, I am minded to bring this to an end and accept the Government’s amendment. But, as I said, I will listen to what the Minister says before I make that final decision.
I have one final request. This late insertion of a material change to legislation in the third stage of ping-pong must not become a precedent. Can the Minister confirm that the Government see this as a one-off, extraordinary case, and not something to be repeated?
Lord Sentamu (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Minister, who is new at the Dispatch Box, for explaining things quite clearly. I am thankful for the Government accepting that amendment, which has clearly enabled the country to feel, when people take on jobs, that there is a qualifying period, although not an indefinite one. I said in your Lordships’ House that I was like a gramophone playing a record that was stuck in a groove. The Government have given me a new needle and I am out of that groove, so I thank them very much.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
My Lords, I will speak fairly briefly in support of Motion D1 from the noble Lord, Lord Burns. This has become known as the hokey-cokey amendment—opt in, opt out, opt in, opt out, through the chain of amendments that have been put down. I support the vital role of trade unions, but I find it hard to understand why legislation should be used to steer—or, if you prefer, nudge—employees towards funding political causes.
The noble Lord, Lord Burns, has shifted a very long way from his original amendment. All the amendments now require is a checkbox at the start to allow employees to opt out if they so wish. This is surely the absolute minimum that should be available to them. I would have preferred asking trade union members if they wished to opt in, as a positive statement, rather than to opt out, which is a negative that would perhaps attract black marks in the membership list of their union. It does the Government no credit to seek to deny employees this opt-in choice. However, like the noble Lords, Lord Fox and Lord Vaux, I am reluctant to extend ping-pong, and I will be guided by the noble Lord whose amendment this is.
Lord Barber of Ainsdale (Lab)
My Lords, the subjects covered by these amendments have been more than extensively debated already, so I do not need to rehearse all the arguments around each issue. Nor do I need, I hope, to remind the House that this whole Bill represents the fulfilment of a hugely important manifesto commitment and, by long-established convention, it must ultimately be recognised and accepted by this House.
As a former chair of ACAS, I will briefly focus on what is new since our previous debate on the Bill: the unprecedented agreement between the TUC and unions and the major employers’ organisations in this country. I say “unprecedented” because, although there have been agreements on some issues over the years between the TUC and the CBI—I think of the joint work that was excellently done developing the furlough scheme during the Covid crisis—I cannot recall such a grouping of the representative organisations of employers ever coming together to seek and to reach an understanding with the TUC. I do not need to list all those organisations on the employer side in this process; the noble Lord, Lord Fox, has done that for me already. This is a historic development and, to my mind, a very positive one. I warmly congratulate those on all sides who gave leadership, for the Government, the unions and the employers, to make this possible. All the parties needed to move from their original positions to make this possible.
As is clear, the centrepiece of this agreement is moving from a right to protection against unfair dismissal from day one of employment to after six months in the job. This proposal was championed by many noble Lords in our earlier debates, speaking up, as they have, for what they have seen as employers’ most important concern about the different provisions in the Bill. But, of course, this agreement is more ambitious than that, in also clearing the decks for the Bill to move swiftly to Royal Assent. As the joint statement by all the employers’ organisations makes clear:
“This change addresses the key problem that must be sorted in primary legislation”.
That statement acknowledges that other issues covered by the Bill, on which those organisations may have concerns, will be consulted on in due course after Royal Assent. This reflects a widely shared view that, rather than leaving continued uncertainty and dragging this debate out further, it is now better for all parties to get the Bill passed so that we can all move on to the next stage of bringing some key provisions into force, in line with the published timetable, and the planned consultations on other issues covered by the Bill.
My ACAS and TUC experience has taught me how difficult it can be to find intelligent compromise on issues that may have been hard fought. It has also taught me the vital importance of agreements being honoured when a deal is done. If the passing of this Bill is further delayed it would frustrate one of the key objectives of this agreement.
As the employers’ organisations said in their statement, this shows that dialogue works. I truly hope that the positive spirit that underpins the agreement continues to the next phase—I mean in the changes to be made across the workplaces of this country, not just the consultations on detailed aspects of the Bill. My ambition has always been for unions and employers to find constructive ways of working together in order to build successful organisations. In that spirit, I hope all noble Lords will now get on board and show—dare I say it—solidarity with the employers of our country in the compromise that they have reached. I hope noble Lords will not just support the changes in unfair dismissal arrangements but now pass the Bill through to Royal Assent without any further delay.
Lord de Clifford (CB)
My Lords, I will speak on Motions B and B1 and register that I speak on behalf of SMEs and as a small employer of 130 people. I thank the Government for listening to businesses and this Chamber with regard to the change to unfair dismissal. Six months is certainly enough time for businesses to assess employees.
I thank the Opposition, the Liberal Democrat Front Bench and my noble friend Lord Vaux of Harrowden for persisting in trying to change Clause 23. This change could have had the effect of allowing employers, especially SMEs and micro-businesses, to take a chance on a prospective employee who shows the skills and talents for a particular role when the employer, for whatever reason, may have doubts. This could be due to a lack of experience, the different ways in which some individuals need to work nowadays, or an employment gap. This change certainly would help that.
However, the Government’s introduction of the change to lift the compensation cap will potentially significantly dampen down employers’ enthusiasm to take this chance. This is especially true for micro-businesses. The regulatory burden and the risk of starting to take on employees is significant, and the removal of a cap will add to the real fear about starting to employ people. All those businesses hear is an unlimited cap, which is what the focus will be in their minds. They will not know about the average limit being just £7,000 or £8,000. The thought of an unlimited liability if you get the dismissal process wrong will either stop businesses taking on employees or mean that some employee issues are not tackled for fear of the possible amounts. This will have a negative impact on productivity and, possibly, the culture that people work in.
I have listened to the Minister and welcome the impact assessment and consideration, but I ask the Government to reconsider this change and put some limit on the compensation, so that small businesses can assess the liability and not have the fear, even if unfounded, of paying a large fine that could put those businesses or business owners at risk.
Lord Hendy (Lab)
My Lords, I will make two points. The first relates to Motion B and the removal of the arbitrary statutory limit on compensation. My noble friend the Minister mentioned the tribunal statistics for 2023-24, published by the Government, and the fact that the median award for unfair dismissal was £6,746. That is the median award, not, as the noble Lord, Lord Fox, mentioned, the average award. It means that 50% of all awards for unfair dismissal are less than £6,746.
But those statistics reveal something that I found even more startling: in that year, 2023-24, the tribunals disposed of 31,000 single-claim cases and 2,000 multiple-claim cases; of those, only 646 awards were made in respect of compensation for unfair dismissal. Of course, one accepts that many cases were settled through ACAS or between the parties and then approved by the tribunal, and that would count as a disposal. But 646 cases out of 33,000 means that this jurisdiction of unfair dismissal is little used.
Of those awarded compensation, the latest government survey, which dates from 2013 and has never been updated, found that only 49% of claimants had been paid in full, a further 16% had been paid in part and 35% of successful claimants receiving a tribunal award had never received a penny of their awards. In 2016, the then Government sought to address this lamentable state of affairs by establishing the employment tribunal penalty enforcement and naming scheme to penalise companies that do not pay within 28 days of the tribunal order and, since 2018, by publicly naming them.
However, the BBC and the Bureau of Investigative Journalism published research two months ago showing that of the 7,000 unpaid claimants using the scheme, no less than 5,000 had failed to obtain any recovery. Some 4,800 penalty notices had been issued, with a combined value of £9 million of unpaid awards, but government records show that only 109 of those notices were actually paid, and none of the employers in question was named, despite nearly 4,000 requests for naming as well as compensation. These are the issues that the Government need to confront, not whether highly paid executives and others who are found to have been unfairly dismissed are entitled to the full measure of compensation for their losses.
My second and final point relates to Motion D, the amendment to it from the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and the discussion there has been, on this occasion and on the previous one, which my noble friend Lord Barber was involved in, about the compromise that was reached in 2016. I will go back a little further in the history of trade union political funds. In 1871, the Trade Union Act gave unions, for the first time in British history, legitimacy under the law. A trade union was materially defined as
“such combination, whether temporary or permanent, for regulating the relations between workmen and masters”.
The Act protected such organisations from illegality, in particular for restraint of trade, what is now called anti-competitive activities, of which collective bargaining as the means of regulating relations was the paradigm example. With various tweaks, the essential element of regulating relations between workers and employers remains the essential element in the current legislation for the definition of trade unions.
The point I want to make is that before the 1871 Act and for 40 years afterwards, trade unions continued to spend money promoting parliamentary Bills for the benefit of working people, such as on health and safety, national insurance, restoration of the right to strike after the Taff Vale judgment of 1901, and so on. At the end of the century, they came to the conclusion that they needed representation in Parliament. The Labour Representation Committee was founded by the TUC in 1900 and became the Labour Party in 1906. All this was largely financed by the unions from their general funds, just as employers financed the Tories and the Liberals. But in December 1909—
Lord Hendy (Lab)
Thanks for bearing with me. In December 1909, all this changed. The Judicial Committee of this House held, in the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants v Osborne, that the statutory definition was exhaustive and it was therefore unlawful for a union to spend money on any object other than the regulation of industrial relations. That decision was not a foregone conclusion. Three years earlier in the High Court, in a case called Steele v South Wales Miners’ Federation, Mr Justice Darling had held that the statutory definition —I am getting to the point here, bear with me—
“was not intended to be exhaustive, or to prevent an association from lawfully doing other acts beyond those there mentioned. It is significant that the section is silent about providing benefits for members, which is one of the recognised branches of trade union business. So that even if the purposes mentioned in the rule do not come within those specified in the section, there is nothing to render them illegal. But, further, I am of the opinion that they do fall within those specified in the section. It seems to me that one of the ways of regulating the relations between workmen and masters … is to get laws passed by Parliament for their regulation, and that one of the first steps towards getting those laws passed would be to send a representative to Parliament to promote a Bill for that purpose”.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Leong) (Lab)
Will my noble friend speak more specifically on the points raised? Perhaps he could wind up his contribution.
Lord Hendy (Lab)
I am coming to the conclusion. The Trade Union Act 1913 changed the definition of a trade union to allow it legitimately to spend funds on other objects beyond industrial relations and, if approved by a ballot of the members, a union could have a political fund to be used for specified political purposes. Each member had to be given the opportunity to opt out of payment of that part of the subscription earmarked for the political fund. That was the compromise. In seeking to maintain, in this Bill, the outdated compromise of 1913, the Government have gone further than they needed. What they should have done—and what they could do, if objection is still maintained—is repeal the modern form of the 1913 Act and allow unions, like all other clubs, corporations, partnerships and co-ops—
Lord Londesborough (CB)
My Lords, I am going to speak, in mercifully brief terms, about SMEs, but I will spare noble Lords the history of SMEs in the UK from 1910 to 2026.
My point, in relation to Motions B and B1, is that lifting the cap on unfair dismissal without warning and at this very late stage fundamentally undermines the claims of careful consultation with employers. My email inbox, like those of many others in this place, is awash with anger and indignation from SMEs in particular. The question they keep asking is: how can we trust this Government, coming as this does after punitive and disproportionate hits on employers’ national insurance contributions and inflation-busting increases in the minimum wage, who are sneaking in this clause on uncapped compensation? SMEs will not be persuaded by the data we have heard in this debate on medians and modes. Frankly, we are creating yet more uncertainty, piling up the risks of employing new staff and fuelling unemployment that much further. It is anti-entrepreneurial, anti-enterprise and, I fear, a job destroyer. In my view, it has no place in a free, growth-driven economy.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, there is one short point that the House should bear in mind in relation to Motion B1. There is already no cap on the award of compensation in employment tribunals for race discrimination, sex discrimination and disability discrimination cases. The House may therefore think that the concerns that have been expressed about the impact of the removal of the cap are perhaps rather exaggerated.
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions today. This continues the robust discussion that we have had throughout the passage of the Bill.
I come first to some of the constitutional points, or those that go to the way that we do business. As I outlined in my opening speech, the tripartite talks and the amendments resulting from them were context- and Bill-specific. They were really a demonstration of the way in which we listened very clearly to the views expressed in this House through many exchanges, which led to a very productive tripartite discussion. However, they are very context- and Bill-specific. The noble Lords, Lord Vaux and Lord Cromwell, will be familiar with discussions with the Leader of the House on how she and other Members would like to conduct business more regularly.
I will address some of the points made. Again, coming back to the nature of it all, these were discussions between business representative organisations, trade unions and the Government. Specifically on the question of the minutes, there are Civil Service contemporaneous notes of the meetings, but they have not been shared with participants or more widely. We think that it would be impolite and inappropriate to share the meeting notes without the agreement of those who attended the meetings. The Government’s statement and update on the Employment Rights Bill, released on 27 November, and the subsequent Written Ministerial Statement laid in both Houses provide the public summary and conclusion of that meeting. Although it was a slightly different process, we laid that Written Ministerial Statement as soon as we could to give as much clarity as possible to the House on the developments that were happening, which were, as I said before, in response to concerns raised here.
On the question of lifting or removing, that is indeed something that I have also given some thought to. The word “lift”—lifting embargoes; lifting bans—is used very commonly in that manner to mean “remove”. When asked this question in the other place, my colleague, Minister Dearden, confirmed the outcomes of the negotiations and said
“I was in the room as part of the negotiations … I can confirm that the compensation cap was discussed and agreed in the room”.—[Official Report, Commons, 8/12/25; col. 94.]
I was not in the room and I therefore give weight to the comments that she made on that.
To address the comments and interventions made by the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, and my noble friend Lord Barber, this is, in total, a pragmatic way forward. The opposition amendment would not enable us to move forward because it would remove the cap and replace it with the report. It is not something that can be encompassed, and we should continue with the package as negotiated; it is not consistent with the agreement that was reached and which we have brought to your Lordships and encapsulated in the Bill. I just underline that it is not something that we can accept.
Points have been made about the actual substance of the cap. The noble Lord who spoke just before me made the extremely pertinent point that there are already areas of the law that have uncapped areas, and we do not think that removing the cap will mean that compensatory awards will necessarily increase in the way that others have set out. Tribunals have well-established ways of calculating the compensation that might be awarded for particular types of losses resulting from unfair dismissal. As the figures cited today show, those methodologies lead to awards that are, on average, under £7,000. Employment tribunals will continue to focus on claimants’ actual losses when determining awards. I think that some of the fears are unwarranted but, in any case, we will publish the impact assessment and we will engage with business organisations continuously. The last month has shown how productive it can be to engage with business organisations and trade unions together to advance all the measures here. I think that I have dealt with all the points made by Members on the cap.
I come on to the political funds and the question of whether it is an active choice or whether we are trying to restrict people from making an active choice as to whether to contribute to a political fund. When joining a trade union, new members are taking an active choice to voluntarily join a collective organisation that has decided, via a democratic ballot of members, to establish a political fund. We do not see these as two distinct decisions—a decision to join a democratic organisation that has a political fund and a decision to opt in to a political fund—but one active decision. I remind noble Lords that all we are proposing to do is to restore the position as it was for 70 years—I will perhaps not give quite as much detail as my noble friend—before the Trade Union Act 2016 came into force. This simplifies the political funds process to ensure that a balance is struck between protecting trade unions from administrative burdens and ensuring that members continue to have a choice on whether they wish to contribute to a political fund.
Crucially, we agree with the noble Lord, Lord Burns, that members who, for whatever reason, choose not to contribute, should and will be able to do so easily and without detriment, and can exercise that right to opt out of contributing. We will continue to require trade unions to make new members aware of their right to opt out of the political fund. The unions will have to explain to members on the application form that opting out will not affect other aspects of their membership and they will not face any disadvantage. Members will be able to easily inform unions of their decision to opt in or out, including by post, email, completion of electronic form or by any other electronic means.
I was asked about the guidance or regulations in this area. The Secretary of State will be under a duty to issue the guidance within three months of the relevant section coming into force. This guidance will set out expectations as to how quickly unions should action opt-out notifications and will state that unions should, as a matter of best practice, give effect to opt-out notices at the earliest feasible opportunity. This will help to ensure that unions action the opt-out notices promptly. As I stated earlier—I can commit to this again—the guidance will also be clear that opting out must be properly available and practically possible for members who wish to exercise that right. We want to make sure that members are able to opt out in that way, and the guidance will be clear on how that is effected. On the question of the rebate, that will be effected at the earliest time possible once the opt-out notice has been given.
On the question of ballot thresholds, I noticed the attempt to recontextualise the recent year’s industrial action, but the fact is that a threshold of 50% has not led to less industrial action. All strike action recently has taken place with a turnout of more than the 50% threshold, so we do not think that this will inhibit good industrial relations. In fact, we think that the 50% level is unnecessary. It is inhibiting the democratic right of union members and unions to demonstrate their will. It does not take place in other areas—for example, local government or parliamentary elections. Therefore, we do not think it should continue. However, to reiterate, we will not repeal the 50% threshold until we have assessed the impact of e-balloting. The Secretary of State will have to have regard to the impact of that, and he will lay a Statement explaining what the effect of e-balloting is before the 50% threshold is rescinded.
To conclude, we now want to move forward with purpose, guided by our manifesto commitment to work constructively with stakeholders.
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
My noble friend is coming to the end. We should hear her remarks and then we will go to the votes.
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
I emphasise again that the Government’s convening of recent discussions and our willingness to compromise on the issue of unfair dismissal should signal to parliamentarians and stakeholders that we want to get this right. I emphasise that the Government’s work on this agenda is far from over. There will be opportunities for further debate and scrutiny, and I look forward to these discussions. I therefore hope that noble Lords will join business representatives and trade unions in supporting the position reached in recent discussions and backing the Government’s Motions today.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, there was a moment when I was engulfed in shame that I had misunderstood the difference between median and average. Fortunately, the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, distracted your Lordships quite quickly, so I have recovered.
Nobody in this House is pretending that this is perfect. We are at a point of pragmatism and, I remind your Lordships, at the third round of ping-pong. The noble Lord, Lord Vaux, has made some important points. All of us go into this. If it was perfect, I would press Motion A1 and I would want to keep on iterating. I know that now is the time for this Bill to pass. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw Motion A1.
Baroness Lloyd of Effra
That this House do not insist on its insistence on Lords Amendments 23 and 106 to 120 in respect of which the Commons have insisted on their disagreement; and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 120G, 120H and 120J to 120M in lieu of Lords Amendments 23 and 106 to 120.
“Right not to be unfairly dismissed: qualifying period and compensatory awards
Part 10 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (unfair dismissal) is amended in accordance with subsections (2) and (3).
In section 108 (qualifying period of employment)—
(a) in subsection (1), for “two years” substitute “six months”;
(b) in subsection (2), for ““two years”” substitute ““six months””.
(3) Omit section 124 (limit of compensatory award etc).
(4) In section 209 of that Act (powers to amend Act), in subsection (5), omit “108(1),”.
(5) Schedule (Minor and consequential amendments relating to section (Right not to be unfairly dismissed: qualifying period and compensatory awards)) contains minor and consequential amendments relating to this section.”
“SCHEDULE
MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS RELATING TO SECTION (RIGHT NOT TO BE UNFAIRLY DISMISSED: QUALIFYING PERIOD AND COMPENSATORY AWARDS)
Employment Rights Act 1996
1 (1) The Employment Rights Act 1996 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 92 (right to written statement of reasons for dismissal), in subsection (3), for “two years” substitute “six months”.
(3) In section 108 (qualifying period of employment), in subsection (3)—
(a) after paragraph (h) insert—
“(ha) section 4(3)(b) of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (read with any order made under section 4(4) of that Act) applies,”;
(b) omit paragraphs (k) and (o).
(4) In section 117 (enforcement of order for reinstatement or re-engagement and compensation), in subsection (2), for “Subject to section 124, the” substitute “The”.
(5) In section 118 (compensation: general), in subsection (1)(b), omit “124,”.
(6) In section 123 (compensatory award), in subsection (1), omit “124,”.
(7) In section 205A (employee shareholders), in subsection (10), for the words from “where” to the end substitute “where—
(a) the dismissal is by reason of any requirement or recommendation that is referred to in section 64(2), or
b) the reason (or, if more than one, the principal reason) for the dismissal is, or relates to, the employee’s political opinions or affiliations.”
(8) In section 209 (powers to amend Act)—
(a) in subsection (2)—
(i) in paragraph (e), omit “section 124(1), (2) and (5),”;
(ii) in paragraph (j), omit “, 124(2)”;
(b) in subsection (5), omit “92(3),”.
(9) In section 226 (rights on termination), in subsection (3), for “, 121 or 124”
substitute “or 121”.
(10) In section 236 (orders and regulations), in subsection (3), omit “124(2),”.
Employment Relations Act 1999
2 (1) The Employment Relations Act 1999 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 34 (indexation of amounts, etc)—
(a) in subsection (1), omit paragraph (c);
(b) omit subsections (4) to (4B).
(3) In section 37, omit subsection (1).
Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013
3 In the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013, omit section 15 (power to increase or decrease limit of compensatory award).
Coronavirus Act 2020
4 In Schedule 7 to the Coronavirus Act 2020, omit paragraph 17.
Power to make further consequential amendments
5 (1) The provision that may be made under section 151 (power to make consequential amendments) by any regulations that amend a relevant provision in consequence of the repeal of section 124 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 by section (Right not to be unfairly dismissed: qualifying period and compensatory awards)(3) includes (among other things)—
(a) provision amending section 34 of the Employment Relations Act 1999 for the purpose of applying that section to a relevant sum;
(b) provision conferring power on the Secretary of State by regulations to vary a relevant limit, in the same manner and to the same extent as the power conferred by section 15 of the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013 to vary the limit imposed by section 124(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (but see sub-paragraph (4));
(c) provision that is consequential on provision within paragraph (a) or (b).
(2) For the purposes of this paragraph—
(a) “relevant provision” means—
(i) a provision listed in sub-paragraph (3), or
(ii) any other provision that limits the amount of compensation payable by virtue of the provision by reference to the limit imposed by section 124 of the Employment Rights Act 1996;
(b) “relevant sum” means a sum specified in a relevant provision, in consequence of the repeal of that section, for the purposes of limiting the amount of compensation payable by virtue of the provision;
(c) “relevant limit” means a limit on the amount of compensation payable by virtue of a relevant provision that is specified in the provision in consequence of that repeal;
(d) the reference in sub-paragraph (1)(b) to section 15 of the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013 is a reference to that section as it had effect immediately before the coming into force of paragraph 3.
(3) The provisions referred to in sub-paragraph (2)(a)(i) (each of which limits the amount of compensation payable by virtue of the provision by reference to the limit imposed by section 124 of the Employment Rights Act 1996) are—
(a) section 67 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (right not to be unjustifiably disciplined by trade union: remedies for infringement);
(b) section 140 of that Act (remedies for refusal of employment, etc on grounds related to union membership);
(c) section 176 of that Act (right not to be excluded or expelled from trade union: remedies);
(d) paragraph 160 of Schedule A1 to that Act (trade union recognition: enforcement of right not to be subjected to detriment);
(e) section 49 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (protection from suffering detriment in employment: remedies), so far as relating to subsection (5A), (7), (7A) or (7B) of that section;
(f) section 24 of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 (enforcement of right not to be subjected to detriment), so far as relating to employment tribunals in Great Britain;
(g) section 56 of the Pensions Act 2008 (pension scheme membership: enforcement of right not to be subjected to detriment);
(h) regulation 4 of the Exclusivity Terms in Zero Hours Contracts (Redress) Regulations 2015 (S.I. 2015/2021) (enforcement of right not to be subjected to detriment);
(i) regulation 9 of the Exclusivity Terms for Zero Hours Workers (Unenforceability and Redress) Regulations 2022 (S.I. 2022/1145) (enforcement of right not to be subjected to detriment).
(4) The power that may be conferred by provision made by virtue of sub-paragraph (1)(b) includes power to specify different amounts in relation to different descriptions of persons by whom compensation is payable by virtue of a relevant provision.
(5) The power to make regulations under section 151 is to be regarded as including power to make provision amending section 49(7A) or (7B) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, as inserted by paragraph 9 of Schedule 2, in consequence of the repeal of section 124 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 regardless of whether that repeal comes into force before or after the day on which that paragraph is brought into force for any purpose.”
“(3D) Subsection (1) does not apply in relation to an employee if on the effective date of termination the employee has not yet started work.”
“(2A) Subsection (1) does not apply in relation to an employee if on the effective date of termination the employee has not yet started work.”
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion B. I beg to move.
Motion B1 (as an amendment to Motion B)
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
At end insert “and do propose Amendment 120N as an amendment to Commons Amendment 120G and Amendments 120P to 120S as amendments to Commons Amendment 120H—
“(3) In section 124 (limit of compensatory award etc.), after subsection (5), insert—
“(6) The Secretary of State must, within three months of the day on which the Employment Rights Act 2025 is passed, conduct a review of the limit imposed by this section on the amount of the compensation awarded or compensatory award made.
(7) A review under subsection (6) must include a consultation with—
(a) employers’ organisations,
(b) trade unions,
(c) organisations representing employment law practitioners, and
(d) such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.””
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, in view of the manifest constitutional impropriety on display, I do not think we have a choice. I beg to move Motion B1.
Baroness Lloyd of Effra
That this House do not insist on its insistence on Lords Amendment 48B in respect of which the Commons have insisted on their disagreement; and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 48E and 48F in lieu of Lords Amendment 48B.
“(9A) Before making the first regulations to be made under subsection (9)(c) the Secretary of State must consult—
(a) such persons representing the interests of seasonal workers as the Secretary of State considers appropriate,
(b) such persons representing the interests of employers of seasonal workers as the Secretary of State considers appropriate, and
(c) such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.”
“(7ZA) Before making the first regulations to be made under sub-paragraph (7)(c) the Secretary of State must consult—
(a) such persons representing the interests of agency workers who do seasonal work as the Secretary of State considers appropriate,
(b) such persons representing the interests of hirers to whom agency workers are supplied to do seasonal work as the Secretary of State considers appropriate, and
(c) such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.”
Baroness Lloyd of Effra
That this House do not insist on Lords Amendments 72D to 72H, to which the Commons have disagreed; and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 72J and 72K in lieu of Lords Amendments 72D to 72H.
(i) a day specified in, or determined in accordance with, the rules of the union, and
(ii) ”
“(7) The Secretary of State must, before the end of the period of three months beginning with the day on which this section comes into force, publish guidance about the kind of provision which the Secretary of State considers it is appropriate for the rules of a trade union to make for the purposes of subsection (4)(b)(i).
(8) The Secretary of State—
(a) may from time to time revise guidance published under subsection (7);
(b) must publish any revisions of that guidance.”
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
Before I call Motion D1, I should alert the House to a typographical error in Amendment 72P. The reference to “page 37” should be to “page 87”. If the amendment is agreed to, it will be corrected by printing point.
Motion D1 (as an amendment to Motion D)
Lord Burns
Leave out from “disagreed;” to end and insert “do disagree with the Commons in their Amendments 72J and 72K in lieu of Lords Amendments 72D to 72H; and do propose Amendments 72L to 72N and 72P to 72R in lieu of Commons Amendments 72J and 72K—
(i ) a check box allowing the member to opt out of being a contributor to the fund from the start of their membership of the union,”
Lord Burns (CB)
My Lords, I have listened closely to the Minister and I have had several conversations with the Front-Bench team. I remain very disappointed with the determination to go back towards the 1945 arrangements. I fear that, unless we can make further progress and improve how this Bill works in practice, in time it will end badly; I cannot believe that it has a great shelf life.
I was involved in the 2016 discussions, which were very fraught and there was a lot of ill will. We compromised on that occasion with the greatest of difficulty. The chances of reaching compromise in the same circumstances on another occasion will be very difficult. I hope that, whatever further discussions take place about how this works in practice, we are going to get something that is much nearer to what I describe as a real, effective and active choice for those who wish to opt out.
However, I recognise that I have reached the end of the road on this. I got involved in this issue by accident back in 2016 and I will not press my amendment. I beg leave to withdraw it.
Baroness Lloyd of Effra
Moved by
That this House do not insist on its insistence on Lords Amendment 62 in respect of which the Commons have insisted on their disagreement; and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 62E in lieu of Lords Amendment 62.
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion E. I beg to move.
Motion E1 (as an amendment to Motion E)
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
Moved by
Leave out from “House” to end and insert “do insist on its Amendment 62, and do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment 62E in lieu of Lords Amendment 62.”
Employment Rights Bill
Monday 15th December 2025
(3 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Employment Rights Act 2025 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Commons Consideration of Lords Message as at 15 December 2025 - large print - (15 Dec 2025)
20:23 - The House divided: - Ayes: 311 / Noes: 96 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Before we commence consideration of the Lords message, I confirm that nothing in the Lords message engages Commons financial privilege.
Clause 23
Right not to be unfairly dismissed: removal of qualifying period, etc
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kate Dearden)
I beg to move,
That this House disagrees with the Lords in their amendment 120N to Commons amendment 120G and their amendments 120P to 120S to Commons amendment 120H.
I am returning for the fourth time to the consideration of Lords amendments to the Employment Rights Bill. The Bill will bring employment rights legislation into the 21st century, extending the protections that many British companies already offer their staff to all. I cannot hide my frustration that, once again, we have been blocked from getting this Bill on to the statute book by the other place.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Which British company offers unlimited compensation for unfair dismissal? What message does this measure send to companies that can locate well-paid staff anywhere in the world?
Kate Dearden
I will allow the right hon. Gentleman to listen to the reflections further on in my speech. I am not sure he entirely grasps the compensation cap proposal and our intentions.
Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab)
What message does it send to the British public when 33 hereditary peers defeat the Government by 24 votes on a manifesto promise? Some of the wealthiest are blocking measures on sick pay for some of the lowest earners, which will miss the April deadline. Should we not get on—go through the night if we have to—and get this Bill passed?
Kate Dearden
We are absolutely determined to get this legislation through, and I urge colleagues in the other place to pass this Bill for the reasons my right hon. Friend outlines: 1.3 million people will be entitled to statutory sick pay from as soon as April. That is significant, and it is why it is so important to get the legislation on to the statute books.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
My colleagues in the other place all expressed concern about open-ended, unlimited compensation. That is a concern not only for them and for colleagues here, but for businesses back home. I know the Minister means well, but for goodness’ sake, this will not work for business.
Kate Dearden
If hon. Members allow me to make some progress, I will get to the background and reasoning for the compensation cap.
Continued delay to the Bill will put implementation at risk, which creates insecurity and uncertainty for workers and employers alike. I hope the other place acknowledges the importance of this and will let the Government deliver the Bill, which is backed by an electoral mandate, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) said. We have been engaged in ping-pong for far too long, and further delay is in no one’s best interests. I hope the arguments I make today will address the reservations of those Members of the other place who have been engaging in good faith when they have had genuine concerns about the Bill.
As I told the House last week, I convened a series of constructive conversations on the unfair dismissal provisions, which resulted in a workable agreement with trade unions and business representatives and was the subject of Government amendments made last week. I can assure hon. Members, as someone who was in the room during the negotiations, that the agreement between unions and business representatives was made with good will and in good faith by all sides.
As those representatives of the British Chambers of Commerce, the Chartered Institute of Personal and Development, the Recruitment and Employment Confederation, Small Business Britain, the Federation of Small Businesses and the Confederation of British Industry said in today’s letter to the Secretary of State, the “outcome” of the
“dialogue…represented a significant step forward which will have a positive impact on growth and opportunities.”
The amendments tabled in the other place undermine that agreement, as the compensatory award cap would not be removed and instead the Government would conduct and publish a review of the impact of the cap. The removal of the cap would then require further primary legislation.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)
My hon. Friend has set out how sensible the conversations have been thus far, but does she agree with me that they have been totally frustrated by colleagues down the corridor, who have no regard for the mandate that was returned to the Government at the last general election, and that we should stand firm and make sure that these rights are not further impeded by the unelected House?
Kate Dearden
That is why our motion today disagrees with the Lords amendments and insists on our amendments from the previous round of ping-pong, which deliver on the agreement made by trade unions and business representative organisations.
Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)
I draw the attention of the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
I wonder whether the Minister is comfortable with the fact that introducing an uncapped unfair dismissal compensation award will make the UK an international outlier, when many of our international competitors have clear limits. If she is comfortable with that, what assessment has she made of the impact on UK jobs and inward investment to the UK, particularly in business sectors that are internationally mobile?
Kate Dearden
Our proposal would remove the cap of 52 weeks’ gross pay or £118,223. It is important to reflect that, in practice, few awards get anywhere close to the cap. The median average award for unfair dismissal in 2023-24 was £6,746. Employment tribunals will continue to calculate compensatory awards to reflect the losses that employees suffer as a result of being unfairly dismissed.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
Has the Minister conducted an impact assessment? If so, how much does she think this change will cost? How many uncapped awards will be made? These are the kinds of big, important decisions that the other place has concerns about, as do Conservative Members. If she has that evidence, she could put this to bed tonight by simply providing it to us so that we can make an informed decision.
Kate Dearden
An economic assessment will be published, as is standard practice.
Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)
I am sure that my hon. Friend shares my frustration at the sheer misinformation that has been spread about the removal of the cap on compensation. As she rightly says, the median award at the moment is less than £7,000. More importantly than that, only 2% of all employment tribunals ever result in a compensation award for unfair dismissal. Does she agree that the Government have indeed taken into account the concerns of Cross-Bench peers by committing to an assessment, and more importantly does she agree that those employers and the unions together can see what the Opposition do not, which is that this is will be fair to workers and fair to businesses that are fair to their workers?
Kate Dearden
I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend’s comments. We believe that the current compensatory award cap also creates a systemic incentive for unfair dismissal claimants to construct more complex cases, which could take longer for a tribunal to handle. By removing the compensatory award cap for unfair dismissal claims, the incentive may be lessened, potentially making it easier for tribunals to reach a judgment more quickly and decreasing the burdens on the system.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)
I am not at all surprised that the Minister is having a little bit of a problem with the other place—after all, she is not the first Minister to have been confused as to what was in a manifesto and what was not; the Prime Minister seems to have been confused about the assisted suicide Bill.
May I raise a question about the cap? The problem that many businesses will have is with insurance. Most businesses take some form of insurance for unfair dismissal. Insurance companies work on the basis that they have an understandable level of risk that they are underwriting. If they do not know what that risk is, they will not underwrite it. The challenge here is that by removing the cap, the Minister is changing the level of maximum risk and therefore making it much harder for insurance companies to underwrite it. Has she spoken to insurance companies about the challenges that this poses?
Kate Dearden
I listen to the Conservatives again and again as they come to the Chamber—they have done it again today—and talk down what was a clear manifesto commitment of this Bill.
Antonia Bance (Tipton and Wednesbury) (Lab)
I am sure the Minister is coming on to this in her speech, but it might be worth reiterating, for the benefit of those on the Opposition Benches, that the best way to avoid having to pay compensation for unfair dismissal is to avoid unfairly dismissing someone in the first place.
Kate Dearden
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, as she always does, and I thank her for it.
To conclude, we are seeking the support of the House so that we can finally secure Royal Assent and move towards implementing our long-overdue reforms to make work pay. Today’s correspondence from business representatives to the Secretary of State states that British business believes that
“now is the time for Parliament to pass the Bill.”
I urge Members across the House to reflect on that comment, on our election mandate from last year and on all the work and consideration that has been put into this Bill so far in both Houses. I thank all colleagues for their work, and I commend this motion to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
The concerns that we Conservatives have with the Bill have long been known, and I accept that we have debated them at length. I will not repeat them all today, because we are not here to debate the whole Bill, just the message sent to us from the other place.
There was a time when the Labour party would have cared about protecting jobs and those who wanted one. There was a time when Labour believed, as we do, in the dignity of work and what that meant for families and communities—a Christian socialism, if you like, rather than the state worship that seems to have replaced it. I cannot honestly think of a previous Government who would ever have passed this Bill—certainly not since the 1970s. The result, whether Labour likes it or not, is that day by day, week by week, month by month, people are losing their jobs.
This Christmas there will be 192,000 fewer people in private sector payrolled employment than last Christmas, and who knows what it will be like next Christmas. We have the worst ever graduate jobs market. Adzuna estimates that jobs for degree holders have fallen by 33%. Labour used to care about youth unemployment, but for those aged between 16 and 24 unemployment has now reached 15%, according to the Office for National Statistics. As has been the case every month so far under this Government, tomorrow morning we are likely to hear that the rate of unemployment is higher.
This Bill could have been on the statute book today, but for one simple reason: a gross betrayal of trust. The small group of business groups that Ministers invited in for tea and sandwiches took this Government at their word.
Antonia Bance
I wonder if the hon. Gentleman would like to tell the House which of these business groups he disagrees with and that he thinks we should not listen to today, because these are the groups telling us and peers in the other place that we should be voting for the Bill. Does he disagree with the British Chambers of Commerce or the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development? Does he disagree with the Confederation of British Industry, with the Federation of Small Businesses, with the Recruitment and Employment Confederation or with Small Business Britain?
Andrew Griffith
The hon. Lady would have been wise to contain her excitement, because I agree with all of those groups in their letter today, which the Minister selectively quoted; she did not quote them saying that they are not in favour of removing the cap. I have spoken to each and every organisation that was in the room, and they are crystal clear, with one group saying:
“That was not a concession discussed with us or agreed by us in the negotiations”.
I invite the Minister to intervene on me if she thinks that a word of what I say is wrong. She is misquoting, and it is misrepresenting those business groups that do not support the cap.
Why would any sane Government scrap the cap entirely? Indeed, this Government themselves did not for 13 and a half of the 14 months that we have been debating this Bill. It was not in the manifesto or the Bill or the impact assessment. It was not considered by the Regulatory Policy Committee, and it was never discussed in this House until Ministers threw it in at the last moment in a breach of trust of the business groups with which they negotiated.
Angela Rayner
I know where this came from—the new deal for working people—and so do businesses and the trade unions. As the Minister pointed out, there have been discussions, and they came to that conclusion. What is it about protecting people from unfair dismissal that the shadow Minister has a problem with?
Andrew Griffith
What is it about protecting people from unemployment—preventing young people from getting jobs—and from economic growth? The Government of which the right hon. Lady was once a member said that was their No. 1 priority and their obsession, but they have singularly failed to deliver it.
Conservative Members want to get Britain working again. We want jobs for those young people—we think it is a stain on our character that 15% of young people are unemployed—and all we get from Labour is union-paid representatives trying to put more people out of jobs and deny young people more opportunities.
Angela Rayner
I thank the shadow Minister for giving way again; he is being generous with his time. Why does he not have a problem with people being often in insecure, low-paid work without any contract that gives them regular hours? Does he realise how difficult that makes it for young people—any person—to have any security in their life? That was what he presided over in his 14 years of failure, and that is why Labour was elected on this manifesto promise.
Andrew Griffith
Our Government created 4 million new jobs. This Government have lost jobs every single month they have been in office.
The points that the right hon. Lady makes are not those we are debating. There is one issue in front of us, which is Labour’s desire to defend and remove a cap of £118,000. That has nothing to do with ordinary workers. What does it say about today’s modern Labour party that its focus, and the whole reason why we are back here and the compromise was not accepted, is its desire to remove a cap of £118,000, which will only ever benefit the better off?
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
Does the shadow Minister recall that in 1999 when the Blair Government increased the cap, they held a consultation beforehand, and that in 2015 when the coalition Government introduced a cap, they held a consultation beforehand? Why are this Government behaving differently?
Andrew Griffith
My hon. Friend makes an important point, which I hope somebody on the Labour Benches will address. We have seen no analysis and we have no idea of the cost of this measure. Not a single business—not a single person who employs people—has come out and endorsed the removal of the cap. It is beyond me, I am afraid.
Yet what is happening in our employment tribunals? On Friday, as I am sure the Minister knows, it was revealed that the delay and backlogs at the employment tribunal have reached their highest ever level. At the end of the most recent quarter, there were 515,000 open claims. Before anyone intervenes, let me say that I accept that much of that was inherited—[Interruption.] But before Labour Members laugh: the Government are making it worse. Merely since the Bill was introduced to this place, the claims backlog has increased by 65,000. They are doing nothing to address the backlog, which is going up every single month—I do not think they have even discussed it with their calamity of a Justice Secretary —and we know that they have carried out no impact assessment. It is extraordinary. The scrapping of the compensation cap for the highest paid will simply stoke the fire.
I make it a rule not to learn lessons in how to run an economy from France, but even France introduced a cap on tribunal payments to tackle unemployment and encourage labour market dynamism. Perhaps we should take advice from closer to home: today the Health Secretary seems to be no fan at all of giving more powers to unaccountable unions.
Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)
Will the shadow Minister give way?
Andrew Griffith
Happily, if the hon. Member will talk about how he will fix our NHS.
Laurence Turner
The debate is on the Employment Rights Bill, although I struggle to follow the line of logic in the hon. Member’s speech. He said that the effect of the change would be to benefit the wealthiest employees, but chief executive officers and other senior executives rarely seek recourse to employment tribunals, for a number of reasons. Can he name a single CEO or equivalent who has pursued a case for an employment tribunal?
Andrew Griffith
Well no, I cannot, because there is a cap—the very cap that the hon. Member’s party is seeking to remove. I try not to be uncharitable about the complete absence of business experience in the Cabinet, but that level of question, together with that impact, is just embarrassing.
The Minister in her remarks—there was not much of an argument; it was really just a critique—blamed peers in the other place for the Government’s own failures. Notwithstanding how peers are doing the constitutional job we ask them to do, Lyndon B. Johnson said that the first rule of politics is to learn how to count. The Government lost the vote on its unemployment Bill last week by 24 votes, but 65 of their own peers did not want anything to do with the Bill—they did not turn up and did not vote. During the passage of the Bill, one Labour peer has even resigned his peerage and joined the exodus of wealth creators to the United Arab Emirates because of what he sees. The Resolution Foundation and the Tony Blair Institute have both criticised the Bill.
By removing that £118,000 compensation cap, the Government are not protecting the vulnerable. If that is what they wish to do, there are other ways to do that, but ordinary workers will never benefit from that. It is a genuinely mad world; I do not understand why we are having this debate.
This time last week, the Liberal Democrats agreed with me on this. The hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin) has been campaigning for the boss of South East Water to be fired, but without a cap his payout could be millions. Is that really what they want? What changed, other than the appearance of five new Liberal Democrat peers?
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
Will my hon. Friend give way?
Graham Stuart
I am extremely grateful. My hon. Friend is setting out a powerful case. We are puzzled, because a system designed for ordinary workers that has a sensible cap is now being opened up to the very CEOs who, as has been highlighted, would not have previously used it. We have a Labour party in hock to the unions yet strangely proposing a measure that was not included their manifesto which can only help the rich. What happened to the Labour party?
Andrew Griffith
I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention. I will leave that hanging there and hope that Labour Members will address it.
In conclusion, I ask the Government at this eleventh hour to pull back from the brink and introduce a financial cap so that we can get this business done this week. They have no consent from business, and they sought no support for it in their manifesto. I have talked about youth unemployment and the level of redundancies. We Conservatives will get Britain working again. We will end the attacks on employers and repeal the job-killing measures in the Bill. For the sake of businesses, for the sake of the backlog and for the sake of Britain, the Government should accept the Lords amendment and drop their motion.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Members will be aware that the debate has to conclude by 8.24 pm, so there will be an immediate five-minute time limit. Of course, if Members did not feel obliged to use all five minutes, that would help their colleagues.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Bromborough) (Lab)
May I first declare my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and donations from the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers trade union, as well as my membership of the GMB and Unite trade unions? I am not sure if we are on a ping or a pong now, but there is a whiff of stubbornness about the fact that we are back here again.
Last week, I called for the Government to make this place sit every day until Christmas to ensure we got the Bill through—it is a shame that the other place took that as an invitation rather than the contingency plan it was intended to be, but, if that is what it takes, that is what we should do. We are ready. It is wrong that an unelected house, where jobs are given for life, can dig in and push back on something that will give millions of workers rights that we promised long ahead of an election, and for which we have a decisive mandate.
I commend the Government and the Minister for not backing down. A deal was reached with the relevant stakeholders. It is a pragmatic compromise, and a deal they are publicly saying needs to go through. That is how mature, effective industrial relations are supposed to work.
I do not think that the Lords’ arguments are particularly substantial; they are certainly not reasons to delay the Bill again. Their point that we should not agree with the lifting of the cap because it fell outside the scope of manifesto commitments in this area does not really take us very far, given that the original concession made on qualifying periods was also outside the scope of the manifesto, and of course, that is all part of the same package. It feels to me that this is more about the Lords wanting to have the final word rather than having to deal with the substance.
Graham Stuart
We did not hear it from the Minister, so could the hon. Member please explain the case for removing the cap?
Justin Madders
I am glad that there are some Conservative Back Benchers here. Last week they were all somewhere else, but now we are hearing some contributions. I was not in the room when the negotiations took place, but I understand that that was the deal. I am afraid that there have been some wilful misunderstandings on the Conservative Benches about what lifting the compensation cap actually means. Compensation for unfair dismissal is calculated by defined heads of loss under the law, so lifting the cap will not change that one bit. If the claims are still necessary, they will be there. It just means that some workers—particularly older workers who might not be able to get another job and who may have substantial pension losses—will benefit, not the fat-cat bosses that have been talked about. It is important that we stress that point.
Also, I do not remember the Conservatives’ manifesto in 2010 promising to double the period for qualification on unfair dismissal. Neither do I remember a pledge in either the Tory or the Liberal Democrat manifesto to put a cap on compensation. None the less, the coalition Government pushed both those policies through. Those who claim that the lifting of the cap will see an avalanche of claims ignore the fact that the rationale used for introducing the cap in the first place was to deal with perceptions about levels of compensation people might recover—in other words, legislating on perceptions rather than on facts—and I have to say, we have heard plenty of those perceptions repeated again tonight.
The Opposition can complain about a two-year wait for tribunal claims, but I am grateful to the shadow Secretary of State for recognising his party’s culpability in that. It is important that this Government are working with the trade unions, businesses, the judiciary and ACAS to find ways of improving our system, so that we get justice more quickly, instead of just ignoring it as the previous Government did. This Government have shown flexibility and strength to negotiate a change in order to get a deal over the line. Workers in this country should not be made to wait any longer for these important rights.
It is worth reminding the House that the road map we agreed earlier this year shows that the following laws should be in place by April 2026: doubling the maximum period of the protective award; day one paternity leave and unpaid parental leave; whistleblowing protections; establishing the Fair Work Agency; day one statutory sick pay and entitlements for the first time for millions of people who have been denied them to date; and simplifying the trade union recognition process. These are not minor or trivial measures. They are substantial changes that will improve the working lives of millions of people. We should be proud that it is a Labour Government who are delivering them, and we should be determined to deliver them by April 2026.
Of course, that is just the beginning. Genuine flexible working, ending zero-hours contracts, banning fire and rehire—there is much more in this Bill that really matters to working people. And there is much more beyond the Bill: the reform of TUPE and parental leave and dealing with the epidemic of bogus self-employment are of huge importance. These are the sorts of things that a radical, reforming Labour Government need to tackle, because the world of work is changing. It is changing far faster than we can legislate for, but we can insulate our constituents against the worst excesses and unintended consequences of the tech revolution by putting security and fairness at the heart of every employment relationship, and we need to do that now. If we do not, we will have failed not only to deliver on the promises we made but to stand up for the very people we were elected to represent, so I call on the other place to agree with the will of the democratically elected Chamber and to deliver finally on our promise to make work pay.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
Today we are debating the fourth round of consideration of Lords amendments to this Bill, and this long and protracted process says a lot about the way the Government have approached this legislation. The Bill was initially put together at great speed, missing much of the detail; there was a long series of Government amendments late in the process; and now a major last-minute change on the compensation cap for unfair dismissal has been sprung on businesses and Parliament. Regardless of what one makes of the different measures in the legislation, I think most of us would agree that the process followed in designing it has been less than ideal. Having said that, let me reiterate what has always been the Liberal Democrat position on the Bill: we support many of the aims of this legislation.
We welcome expanding access to statutory sick pay, improving parental leave and taking steps to address the massive pay gap facing social care workers. We agree with giving those on zero-hours contracts more certainty, even though we proposed what we view as a more practical and balanced way of doing so, and we are pleased to see a unified Fair Work Agency, which we also called for as a way of empowering employees to exercise their rights without fear of any negative consequences. However, we have made it clear that we have significant worries about the specific way in which some of those measures would be implemented, and we have repeatedly raised our concern that crucial detail was being left for secondary legislation.
By far our biggest concern was the complete lack of clarity on unfair dismissal and probation periods, which is why we have worked in both Houses to secure a vital concession setting the qualifying period for unfair dismissal at six months. We are proud that when some tried to brush aside the concerns of the business community and others sought to frustrate the process, it was the Liberal Democrats who secured this vital provision. It is the role of any responsible Opposition party to engage constructively and achieve substantial improvements for the good of our country. It could not be clearer that this fair and sensible shift will equally benefit businesses and workers. So many businesses I have spoken to have said that this is the single most meaningful change that could have been made to the Bill.
Dr Luke Evans
I am conscious that we are debating a particular point. Is the hon. Member voting for or against the cap? That is the essence of what we are looking at today.
Sarah Olney
I am glad that the hon. Member has raised that. I was coming to that in my speech. Perhaps he could listen with a little more attention.
Employers have finally been given the necessary clarity to make hiring decisions with confidence, and we have avoided the danger of unnecessarily slowing down the labour market even further, which would have deprived so many people of vital employment opportunities. That is exactly what the progressive Resolution Foundation think-tank warned of when it said there was a risk that
“employers would be nervous about hiring new workers or offering shifts, and this would make life harder for job seekers.”
As I pointed out last week, it is really disappointing that the Government decided to muddy this improvement by simultaneously abolishing the cap on compensation for unfair dismissal. Employers were not in favour of scrapping the £118,000 cap, and I once again point out that bringing in a change like this at the last minute is not how we build trust between Government and business. However, I note that employers and business groups have been equally clear that this last-minute change must not stand in the way of the far more important changes secured with regard to the six-month qualifying period. Above all else, business values pragmatism, and that is exactly why it wants to see this breakthrough protected and enshrined in law. That is what has guided our approach throughout.
Will the Minister confirm on the Floor of the House that the Government will conduct an assessment of the impact of the removal of the compensation cap, actively seeking views from businesses, as was indicated to the Liberal Democrats in the other place? On a broader level, will she give a cast-iron commitment that the Government will hold regular debates in both Houses to ensure that Parliament can scrutinise what work is being done to consult businesses and workers on all relevant implementation aspects of this Bill? How are the Government planning to support employers in order to ensure that they have robust policies and practices in place to navigate these changes to the unfair dismissal regime?
Lastly, to those in the Conservative party who have been trying to sabotage this crucial compromise on the six-month qualifying period, I simply say that they are acting not in the interest of British businesses but only in their own narrow party political self-interest.
Graham Stuart
On that very point, does the hon. Member believe that it is totally pragmatic to have disregarded her objections to the removal of the cap in return for additional places for the Liberal Democrats in the House of Lords?
Sarah Olney
It is so revealing of Conservative Members’ mindset that they cannot believe what I am actually saying is the reason for our change, and that they assume instead that we must have sought some benefit for ourselves. It is so revealing that that is what the Tories think. It beggars belief that the Conservatives, having hammered businesses while in government, are now doing everything in their power to undermine UK plc from the Opposition Benches.
I note that the Government have taken steps to improve the clarity of the legislation with regard to seasonal work, introducing measures that will ensure that businesses relying on seasonal work and bodies representing seasonal workers will be properly consulted when secondary legislation is drawn up. Many businesses, such as those in the farming and agricultural sector, as well as thousands of pubs, cafés and restaurants, depend on seasonal workers, and any obstacles to hiring them could have a significant impact, exacerbating the long list of challenges they already face, so we must ensure that they are supported as much as possible. Small businesses in our local towns and communities are struggling with the Government’s unfair national insurance rise, high export costs due to Brexit red tape and a business rates system that is not fit for purpose. Struggling businesses mean fewer jobs and lower pay, so it is vital that we take steps to support high street businesses and all those who rely on them.
It is time that we listened to the business community, which is telling us that the best way forward is to look for balanced solutions through secondary legislation and to put an end to the uncertainty and avoid losing the six-month qualifying period, which we were happy to have helped secure. Continuing to delay the passage of the Bill at this late and protracted stage would risk further uncertainty for businesses, particularly small and medium-sized enterprises, and would jeopardise significant changes that will benefit workers, such as expanded protections against workplace harassment and improved paternity leave rights.
I urge Members to be pragmatic and to provide clarity to businesses and workers alike regarding an implementation timeline. That is critical for providing a stable operating framework so that businesses can plan ahead. We should now work together to ensure that this legislation can be implemented to benefit businesses and workers alike.
Lee Barron (Corby and East Northamptonshire) (Lab)
I start by pointing out my proud membership of the Communication Workers Union, just so I can get that on the record. Before I get into the issues with the amendments, I want to say that enough is enough. Unelected Lords must not get in the way of the democratic will of the people and the manifesto commitment to deliver this Bill and make work pay. My constituents have waited long enough, worked long enough and put up with it for long enough. Every delay means someone going to work ill. Every delay means another zero-hours week. Every delay means that, once again, someone gets away with bad practice.
The Lords amendments talk about a cap, but we have been here before. We have lifted caps before. Caps on compensation do not exist in cases of discrimination claims. There is no evidence to suggest that they have all of a sudden got out of control or gone absolutely mad —they have not, so we have been here before. We have lifted caps before to turn things around and send a clear message about what we want to build.
On the proposal to cap the fine for denying access to trade unions at £75,000, what sort of a cap is that? What would that do to global giants? We saw what Amazon did to the GMB to frustrate its organising. Why should we allow big businesses to pay to break the law? Frankly, we should not.
On guaranteed hours, there must be no loopholes and no cutting hours for a few weeks to dodge the law. We need a simple 12-week test, with a simple average of hours. That is fair, clear and enforceable.
This Bill is about common sense at work. If someone is sick, they should not be dragged into poverty; if they work regular hours, they should get a proper contract; and if they are unfairly treated, there should be consequences. This Bill was promised and voted for at the election; this Bill should now pass.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
We are addressing the specific issue of the removal of a limit on the cap. Of course, while this will have a big impact on businesses, it will also have a huge impact on our public sector. Large organisations that employ significant numbers of high-paid professionals, such as the NHS, will see their insurance costs driven up significantly by this measure, so it is all the more surprising that no consultation or impact assessment is before the House when we are asked to make the decision this evening.
We must reflect on the real-world impact of this measure, alongside the package of measures in a Bill that worthily deserves to be scrapped in its entirety. One of the proudest achievements of the last Conservative Government was that when we left office, youth unemployment was half what we inherited from the previous Labour Government. A huge share of those 4 million new jobs went to younger people. Today, the number of young people not in education, employment or training has hit over 1 million. The Resolution Foundation said, on this issue specifically, that
“young people are bearing the brunt of Britain’s jobs downturn”.
Most of us will have heard from businesses in our constituencies that all the measures in the Bill are significantly raising the barriers to entry for new workers into the market at a time when there is a double whammy. Our demographics as a country make it much harder to recruit them compared with older, more experienced workers, simply because there are fewer young people in our population. Imposing new measures like this that make it more expensive and harder for young people to get their first foot on the ladder is a dereliction of our duty to our economy. We must not forget that for our young people, many of whom we hope will end up as those high-paid professionals, getting and keeping a job is the thing that is most important in their lives—to their health, their mental wellbeing, their wealth and their long-term life prospects. In addition, it is our economy that pays not just for those people’s wellbeing, but for the public services on which so many other people depend.
In conclusion, while the whole Bill deserves to be scrapped—it is shocking to see the craven capitulation of the Liberal Democrats, rather than fighting the corner of British workers—let us at least vote to support this small change that has come from the other place. Let us show that somebody in this Chamber is on the side of jobseekers, wealth creators and those who will create future opportunities for our economy, our country and our people.
Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
I will be brief. I proudly refer members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am a proud member of several trade unions, and have indeed received money from trade unions to remove the Conservatives from power.
Speaking of removing the Conservatives from power, on 4 September I proudly voted, along with the vast majority of people in this House, to remove hereditary peers from the other place. I did so because I do not believe that individuals should be able to shape our laws purely because of the families they were born into. Whatever the arguments put forward on the Bill’s amendments, we are here today because hereditary peers stopped the progress of the Bill through the other place. The simple fact is that if we were to remove the hereditary peers who voted—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. We are not debating hereditary peers; we are debating the amendments to the Employment Rights Bill.
Mark Sewards
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The votes in the other place serve only to strengthen my resolve that we must get the Bill through Parliament and strengthen the rights of workers.
David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)
When I look to the other House, across the political divide I see captains of industry—people who have led businesses small and large. Does the hon. Member see any merit in their arguments?
Mark Sewards
We will always pay attention to the arguments made in the other place, but I place more credence on the arguments made by life peers—people who have been appointed because of their expertise and not because of the family they were born into. However, I appreciate that that point has been well made, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I will move on.
Along with the fact that the Government have already compromised in good faith on the Bill with trade unions and businesses, and that those businesses and their representative organisations have welcomed what we have put in the Bill and called on us to pass it today, we were elected on a promise to get this Bill passed into law. Fire and rehire must be banned. Exploitative zero-hours contracts must be ruled out. Day one rights for parental and bereavement leave must be rolled out, and sick pay must be improved. Whichever way the House votes on these amendments today, I implore the hereditary peers in the other place to do the right thing, get out of the way, let this Bill pass and make work pay.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
The impacts of the Bill in its current form are already being felt: 71% of businesses have raised serious concerns, with over 90% of small business owners expressing deep worries, resulting in 67% of companies preparing to halt recruitment. We already know that the Government do not understand business. That has been demonstrated clearly through the string of damaging policies trailing behind them, from the national insurance changes that are crippling the hospitality sector to the family farm tax that is undermining our national food security. Aspects of this Bill are no exception, the prime example being the complete removal of the employment tribunal cap on unfair dismissal compensatory awards.
As of June 2025, 515,000 open claims were in the system, and the numbers continue to rise. The employment tribunal system is inundated. It is overwhelmed and debilitated by cases, leaving thousands facing intolerable delays. Rather than addressing the issue through action that would significantly help working people—
Michael Wheeler (Worsley and Eccles) (Lab)
I wonder whether the hon. Member accepts that, as a number of colleagues have drawn to the House’s attention, the current system has a perverse incentive that pushes people towards a more complicated tribunal system that seeks to identify discrimination, rather than a simpler system of unfair dismissal, because of the cap. This measure is more likely to keep claims within the simpler, more streamlined and quicker system of unfair dismissal, thereby helping with the very problem that we all accept is real.
Bradley Thomas
I was just about to get to the point that I wanted to make: removal of the cap will make matters significantly worse. To put it plainly, it will open the floodgates for senior executives to pursue multimillion-pound claims that will further congest the courts. For many companies, the dismissal process for senior executives is fundamentally different from that used for other employees, in many cases as a result of strategic complexities relating to board involvement. Unlike the structured procedures applied to the wider workforce, senior leaders are seldom afforded opportunities such as performance improvement plans before removal. The Bill creates a significant liability and establishes a direct financial incentive for senior executives to pursue employment claims.
Paul Waugh
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, at the moment, compensation for racial, sexual and disability discrimination, and for whistleblowers, is uncapped? What is the difference between that and being unfairly dismissed?
Bradley Thomas
The hon. Gentleman misses the point that I am making. Currently, there is no financial incentive for very senior executives who cannot exercise any leverage over things such as pay and equity, and the Bill risks clogging up the system. The CEOs of large UK corporations earn a median salary of over £4 million, compared with the £118,000 cap on unfair dismissal claims, so high earners have little incentive to lodge claims. Remove the cap and that incentive becomes glaringly obvious.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Bradley Thomas
I will make progress.
The idea that removing the cap will lead to anything other than a surge in cases is pure fantasy. This lack of understanding shows why the Government must listen to those who know how business works and recognise the devastating consequences that the Bill will have for companies and, crucially, for workers, rather than branding themselves champions of working people while advancing policies that benefit only high-fliers.
Graham Stuart
Labour colleagues shake their heads as my hon. Friend lays out the blindingly obvious. That goes to show why introducing a measure at the last minute during ping-pong is inappropriate and precisely why the House of Lords is right to say that we must consider this fully. It is quite obvious that Labour Members do not want to understand it; they obviously do not understand the implications.
Bradley Thomas
I thank my right hon. Friend, who makes his point eloquently, as usual.
The Government must abandon the measure. If they are really on the side of workers, the best thing they can do is abandon this measure—and abandon the Bill in its entirety.
Laurence Turner
I am grateful to have been called to speak in this debate. I draw the House’s attention to my membership of the GMB and my chairship of its parliamentary group—an unremunerated role.
The Bill has been the subject of 14 months of debate and scrutiny, and it should have received Royal Assent months ago. Let us not beat around the bush about why we are here tonight: the Bill has been deliberately delayed by some Members of the other place who disagree with the principle of what it seeks to achieve and with the electoral mandate behind it. The amendment that came from the Lords last week represents the last gasp of that approach, testing the limits of the democratic decision-making process and the constitutional relationship that binds these two Houses. This is no longer solely about workers’ rights; it has become a challenge by unelected peers to the primacy of the Commons and the greater legitimacy that our constituents lend us temporarily.
Sir Ashley Fox
Twelve months ago, the hon. Gentleman and I sat on the Bill Committee. This is the first time that the Commons has had the opportunity to debate this measure, courtesy of the House of Lords. The Lords have done us a favour, haven’t they?
Laurence Turner
I enjoyed many hours in proximity to the hon. Member. He will know that the only reason we are considering the measure in such a short time is that the Bill has been delayed, so close to the April implementation period, because of the Conservative party.
The final proof of the implications of the constitutional limits of what we are now being asked to consider can be found in the fact that the Opposition’s amendment was carried last week thanks to the votes of Conservative hereditary peers, who owe their positions to an accident of birth.
Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)
Does the hon. Gentleman understand that his Government are yet to abolish the hereditary peers—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. We are not having a debate on hereditary Members of the House of Lords. We are debating the Lords message on amendments to the Employment Rights Bill.
Laurence Turner
If the Lords amendment were not rejected, it would have two immediate effects. First, it would collapse the agreement between employers and union representatives. It is not some reasonable call for a review; it strikes out the changes to the compensation cap, which was a key component of that agreement. The Conservatives know that it is a nonsense to call for a review if the legislation that would give it effect is not carried—[Interruption.] Secondly, the amendment would so delay the Bill that April’s extension of statutory sick pay and parental leave for millions of people—some on the very lowest incomes—falls into doubt.
Dr Luke Evans
I was listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman, but he tailed off when he was talking about a problem, and it did not quite go through. I think that he was talking about the fact that there would be a delay because of the consultation. In 1999 and 2015 there were consultations on the very issue of a cap. Why have the Government not done that?
Laurence Turner
If the hon. Gentleman had been listening carefully, he would know that I was referring to the review called for in the Lords amendment. That is not all that the amendment contains; it seeks to strike out the powers to change the compensation cap. It is a nonsense to say on the one hand that the Bill must be halted in its track while there is a review, when the powers in question have been removed.
The delays to the April implementation of fundamental rights cannot be suffered. As the employers’ representatives have said, we are out of time. The opposition to the Bill is exhausted, and the Commons mandate must be respected. Parliament must pass the Bill.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
We are short on time, so I will limit myself to two points.
I will start with what my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds) admirably described as the “craven capitulation” of the Liberal Democrats. Just a week ago, the Liberal Democrats were arguing passionately about unions’ abilities to cause strikes, and about the right to guaranteed hours. Then what happened? Five peerages came along. Now they are in favour of those things. It used to be the case with their last Prime Minister, Lloyd George, who famously used to sell peerages for money. Now it seems that the Liberal Democrats sell their principles for peerages.
Sarah Olney
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I think that is disgraceful. The hon. Gentleman is literally implying corruption. I made it very clear in my speech what the basis of our change in support in the Lords was for, and I think it is intolerable that we are being accused.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I thank the hon. Member for her advice. As it happens, she makes a good point. The hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew) should not be suggesting any particular motive attributed to that issue, and could he perhaps confine his remaining comments for the next 90 seconds?
Jerome Mayhew
I am grateful for that direction, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Let us move to Lords amendment 120N. This is a major new policy. We do not have to argue about whether a £118,000 cap is a good or bad idea. I think the cap is a good idea, but the amendment seeks to clarify the process by which the Government have decided to impose this measure in the Bill. It was not part of the manifesto. It was not part of the Bill or discussed in the Bill Committee. It has just been inserted at the last moment in ping-pong. There has been no risk assessment, no impact assessment, and no consultation. The amendment does not put the Government off course. All it asks the Government to do is, within three months of Royal Assent,
“conduct a review of the limit imposed by this section on the amount of the compensation awarded”.
That consultation only has to consult employers’ organisations, trade unions—one would think Labour Members would be in favour of that—and
“organisations representing employment law practitioners, and such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.”
If the Government choose to implement policy on the hoof, the least they can do is undertake a consultation that they should have carried out—
Kate Dearden
I am grateful to hon. Members across the House for their contributions today and throughout the passage of the Bill. When there is a finding of unfair dismissal at tribunal, it is important that the claimant is fairly compensated for the loss they have suffered. We also believe that the cap on compensatory awards for unfair dismissal incentivises claimants to construct complex cases that allege both unfair dismissal and discrimination so as to access uncapped compensation, as I stated in my introductory remarks—perhaps Conservative Members did not hear that. By removing the compensatory award cap for unfair dismissal claims, that incentive will be lessened.
By removing the cap, the Government will also deter employs from treating the cost of dismissing employees unfairly as part of business as usual, instead ensuring that employees who face significant losses as a result of being unfairly dismissed are fairly compensated. Compensation for unfair dismissal is awarded only where a tribunal finds in favour of the claimant. Claims that do not have merit will not secure any compensatory award with or without a cap.
Lifting the cap will not mean that compensatory awards start from a blank sheet of paper and become impossible to anticipate. Tribunals have well established ways to calculate the compensation that might be awarded for particular types of losses resulting from unfair dismissal. I thank the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), for her support. As she referenced, and as Members will have heard in my introductory remarks, we will publish an economic assessment in due course, and I am always available for further discussion.
Conservative Members have opposed this Bill at every stage, and no matter what the issue was today, they would oppose it again. Businesses and unions have shown leadership, and Conservative Members and Parliament should respect their voice. The tripartite agreement was forged through dialogue with those who live the realities of our workplaces every day. That agreement included a package conducted in good faith and with good will, and I thank them for it.
This Government’s aim is clear: to conclude the passage of the Bill so that millions of British workers gain new rights while businesses can prepare for change with certainty. Labour Members send a clear message to the other place to now let the Bill—a Bill that delivers on multiple manifesto commitments and has a clear electoral mandate—pass. Any further delay risks leaving workers without protections and businesses without clarity. We now strive to conclude this process and deliver the change that Britian needs to make work pay. We cannot build a strong economy with people in insecure work. We are strengthening the foundations of our economy and improving living standards. The Bill, and all our work across Government, is the foundation for building an economy that works for everyone.
Question put.
Employment Rights Bill
Tuesday 16th December 2025
(3 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Employment Rights Act 2025 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 156-I Marshalled list for Consideration of Commons Reason - (16 Dec 2025)
Baroness Lloyd of Effra
That this House do not insist on its Amendments 120N and 120P to 120S, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 120T.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (Baroness Lloyd of Effra) (Lab)
My Lords, in moving this Motion, I will also speak to Motion A1. Throughout the passage of this Bill, which arrived in your Lordships’ House nine months ago yesterday, we have scrutinised, deliberated and debated all areas. Once again, I thank noble Lords for fulfilling their scrutiny role and, in the course of doing so, providing their invaluable insight.
However, we are now in round 4 of ping-pong on a Bill that the Government have a clear electoral mandate to deliver. We cannot be accused of attempting to push the Bill through without listening to the concerns raised by noble Lords. We are immensely grateful for the more than 60 occasions on which noble Lords have engaged with us, offering rigorous scrutiny and thoughtful challenge. It is because of this valuable feedback that the Government have been able to act and make changes where appropriate, including through technical amendments in Committee and on Report and the publication of an implementation road map outlining what the Government will consult on, when, and at what point new rights are expected to go live.
The Government are pleased to have found commonality in the three previous rounds of ping-pong on 11 of the 12 issues the House asked the Government to look at again. The contributions of noble Lords from across the House have helped bring forward solutions on a range of specific issues, from heritage railways to paid time off for special constables. On a number of other issues, such as the right to be accompanied, the Government have made non-legislative commitments which noble Lords have recognised as important progress. Most recently, during ping-pong, the Government brought forward amendments to the Bill on zero-hours contracts, seasonal work, trade union ballot thresholds and trade union political funds, which will help to ensure that stakeholders’ views and insights are represented in the final policy outcomes as we shift into the implementation phase for this Bill.
On the final issue of unfair dismissal, in the face of successive Lords votes against day-one rights to protection from unfair dismissal, itself a manifesto commitment, the Government took the extraordinary step of convening a series of constructive conversations between business representative organisations and trade unions, which reached a workable agreement on the unfair dismissal provisions. Yesterday, those representatives—from the British Chambers of Commerce, the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, the Recruitment and Employment Confederation, Small Business Britain, the Federation of Small Businesses, and the Confederation of British Industry—wrote to the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, stating that the outcome of the dialogue
“represented a significant step forward which will have a positive impact on growth and opportunities”.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
At end insert “, and do propose Amendment 120U as an amendment to Commons Amendment 120G, in lieu of Amendment 120N, and Amendments 120V to 120Y as amendments to Commons Amendment 120H, in lieu of Amendments 120P to 120S—
“(3) In section 124 (limit of compensatory award etc.), for subsection (1ZA) substitute—
“(1ZA) The amount specified in this subsection is £118,223.
(1ZB) Within three months of the day on which the Employment Rights Act 2025 is passed, the Secretary of State must conduct an impact assessment of the change to the limit specified in subsection (1ZA) made by that Act in order to assess whether the limit specified in subsection (1ZA) is the appropriate amount.
(1ZC) An impact assessment under subsection (1ZB) must consider the effect of the change to that limit on—
(a) the ability of claimants to obtain fair compensation,
(b) the operation and capacity of employment tribunals,
(c) the willingness of parties to settle claims without recourse to a tribunal, and
(d) public sector employers and public expenditure.
(1ZD) An impact assessment under subsection (1ZB) must include a consultation with—
(a) employers’ organisations,
(b) trade unions,
(c) organisations representing employment law practitioners, and
(d) such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.””
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, as the Minister has just said, yesterday a letter was sent to Members of the House by six major business organisations, setting out precisely what many of us said in the Chamber last week. That letter makes one thing abundantly clear: the Government did misrepresent when they claimed that the abolition of both compensation caps was agreed between businesses and the trade unions.
The agreement—I choose that word carefully—was to remove the 52-week salary cap while retaining and increasing the overall monetary cap, which is currently just over £118,000. That was the compromise that was understood by the business community, but the Government have now chosen not only to abandon that agreement but to misrepresent it to the House. To prove that point, I will quote from the same letter from the six business organisations, which states:
“Unfortunately, we have not been able to reach a compromise that satisfies both the unions’ request for removal of the cash cap and our position of retaining it while raising the overall limit”.
This is made all the more serious by the Government compounding the error by behaving unconstitutionally. The removal of the compensation cap was introduced at ping-pong, having been debated at no previous stage of this Bill, neither in your Lordships’ House nor in another place. This House exists to scrutinise legislation, not to rubber-stamp late-stage surprises, still less ones accompanied by misleading assurances.
Let me be clear about the Conservative Motion that is tabled in my name. It reflects precisely the agreement that business groups believed they had reached with the Government: the removal of the 52-week cap, coupled with the retention and review of the overall monetary limit. There is no credible reason that the Minister can give for the Government to not accept it.
The Motion also provides for a formal review and proper consultation. I remind the House that, when the cap was increased under the Labour Government in 1999, that change followed consultation. When the coalition Government introduced a 52-week gross salary cap in 2015, the same approach was taken. There is no reason whatever why the Government should not proceed in the same careful, evidence-based manner again.
It is the Government’s choice, and theirs alone, to delay this legislation by introducing an entirely new issue at this final stage and then attempting to justify it on the basis of an agreement that did not exist. It is also wholly wrong for the TUC, the Minister in another place and others to attack hereditary Peers for doing precisely what they, like all noble Lords, are here to do: scrutinise legislation. It is also worth noting that the criticism of hereditary Peers was unfairly universal. No thanks were offered to at least one Liberal Democrat hereditary Peer who backed the Government.
If the 65 Labour Peers who were absent last week had attended, the Government would have likely prevailed. However, I rather suspect that some of them might have developed cold feet once they realised that they were being asked to support multimillion-pound payouts to water bosses and failed senior executives in financial institutions. Perhaps absence in this case was a mercy.
Over the weekend, the latest employment tribunal statistics were published. They are stark. There are now over 515,000 open cases, and that figure will rise, not fall, as a result of this decision. Why? Because well-resourced senior executives advised by the very best lawyers will now enter the system in greater numbers, clogging up tribunals, prolonging hearings and consuming judicial time. The inevitable consequence is that ordinary working people, many of whom have a legitimate and modest claim, will wait longer for justice or be denied it altogether.
This debate does not take place in a vacuum. Unemployment has risen again this month, as it has every month under this Government. Nearly 2 million people are now unemployed, this Christmas there will be 192,000 fewer in private sector payrolled employment than last Christmas, and young people are bearing the brunt. At a time when their futures are already being crushed by rising costs, weaker growth and dwindling opportunities, the Government choose to inject yet more uncertainty into the labour market. What on earth do Ministers think they are doing? Instead of encouraging job creation, they are creating incentives for litigation, delay and risk—precisely the opposite of what a fragile jobs market requires.
I say to the Liberal Democrats that it is a curious position to demand that water company bosses be dismissed while simultaneously supporting a policy that could hand such individuals eye-watering compensation. Something does not add up. What we are seeing instead is the Liberal Democrats choosing to form a coalition of chaos with the Government and abandoning British business, working people and the constitutional role of your Lordships’ House. In fact, according to data published by the Liberal Democrats themselves just last year, executives of water companies in England collected some £70 million in remuneration between 2021 and 2023, including nearly £41 million in bonuses. One is therefore entitled to ask why, in the space of a single week, their position appears to have shifted so dramatically. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Fox, can explain this sudden change of heart.
The Government have claimed that removing the compensation cap will not affect the level of awards. The Ministry of Justice’s own data shows that the median award of just under £7,000 is derived from just 650 tribunal awards. Yet each year there are many thousands of potential unfair dismissal claims, the overwhelming majority of which never reach the point of an award because they are settled long before they reach that stage. The reason those cases settle is the existence of a statutory maximum. The cap provides a known endpoint and encourages realism from both parties. Remove that ceiling and settlement becomes vastly more difficult. Claims run longer, positions harden and costs escalate—and tribunals, which are already overwhelmed, are left to pick up the pieces.
Even President Macron recognised that the absence of such a cap was harming French competitiveness and introduced one in 2017. It is a sorry state of affairs when France has something to teach a British Government about competitiveness. The only country in Europe without a statutory cap on unfair dismissal compensation is Luxembourg, which has a youth unemployment rate of 20%.
I have a few questions for the Minister. What conversations have Ministers had with the financial services sector, where concern about this change is profound? Will the promised impact assessment be serious, comprehensive and honest, and will it include the risk of opportunistic and speculative claims, the increased burden on the public sector and the likely cost to the taxpayer? The original Employment Rights Bill impact assessment was, frankly, inadequate—a fact recognised by the Regulatory Policy Committee, which issued a red rating. Will the Government now guarantee that the impact assessment on abolishing the compensation cap will not meet the same fate and that it will be detailed, rigorous and transparent? If it becomes clear, as many of us fear, that the removal of the cap leads to tribunal congestion, rising costs and injustice for ordinary workers, will the Government commit to reintroducing a cap, as President Macron did? Finally, will Ministers undertake to consult properly with employment law practitioners, the majority of whom oppose this decision, alongside businesses both large and small?
In conclusion, because of the Conservative Party a six-month qualifying period has been secured. However, that alone does not remedy the fundamental flaws of the Bill. The £5 billion cost remains. The costs of a raft of 1970s-style trade union reforms have not been properly identified, let alone accounted for, by the Government, and I repeat that all this is against a backdrop of rising unemployment. Let me be completely clear: the next Conservative Government will repeal every job-destroying, anti-business measure in this unemployment Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, mentioned part of the letter written to the Business Secretary yesterday by six business groups including the CBI, the Federation of Small Businesses and the British Chambers of Commerce. What he did not mention is that the letter from those groups also said that
“now is the time for Parliament to pass the Bill”,
despite their concerns. That seems to be a much wiser approach than that adopted by the Conservative Front Bench—not least because Motion A1 raises no great issue of principle. It raises a request for an impact assessment.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
My Lords, at Second Reading in March—nine months ago, although it feels longer ago—I said that
“the Bill will damage growth and, most importantly, the employment opportunities of the most vulnerable people”.—[Official Report, 27/3/25; col. 1907.]
After nine months of debate and scrutiny, it is less damaging, but I still believe it is not a good Bill. It still piles cost and regulation on businesses and on the public sector at a time when we should be doing exactly the opposite.
But this House has done its job well and responsibly. We have pointed out the unintended consequences that the Bill may have, the potential damage to the employment prospects of the young and others, and the disproportionate impact on the backbone of our economy—smaller businesses. We have given the other place several opportunities to think again and, to be fair, it has done so in a number of areas. In particular, the Government have compromised on what I believe was the most damaging aspect, day-one dismissal rights.
We have also quite rightly registered our constitutional disapproval of the introduction of a material change at the very last minute—the abolition of the cap on unfair dismissal, which is the subject of Motion A. The Minister stated last week that the amendments were “context- and Bill-specific”. I take this and her reference to
“discussions with the Leader of the House on how she and other Members would like to conduct business more regularly”—[Official Report, 10/12/25; col. 276.]
as confirmation that the Government accept that this should never be seen as a precedent. This House would be right to reject it if it were ever used as a precedent in the future.
I have a lot of sympathy with the Motion proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, but I am afraid I will not support it at this stage. We are in danger of over- egging the impact of the removal of the cap. I do not support it, but the water bosses, for example, will be remunerated if they are fired for contractual reasons, which is unlimited anyway. It is not going to be under the unfair dismissal rules. I am not convinced that it makes an enormous difference, but the noble Lord is quite right that we do not have an impact assessment yet.
Despite our giving it the opportunity to think again on many aspects, the other place has disagreed with our changes and decided that it wants to go ahead. That now also includes the cap on unfair dismissal claims. The time has come for us in this House to respect the will of the elected Chamber and let the Bill pass, regardless of any remaining concerns that I and many others still have. I will vote against the amendment for that reason.
I end with a final plea to the Minister. She will be aware of the latest employment figures and the worsening trend. She will also be aware that what the ONS described as this “subdued labour market” is disproportionately affecting young people. We should all be very concerned about that. The Resolution Foundation is also clear on this:
“As is typical in economic downturns, young people have been hit hardest. With unemployment expected to stay elevated, Government should be cautious about any further increases in labour costs”.
Much of the implementation of this Bill will be by regulation, which will follow over the coming years. I urge the Minister to ensure that the concerns that have been raised in this House and elsewhere are kept front and centre, and that the unintended consequences that may arise, especially for young people, are thought through very carefully while the regulations are being created.
It was encouraging that the Government listened to business organisations in the later stages of the Bill, especially around the unfair dismissal question. I urge the Minister to ensure that the Government continue to listen constructively to the concerns of those who will create the growth and jobs that will drive the economy, and especially that they make a much greater effort to hear the concerns of smaller businesses which are feeling rather ignored and concerned at the moment. That said, it is time to let the Bill pass.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, this time last week I said that much had happened in the preceding interval. Today, the opposite is true. We are now down to one issue, but the arguments on that issue remain as they were last week. For that reason, unlike last week, this speech will be short.
There remain concerns about the removal of the cap on compensation, as we have heard. As he did last week, the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, has taken those concerns and amplified them, to the seeming exclusion of the wider strategic position of what we are discussing. I understand the motives, and those motives became ever clearer just now. If the noble Lord would like to have a face-off on the water industry, I would be very happy to discuss with him the hundreds of thousands of tonnes of sewage that went into the rivers under the Conservative Government and the compensation terms that he very helpfully enumerated, which happened on his watch. However, this is not the arena for that argument, and I will pass without comment. My critique of the noble Lord’s amendment to the Motion is unchanged. We believe there are better ways of dealing with the cap than derailing the package that got the key concession with which we are all very pleased.
As set out last week, reiterated in the Minister’s letter and by the Minister just now, the Government will publish an enactment impact assessment for the Bill. They will do so prior to commencement regulations which would put in place the dismissal package. That was what we on these Benches were asking for and we were pleased to receive that assurance. Further, the impact assessment will be publicly available, and I was pleased to hear the Minister say that we will be engaging the community of business in the process of developing that impact assessment.
Many UK business associations and organisations share the feeling that there is nothing to be gained from the opposition amendment today. They are asking the opposite. As the Minister set out, six of the major organisations have sent a letter. It is a longish letter, as the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, demonstrated by selectively picking elements out of it. But as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, pointed out, the conclusion is clear and actually unambiguous, in saying,
“we believe that the best way forward is to keep working with the government and trade unions to find balanced solutions through secondary legislation. To avoid losing the 6 months qualifying period, we therefore believe that now is the time for Parliament to pass the Bill”.
I said that last week, and it is truer this week.
I also pointed out last week that, as the business organisations said, the key to enacting the Bill will be through secondary legislation. If His Majesty’s loyal Opposition care about how the Bill is brought into life, it is on those statutory instruments that they should focus their attention. Their critical actions must extend to include the possibility of fatal Motions to vote down secondary legislation and keep the Government focused on the needs of British business. That is the real arena that we should be working in.
If the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, is put to a vote and he seeks to extend ping-pong to yet another round, that will clearly be against the advice of the business groups which have been cited. I urge your Lordships to heed the advice of those organisations, and the advice of the noble Lords that we have heard opposite, and pass the Bill now.
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
My Lords, I again thank your Lordships’ House for its attentive scrutiny throughout the passage of the Bill. There can be no doubt, as the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, mentioned, that this House has discharged its duties as a revising Chamber. Your Lordships’ House asked the Government to look again, and we have worked collaboratively with noble Lords to reach this agreement. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Fox, Lord Pannick and Lord Vaux, for their speeches in favour of the compromise proposed by the Government.
I turn to a number of the issues raised, in particular by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe. I remind noble Lords that negotiations are successful only where there is compromise, as was so eloquently put in the previous debate by my noble friend Lord Barber of Ainsdale, the former chair of ACAS. The Government and worker representatives moved considerably during negotiations to agree to retaining a six-month qualifying period. Without similar compromise from business representatives on the removal, this deal would have been one-sided and undeliverable.
On the question of the impact of the cap, I do not think I can do better than the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, who said last week that
“the concerns that have been expressed about the impact of the removal of the cap are perhaps … exaggerated”.—[Official Report, 10/12/25; col. 276.]
Just now, he mentioned that he does not believe it will lead to the chaos that the noble Lord outlined earlier. It is not our view, but, in any case, as I mentioned, we will publish the enactment impact assessment as soon as the Bill achieves Royal Assent. It will be public and transparent, and will include an assessment of the impact of removing the compensation cap.
I remind noble Lords of our commitment to convene meetings with shareholders so that those from the City, law practitioners and others can feed into that. Those findings will be taken into account by the dispute resolution task force that we are setting up—it will have all that information to hand. We are obviously very keen to improve the functioning of the dispute resolution system. We inherited something that was not in a good state. We are providing ACAS with over £65 million in resource funding, which is a significant increase. We are working actively to make this a system that works extremely well.
I hope that this afternoon will mark the end of the Bill’s journey through Parliament. I reiterate the Government’s commitment, mentioned by other noble Lords who spoke today, to continue talking to and genuinely engaging with interested parties in the way we have recently about the full range of issues discussed today. The Bill will deliver a generational shift in employment rights. It will do so by working with businesses and trade unions in a collaborative manner. These changes to the qualifying period and the compensation cap are proportional and practical. For those who are concerned about business impact, the joint letter should provide noble Lords with reassurances that businesses support this workable agreement. As they have stated,
“now is the time for Parliament to pass the Bill”.
I hope noble Lords will recognise the progress made over the past nine months, oppose the amendment tabled by the Opposition Front Bench, and, in doing so, support the package to deliver certainty for businesses and fair rights for workers. It is indeed time for Parliament to pass the Bill. I commend it to the House.
Lord Sentamu (CB)
I have a right to ask questions. What is most concerning, at least for me, is not the limit or the reducing of the compensation package—that is not the question—but the use of ping-pong to produce a new clause that has never been debated in your Lordships’ House or even in the Commons. That is a constitutional question that bothers most of us.
I have not heard a word saying, for example, that we reached an agreement, we felt we had to bring it in and we will not do this kind of thing again. As more Bills come, how do we know whether ping-pong will be used in a way that, in my book, it should not be? No one should introduce new clauses that have not been canvassed in both Houses of Parliament. Because that has not happened, some of us are arguing about not the actual amendment but whether we will know that rules that have been established in your Lordships’ House for years will be followed. I have been in the House since 2005, and ping-pong has never been used to introduce a new clause that has not been debated in both Houses. Will we know?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
I thank the noble and right reverend Lord for his question. As I mentioned last week, the context here is Bill specific and the changes that have been proposed and have been put in terms of this tripartite agreement were in response to issues that had been raised in your Lordships’ House. We went away and convened a particular mode of operating, and we have brought it back as a Bill-specific package. As I also mentioned last week, there are many discussions in the House about how we want to take business forward. The Leader of the House has set that out very clearly. That is the way we intend to proceed more generally.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this very brief debate. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, is of course right—I did not quote that bit of the letter because the Minister did. The House generally does not like needless repetition, so I am following the rules.
I am very grateful to the Minister for those assurances, and I am somewhat reassured. I am grateful—correct me if I have any of this wrong—that the impact assessment will be published before commencement and will be public and transparent and include a dispute resolution mechanism, that the tripartite agreement will endure going forward in further discussions around the Bill, and that all stakeholders will be consulted widely. That is, in effect, what we were asking for. The simple fact of the matter, though, is that we on these Benches will continue to hold the Government to account on behalf of the wealth creators, the businesses, the employers and their workers in this country.
I have heard what has been said and will emphasise a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, which I should have made in my speech: we are particularly concerned about the impact of the entire Bill on small businesses. We will return to that theme unless their interests are very carefully protected going forward.
As to the comments by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, regarding the strategic position, I am not entirely sure what the strategic position is. But I am grateful for his comments.
I am also enormously grateful to all those on His Majesty’s Loyal Opposition’s Benches and the many on the Cross Benches who stuck to their principles. We have achieved a great deal and made a bad Bill marginally more palatable. I beg leave to withdraw Motion A1.
Royal Assent
Thursday 18th December 2025
(3 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 21 May 2025 - (21 May 2025)